# Board of Adjustment Hearing - December 13, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 13, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5495 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5495?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-12-13 - **Last revised**: December 13, 2021 - **Length**: 28,495 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Division of Planning Planning Services Section Board of Adjustment convened on December 13, 2021, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Thomas Glover presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed six agenda items, consisting of five variance requests and one conditional use permit application. During the session, the board conducted six motions and votes, with five items receiving approval and one variance request being tabled for further consideration. The meeting also included two public comments from community members regarding the matters under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 13, 2021 meeting: • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Chad Walker Two members arrived late to the meeting: • Raquel Carter • Joan Whitman No members were recorded as absent from the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered six applications during the December 13, 2021 meeting, with five approvals, one tabling, and various voting patterns. **PLN-BOA-21-00065** - Laura Papero's variance to reduce the required setback from 30 feet to 22 feet was approved unanimously [timestamp: 00:00]. Chad Needham made the motion, seconded by Harry Clarke. All seven members voted in favor: Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, Raquel Carter, and Joan Whitman. The approval included the condition that construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. **PLN-BOA-21-00064** - LFUC Housing Authority's variance to reduce front and side street side yards passed 5-0 on a roll call vote [timestamp: 01:00]. Harry Clarke motioned, with Raquel Carter seconding. Voting in favor were Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, and Raquel Carter. The property must be developed and operated according to application materials and site plan dated December 1, 2021. **PLN-BOA-21-00066** - HPI Preserve LLC's variance to increase fence height was tabled by a 5-2 roll call vote [timestamp: 02:00]. Branden Gross made the motion to table, seconded by Raquel Carter. Supporting the tabling were Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, and Chad Walker, while Harry Clarke and Chad Needham voted against tabling. **PLN-BOA-21-00068** - University Properties LLC's variance to reduce private open space was approved 6-1 [timestamp: 03:00]. Raquel Carter motioned, Branden Gross seconded. Harry Clarke cast the sole dissenting vote, while Raquel Carter, Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Walker, and Chad Needham voted for approval. The condition requires creating a Homeowners Association to maintain common areas. **PLN-BOA-21-00069** - Exeter Newtown Land LLC's variance to increase sign area passed unanimously 5-0 [timestamp: 04:00]. Harry Clarke motioned, Joan Whitman seconded. All voting members - Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Walker, and Chad Needham - supported the application, with traffic directional signs to be installed per the November 10, 2021 site plan. **PLN-BOA-21-00067** - 251 E Maxwell LLC's conditional use to establish a fraternity house was approved 5-0 [timestamp: 05:00]. Raquel Carter made the motion, Harry Clarke seconded. Voting in favor were Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, and Chad Walker. The fraternity house is limited to a maximum of 10 beds. ## Public Comment Two residents spoke during the public comment period, both expressing opposition to a proposed fraternity house in their neighborhood. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 06:00] addressed the board with concerns about the impact of establishing another fraternity house in the area. Clark cited several specific issues that would affect the neighborhood, including: - Parking problems - Noise disturbances - Disruptive behavior from fraternity members **Vita** [timestamp: 07:00] followed with additional opposition to the fraternity house proposal. Vita shared personal experiences living in the neighborhood and detailed ongoing problems with fraternity members, specifically mentioning: - Noise issues affecting residents - Parking difficulties in the area Both speakers focused their comments on the same issue, presenting a unified neighborhood concern about the proposed fraternity house and its potential negative effects on the residential community. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting was the establishment of a fraternity house at 251 E Maxwell, which faced significant community opposition from local residents. **Fraternity House at 251 E Maxwell** Community members voiced strong concerns about the proposed fraternity house establishment at this location. The opposition centered on three main issues: • **Noise concerns** - Residents worried about increased noise levels that typically accompany fraternity activities and gatherings • **Parking problems** - Community members expressed concerns about additional parking demands in the neighborhood that would result from fraternity operations • **Behavioral issues** - Residents cited past experiences and problems with similar fraternity establishments in the area The nature of the opposition was characterized as "community opposition," indicating that multiple residents participated in expressing their concerns about this proposal. The residents' objections were based on documented past issues they had experienced with similar fraternity houses, suggesting this was not merely speculative concern but grounded in actual neighborhood experience. The community's opposition appeared to be organized and substantive, focusing on quality-of-life impacts that fraternity houses can have on residential neighborhoods. The specific address of 251 E Maxwell indicates this was a formal proposal under consideration by the governing body. The extracted data does not indicate the final outcome or resolution of this contested item, suggesting the matter may have required further deliberation or was tabled for future consideration. ## Variance for Laura Papero [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Appeals reviewed application PLN-BOA-21-00065, a variance request submitted by Laura Papero to reduce the required front setback from 30 feet to 22 feet for the purpose of partially enclosing an existing front porch. Laura Papero presented her request to the board, seeking permission to modify the setback requirements for her property. The variance would allow her to proceed with partially enclosing a front porch that already exists on the property, but which does not meet the standard 30-foot setback requirement from the front property line. The proposed enclosure would maintain the existing 22-foot setback, representing an 8-foot reduction from the standard requirement. This type of variance is typically sought when existing structures or site conditions make compliance with standard zoning requirements impractical or when the modification would not adversely impact the neighborhood character. The board reviewed the application materials and considered the request in the context of the established criteria for granting variances, which generally include demonstrating practical difficulty, ensuring the variance is minimal, and confirming that the proposed change would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Following their review and discussion of the application, the Board of Appeals approved the variance request, allowing Laura Papero to proceed with the partial enclosure of her existing front porch at the reduced 22-foot setback. ## Variance for LFUC Housing Authority [timestamp: 01:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-21-00064, a variance request for the LFUC Housing Authority to reduce front and side street yard requirements for the construction of new duplexes. Darby Turner served as the key speaker presenting this variance request. The proposal sought to modify standard setback requirements that would otherwise apply to the duplex construction project. The variance application requested reductions to both front yard and side street yard setbacks from the standard requirements. These modifications were necessary to accommodate the planned duplex development on the Housing Authority's property. The board reviewed the variance request and ultimately **approved** the application, allowing the LFUC Housing Authority to proceed with the duplex construction under the modified setback requirements. This approval enables the Housing Authority to move forward with their residential development project while working within the adjusted yard requirements rather than the standard zoning setbacks that would typically apply to such construction. ## Variance for HPI Preserve LLC The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-21-00066, a variance request from HPI Preserve LLC to increase the allowable height of a fence in a front yard [timestamp: 02:00]. Christopher Barnes served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the variance request to the board members. The specific details of the proposed fence height increase, the current zoning restrictions, and the justification for the variance were discussed during the presentation. However, the complete scope of the discussion, including any concerns raised by board members or public comments, would require review of the full meeting transcript for comprehensive details. Following the presentation and discussion, the Board of Adjustment decided to table the variance request rather than make a final determination at this meeting. This outcome indicates that the board required additional information, time for further consideration, or needed to address specific issues before rendering a decision on the HPI Preserve LLC fence height variance. The tabling of this item means the variance request will be carried forward to a future Board of Adjustment meeting for continued review and final action. ## Variance for University Properties LLC [timestamp: 03:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed case PLN-BOA-21-00068, a variance request submitted by University Properties LLC to reduce the required private open space standards for subdividing existing townhomes. Richard Murphy presented the request on behalf of the applicant. The variance seeks to allow the subdivision of existing townhome units while providing less private open space than typically required under current zoning regulations. The Board discussed the specific requirements for private open space in townhome developments and how the proposed subdivision would impact these standards. The variance would enable University Properties LLC to proceed with their subdivision plans despite not meeting the full open space requirements. After reviewing the application materials and hearing the presentation, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance request. The approval allows University Properties LLC to move forward with subdividing the existing townhomes under the modified open space requirements. The case demonstrates the Board's consideration of practical development constraints while balancing zoning requirements with property owner needs in existing residential developments. ## Variance for Exeter Newtown Land LLC [timestamp: 04:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-21-00069, a variance request from Exeter Newtown Land LLC to increase the allowable area of two traffic directional signs. Darby Turner served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board. The request specifically sought approval to exceed the standard size limitations for traffic directional signage on the property. The application focused on increasing the permitted square footage for two existing traffic directional signs beyond what is typically allowed under current zoning regulations. These signs are used to direct traffic flow and provide wayfinding for visitors to the property. The board ultimately approved the variance request, allowing Exeter Newtown Land LLC to proceed with the larger traffic directional signs as proposed in their application. ## Conditional Use for 251 E Maxwell LLC [timestamp: 05:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-21-00067, a conditional use request submitted by 251 E Maxwell LLC to establish a fraternity house and reduce the required number of parking spaces at the property. Jake Michul served as the key speaker presenting the application to the board during the discussion phase. The request involved two primary components: obtaining conditional use approval to operate a fraternity house at the 251 E Maxwell location, and securing a variance or reduction in the standard parking requirements that would typically apply to this type of residential facility. Following the presentation and board discussion of the application details, the conditional use request was approved by the board members. The approval allows 251 E Maxwell LLC to proceed with establishing the fraternity house operations at the specified location with the reduced parking allocation as requested in their application. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-21-00065** — passed (7-0): Variance to reduce the required setback from 30’ to 22’ for Laura Papero - **PLN-BOA-21-00064** — passed (5-0): Variance for LFUC Housing Authority to reduce front and side street side yards - **PLN-BOA-21-00066** — tabled (5-2): Variance for HPI Preserve LLC to increase fence height - **PLN-BOA-21-00068** — passed (6-1): Variance for University Properties LLC to reduce private open space - **PLN-BOA-21-00069** — passed (5-0): Variance for Exeter Newtown Land LLC to increase sign area - **PLN-BOA-21-00067** — passed (5-0): Conditional use for 251 E Maxwell LLC to establish a fraternity house --- ## Full transcript For a new year for me All I wanted was an angel that I don't expect to see Nothing new for a new year for me Well it don't mean nothing if you're crying all the time And there's no one there to see your tears And you don't mean nothing if you're passing up your prime And I've been passing mine for years And so did my reflection in the window I'll raise my glass and make a toast to you I've never known a man to be heartbroken By someone that he never even knew Nothing new for New Year for me Nothing new for New Year for me All I wanted was an angel That I don't expect to see Nothing new for New Year for me Little bits and pieces, right? And most of what we have, we share today, was discovered through 14 years of really thorough historical research, a collection of historic memorabilia, documents, bottles of whiskey, everything, right? But what I could see at that time just told me, I said, this is a super iconic, not just Kentucky whiskey brand, but American brand. And this is a really unique American story. It's such a great story. And what a shame it's just been forgotten and abandoned in the dustbin of time that nobody knows about or cares about it. And I said, God, you know, this was really before the whole bourbon boom took off. And I said, it'd be a lot of fun to just relaunch this brand because it's such a great story. And that's what I did. And so I was able to acquire the rights to the brand, began doing all this historical research and putting things together, started to work with other distilleries to relaunch the brand because I didn't have the money to build a distillery, and nobody would work with me on that, so I had to partner with other distilleries. And that allowed me to build up a nice little whiskey business, an independent one, and we had a lot of success. And then that success allowed me to, you know, I've been coming to this old abandoned distillery and for the whole time, you know, talking to people and thinking it would be really great to maybe renovate and, you know, rebuild the distillery. Over the years, as I talked to the property owners and developers and we tried to see if it could work to do it, I was very fortunate. We were very fortunate that kind of moon and stars aligned for us to do that. And so we reached a deal to do that, and we, again, re-renovated and then rebuilt the distillery. And so that's kind of been my role and involvement, to be sort of, again, a steward for the brand. And it's just been very fulfilling and a lot of fun. It really is a passion project still to this day because it's such a great brand and story. and to be able to not only resurrect the brand and share the story, but to do that in the actual historic distillery itself and to utilize all these historic assets. It was really, really lucky and fortunate, and we're just so happy to be doing this all, of course, here in Lexington. Absolutely, and to keep it home-based is even more important. Absolutely. What a fascinating story. Thank you. Well, thank you for bringing this back to fruition, and here we are today. What do you see for the future? I think for us, the future is very exciting. We make a fair amount of whiskey here, and we've got a national and international brand. So we are really focused on building and reestablishing this brand on a national and international basis. And we've done that already, and we have more aspirations to do it. it. So we have continued to sell the products that we've always sold. And starting next year, 2022 and on, we will start to have some four-year-old bourbons and ryes distilled here at this historic distillery coming on the market. We're very excited for those. And so as we have these new products and releases out, you know, whiskeys made with historic mash bills, that's very excited for that side of the business. For the distillery, we're just going to continue to give tours and operate here and love having people come through and learn the history. And we're also really happy to be a part of this thriving distillery district, which has seen such an amazing renaissance and resurrection that you've actually been a really great part of. So we appreciate your involvement and support. That's been really critical to everything we've been doing and to just have the goodwill of yourself and the city and people here in Lexington behind not only us but really this whole distillery district because this historic distillery for those of you who aren't aware this is a 40-acre property that was all originally the historic James E. Pepper distillery and it was a it's a big property it's a lot of buildings and we came into the distillery building proper and that's where we We run our stills and do everything. But all these other great businesses and entrepreneurs have come into other parts of the property and buildings. And even just the area goes all the way down to the end of Manchester Music Hall, other historic buildings. They weren't even associated with Pepper. And everybody together has created this really authentic, cool, local, thriving scene and area. And done in a very much a bootstrapping way. And I think that's why it's so popular locally and with tourists is because people come here and they just see that this is authentic and this is real. There's no big, slick, corporate master redevelopment plan. It's all of us getting together and putting a lot of shoe leather into this. So I think just continuing to be a part of that, which we're so happy to be a part of, supporting the community. And we still have a lot of work left to do here. So we look forward to doing that work with you, the city, and everybody else. Well, I want to thank you, first off, not just for your revitalization of the property here, but your reinvestment back into Lexington and bringing back a staple piece of our history and seeing it grow to where it is today. And I look forward to seeing, well, next year's launch of the four-year bourbon and the future of what the distillery here has. So for the viewers who don't know, this is located off of Manchester Street in the Distillery District. And as Amir had mentioned, we're located between Goodfellas and Ethereal Brewing. Please stop in, schedule a tour today. I hope to see you all out here. Amir, I want to thank you for your time. Thank you for your partnership and everything that you do. And I look forward to our continued relationship. Same here, Josh. Thank you. I really appreciate you coming here today. Appreciate everybody watching. We hope to see you here at the distillery and the distillery district. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome everybody to the December meeting of the Board of Adjustment. First of all, if you have a cell phone, please silence it in some fashion. of all the board wants to acknowledge the death and destruction that's going on in western kentucky the you know often thoughts and prayers are not enough but our brothers and sisters in the western part of the state rest assured that that our thoughts are with you and so are our prayers so we wish you the best anything we can do we'll certainly try to do it all right what i'm going to do is the first thing we're going to do is the approval of the minutes from the November meeting. Everybody on the board read those, I'm sure. And so I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I so move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? Second, Mr. Needham. All in favor of approving the minutes, let's see if we can figure out how to vote electronically on that. We got four approvals, so the motion carries. Thank you very much. Second thing or the next thing I'm going to do is swear on all the witnesses, everybody who anticipates that they may testify today before the board, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. You may be seated. i'm going to sound the agenda which means i go through the i go through our docket and call each case in order that it in the order that it appears on the agenda to identify if the applicant is present applicant or their representative is is present and also to determine whether there are any whether there is any opposition to that particular application if there's opposition we typically put those at the end of the docket and so we give adequate time for those to be heard if there's no opposition they go on the rocket docket we hear those first and try to dispose of them uh briefly so here's the here's the agenda the first uh is pln boa 21 day 64 lfuc housing authority is the applicant present mr tourney is here is there anybody in opposition to PLN BOA 21-64 LFC Housing Authority. Anyone in the audience who is opposed to that application? I see a hand in the back. I'm still planning out other things for the destination. Okay, I hear, I understand we have one in opposition. Mr. Glover, I'll be recusing from this case. I've turned in my material. One more? One more in opposition? All right, thank you. You'll be the first at the end of the docket, Mr. Turner. The next on the agenda is PLN VOA 21-65, Laura Papereau. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Papereau. Papereau, thank you much. Is there anybody here in opposition to the PLN VOA 21-65, Ms. Papereau? I see no hands raised. I see one hand raised. Are you in opposition? Sir, good morning. I may be in opposition. I may not be. I'm trying to understand what the letter is saying. I'm not mistaken. This is concerning the Amazon property. No, that's not the Amazon property. Oh, it is? Pepperow? No, we've not called that case yet, sir. Okay, so here's where I'm at. So that I'll continue to interrupt these proceedings, please. My aunt needs to speak for that. So when that comes up, if she doesn't lie, I'll raise my hand because it's not paid and I'm not getting all the DLC stuff with the correct notation. All right? Thank you. That's why I'm calling the agenda to see who's in that position. Thank you. We'll recognize you. That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure about what's what, so that's why I took the time to interrupt, to stand up, to make sure that she does get a chance to speak. Okay, we'll give you a chance. Thank you very much. Ms. Papereau, you'll be first on the rocket docket. Next case is PLN BOA 21-68 HPI Preserve. Is the applicant present? Present? Okay. Okay, is there anybody in opposition to PLNBOA 21-66 HPI Preserve LLC? Anyone in opposition to that case? This case has been recommended for disapproval by the staff, and so we will hear that at the end of the docket in any event. Thank you very much. The next case is PLNBOA 21-68 University Properties. Is the applicant present? Okay, Mr. Murphy, is there anybody here in opposition to PLNBOA 21-68 University Properties? I see no hands, but the staff has recommended disapproval, so we will hear you at the end of the docket also. The next case is the Amazon case. PLN BOA 21 days 69, Exeter Newtown Land LLC. Is there anybody, is the applicant present? Applicants present, Mr. Turner, and we have one opposition, at least two, two perhaps in opposition to that. Mr. Chair, I'll be recusing for that when I've turned in my paperwork to the staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gross. The next is PLNBOA 21-63, Chennault Interest. I understand that was withdrawn. That is correct. That application was withdrawn last week via email. If you're here in opposition to or on behalf of Chennault Interest LTD, that application has been withdrawn. The next case is PLN BOA 21-67-251 E. Maxwell LLC. Is the applicant present? Aye, yes. Okay, the applicant's present. Is there anybody here in opposition to PLN BOA 21-67-251 E. Maxwell LLC? I see two in opposition. I will say, just for the record, we didn't want to, it's recommended for approval of two plus two, Come up to the podium, I can't hear you. And Mr. Glover, I'll be recusing from this case too. I've submitted my paperwork to the staff. I thought you might. Yeah. Just wanted to say that this is recommended for approval, but the applicant did want to be heard on one of the proposed conditions that the staff has made. So I wanted to mention that in addition to the opposition. Yeah, we'll hear you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that's the end of the docket. We'll now go through with those for which there's no opposition. The first case is PLN VOA 21 day 65, Laura Pepperow. Please come up to the podium, Ms. Pepperow. We wanted to request a postponement. How do you do? Fine, thank you. staff has recommended approval of your application to enclose an existing front porch is there anything you wish to add to that particular no there isn't I didn't think so is there any are there any questions from the board to the applicant I would just say it looks like it's already enclosed really from the nice photo it is screened yeah okay no looks good to me and i should also add to that the roof lamp roof line is intact over the the existing the application for extension that's correct so it doesn't really change the the size of the house of the roof line no and the um the foundation is also extended through the front of the porch right understand Okay. Hold on just a second. Well, I don't have any questions either. We'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 21-65 Laura Paparro's request for a variance to reduce the required setback from 30 feet to 22 feet in order to partially enclose an existing front porch and a single family dwelling in a two family residential R2 zone on property located at 328 McDowell Road based on staff's two approval reasons and subject to their two conditions. thank you mr needham is there a second second mr clark seconds all those in favor please signify electronically motion carries good luck with your project great thank you very much thank you According to my notes, everything else there's opposition. So the first one will be LFUC Housing Authority. Mr. Chairman, I am recusing myself. All right. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. If you all, and I think there are two recusals on that, if you all would just step out of the room, you can go across the hall and stay in the office if you want to watch us on TV, or you can just step out in the hall and we'll try to locate you. try to locate you after we finished with this one keep eye on brandon don't let him go too far i see him not too far who's got the leash okay don't we usually hear from staff first on the disapprovals I'm sorry Oh, I'm sorry I beg your pardon Staff has recommended approval, Mr. Turner Thank you, Mr. Chair And we are in agreement with the staff recommendation And we're here to answer any questions there might be Okay Have a seat, stand by There was a there was a hand raised for people that were there were in opposition to this application or who is in opposition. I saw one hand. Are they out in the hall? Somebody go get them if you would. Thank you very much. Okay. I think they're here for a separate case. Okay. No opposition, Mr. Turner? Does anybody on the board have any questions about 21 day 64 LFC? lfc this is from last month and it looks like you pared down your application from from 24 to 6 lots and from the from the map it looks like those are end units all of them in units three of them are end units and three four others are front yards but they're down at the at the bottom with concord drive which was required the planning commission required us to connect make that connection okay gotcha anybody have any questions for mr turner about this application if you do say it now while he's here no questions if there are no questions we'll We'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval PLNBOA 21-64, LFUC Housing Authority. Amended request to one, variances to reduce the required front yards from 30 feet to 20 feet for lots 23 through 26. And two, variances to reduce the required side street side yards from 30 feet to 20 feet for Lots 5, 22, and 23 in order to construct 13 new duplexes in a two family residential zone on property located at 1604 Versailles Road, based on staff recommendation and on the three conditions as stated. Thank you, Mr. Clark, is there a second? Second. All right, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Just trying to see who's here. We got one, two, three, four, five people. have a quorum so register your vote please motion carries the project is approved good luck Next case is 21, I'm sorry, PLN BOA 21 day 66. Yeah. Oh, yeah, we probably should. there's joan you can't do without joan oh there's brandon too i couldn't do this job if i didn't have two big reminders on either side of me that's I rely on them to correct me when I'm steering off course. 21-66 HBI Preserve, LLC. The applicant is present, right? Please come up to the podium. One or both of you, and we'll hear from you. This has been recommended for disapproval. Let me see. Yeah. Autumn, do we often hear from staff first? Yes, typically you would have me present first and then hear from the applicant. Generally, you'll call them up, I think, and make sure that they're there. Okay, come up and we'll hear from you, staff, and then we'll have the applicant rebut. Oh, okay. Sorry. All right. So the application before you is a request for a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence in a front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet or to 6.75 feet in order to allow components of a front yard fence, including a vehicular gate and columns, to exceed the 4-foot height maximum at 845 Red Mile Road in a high-density apartment R4 zone. So the subject property is located generally across from the Red Mile Racetrack. It's an apartment complex here. Here's a closer aerial shot of what that property looks like. There is an existing four-plank wood fence along the Red Mile Road street frontage, and the applicant is constructing a vehicular gate system at the front entry to the property. So here you see the access from Red Mile Road. The gate system is here and here. I'm sorry, point that out again. So they're proposing gates here and here to prevent vehicular access. So just leaving these parking spaces here for visitors to access the clubhouse, and then residents of the complex would go through either of these two gates. Okay. So the zoning ordinance does state that all front yard fences in residential zones be a maximum of four feet high. Here are a couple of images. You can see that the gates and the columns have been installed, but not the fencing in between. The applicant has indicated that the fencing in between the gates and the columns will meet the four-foot height limitation, but the columns and the gates do exceed that height up to 6.75 feet. I believe that's for the columns. The gate is a little bit lower. That's another image there. So staff is recommending disapproval of this application because the applicant did not provide a sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance. There do not appear to be any special circumstances that justify the need for the variance. It appears that the fencing or the columns and gates were installed without securing a fencing permit at which time this could have been caught. but the applicant was under the mistaken impression that having a development plan that showed a fence would constitute their fencing permit as well. So there's not really any sort of special circumstance or unique hardship that would occur by requiring the fencing, including the gates and the vehicular gate and the columns to meet the four-foot height limitation. It's pretty typical for this type of development to have these types of gates and to meet that requirement. So staff is recommending disapproval for those reasons. Now these gates are not separating the street from the property. They're interior gates, right? Correct. Okay. And the ordinance still applies to those even though they're not? Correct. Anything between the front wall plane of the building and the street is considered to be the front yard with regard to fencing. Okay. Now, you said that the fence itself would be four foot. That's correct. So our issue is just the column and the gates? The columns and the gates, yes. That are on the interior. Yes. And we can go back to the site plan. So again, this is Red Mile Road here. This is the access from Red Mile Road into the property with parking for visitors at the clubhouse here. And then the vehicular access gates are here and here. trying to pull up uh raquel my copy of the map on my screen how did you do that i've got the staff report the site plan is a separate one i got you Hold on. So if the fencing between the columns and the gates were all four feet, we'd still have a problem with the columns? Correct. The columns and the gates are the issue. The fence will be four feet, but all components of the fence must meet the four-foot height maximum. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question. Was there an existing fence for the development plan? was done or just new construction? This is new. There's an existing fence along the street that's a four-plank wood fence, but this system is entirely new. Does the staff consider the columns to be part of the fence or the wall? The fence, I guess. The ordinance talks about a fence or a wall. It talks about fences and walls. They're regulated the same, so it's essentially just the system overall, so including the columns, gates, and fencing. Are there exceptions for columns that you know of? No. My understanding from building inspection, who typically inspects fences and walls and issues those permits, they do regulate all components of a fence, including columns, as the same functionally, so that they are all limited to whatever the height limit is as prescribed by the zoning ordinance so again in all residential zones that is four feet in the front yard. I guess I was thinking the idea of a gate, a four foot gates may need a column that's higher than that in order to fasten correctly. My understanding from building inspection is that they frequently enforce this regulation for columns and gates at a maximum of four feet. Okay. I think my main issue, maybe not issue, or reason that I'm empathetic is because it is interior. It is not that space facing the street. I was all ready to be against that because I don't like people pinning people in with tall fences, right? Caging people with tall fences. because they're both perpendicular to the actual street view. I was a little less bothered by it. It's just an opinion. Any other questions for Autumn? Yeah, just a couple more. I'm looking at the site plan. So I see where the column is on the existing fence line. Then they move it to the shoulder of the parking. Then it goes across the parking line. I guess will it end at that column and won't actually go any further than that? I think what you're talking about is right here. That would be a question for the applicant. I am not certain if that fence extends over to the building. or if uh-huh because what if it was just a six foot gate without the fencing would that is that is that distinguishable it's still part of a fence or a wall okay yeah because i agree i agree with miss carter that it's given the where the fence is located and you know out it's not really blocking any views or anything yeah we can uh we haven't heard from the applicant yet so there may be some some questions that he can answer real quick with honorable did you have the ordinance section just when you flip through just so we can look at it And we're authorized under the zone to give a variance to that four feet to allow it to be taller? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Okay. Tell us your name, please. I'm Christopher Barnes. You can take your mask off when you're at the podium. It's easier for us to see you and hear you and read your lips if you told us your name and we didn't get it. Yes, sir. Christopher Barnes. Thank you. I appreciate you all taking the time to hear from us today. First of all, as far as the fences and gates within applying for the pertinent and the variants, I apologize. We built the columns and erected the gates under the thought that we had jumped through the hoops and done everything that we were supposed to do. Of course, we stopped work immediately when you all notified us that we were out of ordinance. I guess it's important to bring up the fact that we're rehabilitating this property. So we're trying to work within the framework of what's existing. And kind of first along that is the fence along Red Mile Road that is already existing, that is, depending on where you take your measurement from, on average, it's about five and a half feet tall. So to tie our stone columns into that, you know, we came up another foot or so above that simply so that the stone column wouldn't be shorter than the pre-existing five and a half foot tall fence along red mile road aesthetically we just thought that would be more pleasing than it being shorter um and i've actually got a i don't know if it's possible i've got a thumb drive with some photos on it if i don't is there any way to pull that up yeah we do we we prefer photos all right yeah and it'll certainly help visualize kind of the issue we've run into here part of our I guess thinking that we had done everything we needed to do is that the ordinance speaks to fences and gates and not I mean excuse me fences and walls and not columns and gates and since we were dealing in columns and gates we thought we were we were okay to go there I'll just wait on her to pull these up And pick two may be the best representation just to pull up easily. So the caution tape there is four feet from grade. So if we were to chop that column off, you know, it would be short of the fence, which we felt like again aesthetically it kind of looks odd and then the way that the existing landscape there's a hill there that goes over towards the next column and i probably should we're looking we're looking from red mile road yes sir straight into the property red mile is at your back are we uh are we on red mile road looking or are we on the sidewalk or something i'm standing i'm standing right next to that column when i took that picture okay and if actually if you could go to um probably pick maybe seven so that's going to be from the sidewalk and then pick eight if you don't mind will be from the road itself so yeah that's that's i guess actually that one's from the sidewalk and the road Is that column new? Yes, sir. That's what we built. Is that fencing new? No, sir. That's the pre-existing fence that we are trying to work into. Sure. And is how high the fence? About five and a half feet tall. Okay. Due to the undulation of the landscape, it changes, but it's roughly five and a half feet tall. Question for staff. Was that permitted? That four plank? I'm not sure about the original permitting history of that fence, but I do know that it has been there for quite some time and was likely constructed prior to the change in the zoning ordinance that requires the four foot maximum. Thanks. And then in regards to the actual vehicular gates, so what was required for through the fire department was that the openings be 14 feet wide. so our gates are 14 feet wide. Well, in being steel and that long, we had to construct the support pole on it higher, which put the gate higher, which now we're at 5 feet on a gate rather than the 4 foot ordinance. Are all the columns constructed? Yes, sir. All the ones that you proposed to construct are constructed? Yes, sir. There are 7 columns that we've constructed. Can you zoom in just a bit on this picture? There's a... Now, is this column that's in the middle of the picture, is that column supporting a gate? No, sir. But there will, from that column over to the next column, there will be a four-foot fence that connects that next column over to the vehicular gates. Are those columns cinderblocked with a stone facade? Yes, sir. Are you going to do a four-foot fence between column to column? Yes, sir. A steel fence or a metal fence going between? Steel or metal? Or wood. I'm sorry, steel or wood, sorry. Metal. Yep, metal. I think you answered my question. I was going to ask you regarding the gate itself. I just imagined that there wasn't a plethora of sizes that it could be. So I was wondering how we ended up with that particular size, but it's really what we needed to support the gate. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm sure those gates come in various sizes. Oh, it's the length of the gate. You know, what's, and I'm no engineer, but I guess once you get far enough out, you've got to be higher in order to support that. How wide is the opening for the gate? How wide is the opening for the gate? For the vehicular gate, it's 28 feet total, 14 feet. 14. Yes, sir. 14. Okay. Each individual gate is 14 feet wide? Yes, sir. And are they on wheels or free-floating? They're free-floating swing gates. Okay. And they are mechanically, hydraulically, electronically operated in some fashion? Yes, sir. You've got some beam that the vehicle breaks to open the gate or something like that? It's a FOB entry system. Okay. Yeah. I'm just curious about that, the notion, because there are gates that go over this span that I presume are on columns that are less than six feet tall throughout the city. And let me ask staff real quick. I may regret this, but I see Mr. Parker's here, who has a plethora of knowledge on all sorts of different things. Can you do a gate this wide that's four feet? Have we done that in the past, Mr. Parker, if you don't mind stepping up? And it looks like we've got some experts in the audience, too. Sure. I'm sorry. So it is possible. It depends on the material that you're using. what he was talking about you had a rotational moment at that pier that that is it's almost like a fulcrum so it's like sticking your arm out when you push down your your shoulder is what's holding that and supporting it so it depends on the material that you use talking about moment of inertia yeah but presumably this one would need a six foot to care that way you it's possible you don't I think so. That's the testimony we've heard so far. Yeah, that's our testimony so far as we needed. This plan came before me at the development plan phase. I worked with EA partners, and I was aware of the height. That was going to be six feet? Yes. You were okay with that, the development plan stage? I signed off on the development plan. Oh, wait a second. Ms. Wade's here to weigh in. Well, I don't know that traffic engineering signs off on fences and gates. As a matter of course. I knew it, but I thought the applicant was going to go through the proper process of obtaining a fence permit and things. So that's not my purview. No, I get that. Yeah, okay. So I saw it and I was aware of it. Okay. But during the development plan stage, a six-foot columns were discussed or just a gate was discussed? No. No. Not with the planning commission that I'm aware of. It was discussed with me. okay all right so i i ask very detailed questions when i'm looking at a plan i saw this and um rory kaylee and i worked together in answering the questions and there was some back and forth uh with ea partners um i did go out and part of part of my review was i looked at that existing fence okay and having been through the planning planning process it is possible that conversations occurred between divisions but not directly with planning staff so okay and i you know i really did believe that they were going to get a defense permit i thought that was i believe that discussion took place as well um whether it made it to the applicant or not I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Appreciate it. Yeah, come back up and let's see if we have any more questions for you. You know, I think my challenge is that we all have to follow these rules and, you know, we apply these to everyone that goes through this the same process and you know I have to be convinced that you guys didn't realize you needed a fence permit and it's hard for me to convince me of that because you guys are know what you're doing it wasn't the fence permit it was the I guess the gate and column permit I understand the fencing permit has been applied through through the fence company that's installing it. So who installed the gate? Overhead door company out of Lexington. And they didn't feel like they needed? At no point was that brought up. No, sir. And again, we would have been happy to go through this process before building anything because obviously for us it's going to be a bigger problem to reverse it than it would have been to start from the ground up, maybe come up with a different plan. And again, I apologize for that. I've used them. I've used a lot of fence companies and gate installers. And normally we talk about a development panel. We talk about the plans. A height has always been discussed, usually especially in the front yard. So I don't know. It sounds from Mr. Parker's testimony that it was discussed. And, you know, I would be surprised if he didn't mention the fact that a permit would be needed. I'd be surprised if what? Steve, real quick, just to put on the record, I'm sure Steve discussed that a permit would be needed. I'd like to ask him. Yeah. Let's keep that on the record. So I didn't understand the plan when I first saw it. I was a little bit confused of what they were trying to accomplish. And so, yes, when I saw it, I knew they needed a fence permit. Anytime you're coordinating off an area, whether it's gates, columns, I even advise people when they're building columns, if he was willing to build columns on that horse fence replacing the posts, I would have said, you need to go to the building inspection and make sure you don't need a fence permit. in this instance you recall my determination no i understand that in this instance do you recall saying that to the representatives of the applicant i believe i did okay it would be abnormal for me not to because i try to make sure that people don't end up in situations like this thank you sir appreciate that come on back up mr lebarne um i have some concern about the effect of denying the application because the if we require you to take those columns down to four feet that means you're probably going to have to buy a new gate or new gates there's a dispense of taking the columns down of course which is some expense but also it's not going to fit with the existing fence on the front of the property which gives me some pause I can't imagine putting up a four-foot column as an as an end column on a five and a half foot fence that to me would be you wouldn't design it that way on the forefront you wouldn't design it that way and and and if you were building it you wouldn't assume that that would be the plan. So, um, so I'm, I'm, I'm at odds, uh, with myself about that. But at the same time, uh, those are the rules. And so, I mean, four feet, four feet is standard throughout the city for front of the front of all properties, except of course for preexisting, uh, fences that that are already there. So I'm wondering what would we have done had you come before us and say, I want to build a column as an end column on a five-and-a-half-foot fence, but the ordinance requires us to build a four-foot column. I would have trouble enforcing that ordinance and applying it on a five-and-a-half-foot fence that was already there. Mr. Chair, let me also add, I think it's important that we realize that the ordinance itself really does not talk about gates or columns. And I think that's where the problem is. We're talking about fences. Yeah, I agree. and I think I mentioned that right off the bat first off. That's another reason that I'm somewhat sympathetic to your application. Well, Chair, I would add to that the process. So if they had applied for the fencing permit and they told them, you know, they were able to figure out that they needed a variance is what they would do, and then they would come before us as well. I still think we would end up here. I know what it's, you know, of course, what the zoning ordinance says, but we have the ability to make those variances when it makes sense or kind of logical. Exactly. But in this instance, we have testimony from staff that they were informed a permit would be needed. Yeah, but that permit still would end up here. No, I get you there. No, I agree. There's still the space in between. and i think had we evaluated this with the five foot uh horse fence next to it we probably would have agreed that yeah lower than that end post is not going to look right so maybe a little higher and would have accepted that but you know now they've already been built i don't think we've accepted a foot higher but um yeah it seemed like that would have been all except on the end where the gate is, then you'd still have to end up matching them up. I don't know. But you know, that would have been at least discussed. And I think really if we'd have been evaluating this column and it hadn't been built yet, I think you'd already have your answer. You keep them at four feet. You wouldn't do a four-foot column there ever. I don't think you'd, yeah, I don't think. Well, that's what I mean. I think we would have adjusted that one, but I think the back one would have been four. You've got the different heights? I think so. I'm not really sure. Because if the weight of the gate and the motion of the gate demanded a higher column, we might have said, yeah, we can see that. Engineering-wise, it might need a higher column. based on the width of the road itself, perhaps. I'd say it now, actually. Or a stronger column. You've got somebody else standing there with you. Why don't you identify yourself for us, please? Hello, my name is Christian Elliott with Capstone. I'm part of the application team. And, you know, we miss this, so I know that's annoying and you do not like to see people do something and then come before you. but it was an honest mistake because I personally went through a rezoning process. We've submitted for building permits. We've followed every permit process to date through a complete renovation of this property. We've recited the property. We've renovated every apartment interior. So this was one thing that slipped by us, and once again, we apologize. But that's another thing I kind of want to bring back to. If we would have done this from the beginning and known Four Foot, but we probably would have come here with this plan anyway. And simply going back to at considerable expense, we are trying to enhance the appearance of this property from the road. Also, it's something I don't want to get lost in the mix, is a four-foot column here and there would look silly. and not to mention we'd have to reduce the fence to a little bit less than four feet for it not to just die at the top of the column which i don't know if y'all have ever seen a ornamental metal fence die at the very top of a column but that's kind of a silly look too so you're looking at a less than four foot fence which means somebody might can step over it and it would look rather insignificant and silly in this purpose which is enhancing the property from the road and for our residents you know this is a multi-family property so we're trying to spend this money to enhance our resident experience increase safety for the residents so that is also something that i would like for you to take into consideration that you know this is something maybe to factor in that the vehicular gates and help containing the perimeter is for safety enjoyment of our paying residents. I would add, though, that we've been through this discussion many times about a four-foot fence. And we have even large residences, we've said, you know, you have to have a four-foot fence. This is an exception because of the gate and the columns. correct and we are having a four foot fence so the fence is four feet so i agree with you that the columns are kind of the outlier to the zoning code and you hit the nail on the head and you said that that this is kind of a gray area and in the disapproval notice it was kind of you know not shocking to us but a surprise because the hardship is i know how the code is written and how y'all have to rule otherwise you'd have a million different things you didn't want to deal with but also in my experiences and other municipalities a variance is also for those gray areas where the zoning code can't fit one size fits all for every application funky thing that happens in this municipality so I would agree that the columns are sort of that gray area and a vehicular gate in my experiences I've never seen four foot vehicular gates and usually they're five six to eight feet tall for a sense of security and presence of security for the residents. So once again, gray areas there, which I know the hardship is kind of the language of the code, but I feel like the columns and the gates might fall into that gray area, hence needing a variance. Thank you. As Mr. Clark says, this is not our first rodeo as far as hearing applicants, even applicants who have already built a taller fence or wall or sometimes even a gate, and we've required them to remove it. So those cases were, in my opinion, were easier. I'm somewhat sympathetic because of this particular language of the ordinance that doesn't mention columns or gates, although columns and gates are typically part of a fencing structure. But I'm also sympathetic because of your five-and-a-half-foot existing fence along the front perimeter of the property, and I don't want that to be lost in the discussion. I sense that the board is at odds within itself. So let us finish asking you questions, and then I'm going to probably take a little recess to see if there's a consensus about this application. Any other questions for Mr. LeVar or Mr. Elliott? Any other questions? Ms. Whitman, yeah. elevation at the base of the problem. Is it lower? It looks like it could be a foot lower than what the actual land is. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I follow your question. At the very base of the problem, it looks like it's quite a bit lower than where the land actually is and there seems to be a difference of The grade. Well, there's a hill there, so the backside of the column is higher on the, you know, grade is higher on the backside of the column there than it is on the front because of the hill that's there. Is that what you're asking? Yes, ma'am. Do you know how much variance there is from the base of that hill? To the top of the hill behind the column? Or on the back side of the column. Yeah, it looks like there's... Direct on the back side of the column, it's probably 6 to 8 inches. But then to the top of that hill, if you keep going up, it's probably from the front to the back, probably 18 inches, if I were to guess. So that column is the same height as the front column, or is it less? In this circumstance of these two columns that we're looking at, I'm not sure to be honest because that hill crests and I'd need to get, they're all within certain inches but they were designed to look, to all be the same height. So in our actual variance, I think that we went for 6.75 feet, there's only one column that's that high. Most of them were like in the six foot range, but one's higher than the other to account for grade. So they all appear to be the same height. The bottom of the fence, and I see quite a bit of a difference between the bottom of the fence and the bottom of the column on that particular slide that you have. Do you have any other photos of that? actually probably picture water maybe get the clear answer but she's uh... and mr glover on before the recess i don't know given the testimony today if staff thinks there's a way forward a continuous continuance uh... would be helpful or is it not on i prefer personally don't want to make january brandon had more cases uh... to be heard but if there is you know given the testimony they think there is a way forward that could be another option you know seems to me that that the change with their own be a workable compromise i'm not sure we ought to be doing it right here today so i think that's a good suggestion mister gross uh... about postponing it for a month to see if you all can work out some kind of compromise I'm most sympathetic to two things. The one is the language of the ordinance being not very specific, and we're arguing about language that's not in the ordinance, columns and gates, and it's talking about fences and walls. And secondly, the appearance of the existing fence with your proposed columns. It seems like if we limit a 5 1⁄2-foot fence to a 4-foot column, that makes no common sense to me. So those two things. Yeah, I agree. Along those lines, too, because I am clearly empathetic as well, most of that fence is still going to be four feet, which would be within the ordinance. Most of the fence around the part that's facing Red Mile is not within the ordinance. It's already over five feet. It's aesthetically pleasing. It doesn't face directly the, you know, it's not the forward facing. It doesn't face the plane of the building. Yeah, the plane of the Main Street. For all those reasons, I think it's a viable option to allow a variance for, but they may need to do more homework. But I just want to keep that on the record. I agree with you, Ms. Carter. and I don't know who else might agree with you as well, but I would be troubled by denying this application, even though it was built without permission. I'm still troubled by it for those two reasons that I mentioned. So I agree that a postponement. Continuance. I'm sorry, continuance would be helpful. So I'll entertain a motion. Okay, Mr. Glover, to allow time for the applicant and the staff to have further discussions. I move that we continue case PLN BOA 21-66 regarding 845 Red Mile Road for a 30-day continuance, which would be at our January 12, 2022 hearing at 1.30 p.m. in these chambers. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Let's see if we can vote electronically. Everybody but Mr. Needham and Mr. Clark, both continue it. So we will continue it until January. Thank you very much. Good luck in reaching a settlement. We'll see you in 30 days or so. Let me explain my vote. I'm not opposed to the continuance. So I just think, I'm just wondering what in the world they're going to come, what kind of exceptions they're going to come up with that's going to change our discussion. I don't know. So that's the reason I voted that way. Okay. I would say the same. Yeah, thank you very much. We'll see you in January. All right, I appreciate it. The next matter is PLN BOA 21-68 University Properties, LLC. Also recommended for disapproval. Is the applicant present? Sit tight, Mr. Murphy. We're going to hear from staff first. All right. Okay. So this application is a request for a variance to reduce the required private open space from 10% to 4.5% in order to subdivide existing townhomes in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 1151 Unity Drive. So this application is a little bit unusual. We're looking at an existing development. Again, just down the street from our previous location, we're still off of Red Mile Road. So here's Red Mile, here's Unity Drive. This is the existing townhome development, and we are particularly talking about the three units right here. So this, as I said, this application is a little bit unusual because this property has been developed for a number of years, and the applicant is not proposing any physical changes to the development. However, they are proposing to subdivide the existing townhomes. This property was developed as a group residential project. Our zoning ordinance has a special set of regulations for what we call group residential projects, which allow multiple residential buildings to be situated on one lot. When there are multiple units on one lot, they may be rented or they can be sold as condos, but they cannot be subdivided and sold as individual lots unless they meet the requirements for a development that was being developed to be subdivided as townhomes. So in order to subdivide these townhomes into individual lots, they have to meet the regulations of the R1T zone. And in that zone, we are required to have 10% private open space, which is defined in the ordinance, and states that not less than 10% of the total lot area for any townhouse shall be devoted to private usable open space either on each lot or on land adjacent or directly accessible to each lot. Such open space shall be used for, shall be for the private use of the residence of each individual townhouse and shall be physically separated from the other private open space or common space by planting fences or walls. The least dimension of the private open space shall be eight feet. So currently the applicant is providing their private open space by some existing rear decks. You can see those vaguely in the outline here. The yellow lines are the private decks at the rear of these properties. So each one of these proposed lots, 15, 16, and 17, has less than 10% open space, with the smallest or the least amount of open space being 4.5%. Lot, let's see, lot 15 has 4.5% open space, 16 has 7.4% open space, and 17 has 5.3% open space. The applicant has indicated that there will be common open space owned by homeowners association, which will provide additional open space for the residents to use. However, they did not provide any plan showing the location of the open space or any amenities that could be associated with that. They did not provide any information about any maintenance requirements or pedestrian connections between these units and that open space. So that information could have been helpful in evaluating this request, but since there do not appear to be plans for open space that would provide a comparable amenity to the private usable open space that the ordinance requires, staff is unable to support this request. Additionally, there are some other ways that they could meet this regulation by perhaps enlarging the existing decks or providing the open space elsewhere. They also have the opportunity to sell these units as condos, which would not require them to subdivide the lots. So for all of those reasons, there are not any special circumstances that justify the need for the variance. and we see this as a circumvention of the zoning ordinance since this project was developed in accordance with the group residential standards, which allow for certain breaks and different requirements for things like open space. So coming back several years later and wanting to subdivide the property is not a hardship on the applicant because they didn't develop in this way in the first place. It is the circumvention of the zoning ordinance. So for those reasons, we are recommending disapproval of this application. Did you say that they could meet their requirement by enlarging the deck space or something like? They could potentially enlarge the deck space. The decks do count as the private open space. So if they were able to construct additional decks at the rear, then that would satisfy the need for the open space. May I ask a technical question? The address is 1151 and yet that address is not part of any of these three units. 1151 is the overall lot that we see here, this pink line that includes all of these townhomes, this pod here, here, here, and the three that we're looking at. So all of these other units are able to be subdivided because they are able to use their rear yards as their private open space. But since these three in particular do not have any rear yard, they are not able to meet the 10%. I understand. So 1151 is the entire unit, entire property. 1151 is the entire block which they are proposing to subdivide into I think 17 perhaps individual town home. Okay, it's probably not pertinent but I just thought I'd ask. Real quick to follow up. So we're only dealing with the four buildings to the south? Just these three. Three. Okay. I'll go back one. I'm trying to get my orientation. Okay. But what about the northern ones? Are those being subdivided also? These? No, the ones to the north. There we go. Yeah. These, I believe, have already been subdivided. You can see the pink lines here, that there are some kind of strange lotting patterns going on here. I think possibly because of the need for open space, they may have extended their lots back here to actually touch this space. But I'm not sure when that was done or what the regulations were that it was done under. So currently only those southern. Currently we are only looking at these three units. At those three buildings, but as part of the subdivision, the 17 is the other 14. Okay. And the applicant may be able to provide more information about that. Does the open space have to be contiguous to the principal property? Yes. So let's see. In Article 8-10K, open space either on each lot or on land adjacent or directly accessible to each lot. But it does have to be private open space for use of the residence of each individual townhouse townhouse and physically separated from other private open space or common space by planting, fencing, or walls? What does directly accessible mean? That's a good question. I think that that would probably involve some pedestrian connections between the unit and the open space. Okay. Unless it's condo and part of an HOA. Correct. Did they need to file a development plan? I believe they have. Okay. They filed a plat with the Planning Commission. Okay, I was curious about whether or not this had to have a development plan or just the subdivision plan. It already had a development plan from when it was billed. Any questions for Autumn? Thank you, ma'am. Thanks. Our voting totals, Donna, on HPI are still on our screen. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for me? Yeah, Mr. Murphy, we're happy to hear from you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. yeah yeah yeah everybody's warm yeah except you thank you mr chairman i'm dick murphy i'm pleased today to be representing university properties llc which is the owner of the property jeff morgan is with me who is the principal of university properties llc also with me is Kevin Phillips from Endres Engineering, our designer. As the staff mentioned, this has been through the Planning Commission on a plat. We were unanimously approved at the Planning Commission four days ago, subject to your all's approval of this variance. So we have been through that process, but it is subject to your approval of this variance. As a little bit of background, this is part of a 17-unit what is now a rental community, which was built in 2009 by Jeff Morgan and University Properties. It has been operated as a rental development, these 17 units, for the last 12 years. Mr. Morgan is now doing a total renovation of these after only 12 years. If you've been out there, you probably noticed 14 of these units are vacant right now and being renovated. and the others will be and we are doing this to try to sell them individually. These are in my handout at page one I had a picture of these three units from the front. I put it in there so you could see what type of units these are. These are very attractive three-story brick townhome units. You can see from that picture that they have three dormers in front, but you can also see in the back On these, there is a shed dormer across the back, which means that the third floor essentially is fully usable. So these are three-story townhome units. Now, the other 14 are built on a crawl space. These three units have a full basement, and you can see the full windows out at grade in the rear. So these units are actually effectively four-story units. The just desire is to be able to sell these at a reasonable price. And I've asked him if I can tell you the price. Usually we don't do that. But the three-story units without a basement have about 1,800 square feet each in them. These units, if you count the basement, which is fully usable and is at grade in the rear, have about 2,400 square feet each. Now, what he's selling these for, the three-story without the basement, 1,800 square feet, are being priced at $219,000. These units here with the full basement are being at about 2,400 usable square feet are being priced at $259,000 after being renovated. I think if you've been out looking for houses lately, which I have with a family member who's looking for a first-time house, you can't buy what I used to call a starter home, a new starter home in this community for less than about $350,000. So I think these are very reasonably priced houses. It's his intent to sell these out individually rather than sell it as a rental community. As I mentioned to you, we obviously had to get a plan approved to create these on separate lots that was approved last week by the Planning Commission subject to your all's approval of this variance. Now here's where we're at on the open space requirement because it's real interesting here. This is in the R3 zone, the planned neighborhood residential zone, R3. In the R3 zone in which we're in, and the planned unit developed for the group residential, normally you're required 20% open space. And of course he was approved with that 12 years ago, 20% open space. However, if we sell them off individually, the R3 zone which we're located has a little note saying townhomes individually are required to follow the lot requirements of the R1T zone. So we have to look at the R1T zone requirements, all of which we met with the setbacks and frontage except for these three units on the open space. It says 10% private open space. So a logical question would be, if I'm saying we met the 20% open space when this was built, and we're asking for a variance of the 10% open space for R1T, going down to 4.5 for the smallest one here, why am I here if we met the 20% to start with? And the reason is that, as I think the staff alluded to, the R1T requirements basically assume that there will be no common open space. You have to have that on each individual lot. Now, I think, and it may have been a communication problem with us getting to the staff on this, because when we filed our site plan, we only showed these three units with the application. We probably should have showed the whole development because staff had no way of knowing that we plan on having some common open space available to all residents as well. So if you could look at, I think the exhibit I've got is Unity Color Rendering color rendering, color exhibited unity up there, which Mr. Phillips passed out to you. I will show you what we came up with as designating where this is. This is the entire development here, all 17 units. Here is unity drive, and here are the three units we're talking about right here. the other 14 meet the open space on their lots these three do not so we've and the staff I think rightfully said we hadn't shown where there'd be common open space designated for use by the residents this one is designated as we plan for this to be a children's play area this one for a recreation area we're showing additional sidewalks along three sides of this to make it more accessible we're showing a sidewalk in front of the parking spaces here to make it more accessible so and we're planning on having a homeowners association and that association would be as far as this basis go up goes would be required to meet two requirements that is that this this these areas here and here would have to be maintained by the homeowners association and number two they would have to be available for all residents now staff made a comment which is correct saying we could do this through condominiums theoretically that's theoretically correct the problem with that is the practicalities of condominiums it's as many of you all really are in real estate and it's very difficult to get a loan to purchase a condominium right now that's because of the requirements of the secondary market for condominium loans which were tightened up quite a bit when the we had the real estate crash 10 or 11 years ago as an example four years ago i had a client who had a sort of a similar project to this was building 10 units and he came to me and asked me should we do this as condominiums or townhomes and of course you all know the only difference between a condominium and a townhome is in a townhouse you own the land under the townhouse in a condominium if you're doing it horizontally like this or in any condominium you do not own the land under unit. The homeowners association owns the land. Back four years ago I said well you probably want to do townhomes because it's difficult to get a loan for your for your buyers to get a loan to buy a condominium unit right now. Talk to your banker. So my client talked to his banker came back said you're right and it's extremely difficult because back four years ago the banker said let me explain it to you this way. To get it to sell this on the secondary market we have to show that any condominium unit has development has 60% owner occupied units. You're starting out with new units. That means that of your 10 units, the first six have to be sold to owner occupiers. And not only that, they have to be cash sales. And that's because at that point, 60% isn't open. So he said, we'd be happy to make a loan on your seventh, eighth, or ninth unit if you have six cash sales first, because you've got your first six, you have to find somebody who wants to buy an entry-level residence and can pay cash at it for it and can live there. So they said, we're happy to make the loan on number seven, eight, nine, or ten, but not on one, two, three, four, five, or six. Now, I don't know what the rules are right now, but I knew know it's a lot more difficult to get a condominium loan than it is to get a loan on a townhome or on a single-family detached home. Whenever you're making a project like this, and this is essentially for lending purposes a new project because the units are vacant and have been remodeled, we want to make them as widely available as we can. We want to make them available to people, and part of that is making them in a way in which it is easier to get a loan to purchase the property. So that's one of the reasons we're doing it. So condominium, yes, is theoretically possible, but practically is not the answer to be able to sell these individually. The other way advanced by the staff was to enlarge the decks on these properties right here. Each of these properties do have a deck right now, but they are not as large as some of the other units, the decks. and that is because they each have a stairway going down to grade. So you can have a rear entrance or egress from your deck down to the first level, which I showed you on that first picture is down at the basement level there. I guess theoretically we could do decks, but we'd probably have to expand them over the drive area, and that exposes them to the problem of when you have a box truck come in, if it's going to hit the decks. We don't really want to do that as well. As you can see, this is a low traffic area, unlike this area back here, which has two rows of parking. In this aisle here, there's only one row of parking on the other side. We do not have parking here. This area is readily accessible to our three units, as is that we're doing a sidewalk through here so they can get through and get to the other one, which is here. the homeowners association you could decide what type of recreational facilities here if they want to swing set and slide and that sort of thing obviously they'd have to meet today's safety guidelines but that's how and I'm sorry we did not file this with our application I'm sorry we did not show that we we intended it was our and Jeff's intention to have this area set aside. We made an assumption. We didn't show it to the staff. So they weren't able to have this information and we can see why they made some of the recommendation they did. But I hope you can see it from our standpoint as well that in my second page after the picture in my handout, I just had a quote of one of the Kentucky Court of Appeals cases, the Bourbon County Board of adjustment versus currents where the court of appeals noted that this board is a safety valve to make the zoning ordinance work because without it zoning ordinances could be unyielding and unworkable. And we're asking for your approval. We think this is the better use of this property to be able to subdivide it off, be able to sell it. We think this is not what you'd call an affordable housing with a capital A. I don't think it meets all those requirements, but it's certainly a reasonably priced housing here. And I have given you some findings as the next to last page, which reflect what I was saying here, but also the last page is a condition which we have drafted to add to this, which states that the applicant shall create a homeowners association to maintain the common area and substantially the configuration as shown on the applicant's exhibit, which is what you're looking at right now. The common area shall be available for use by all residents of the development. So the residents in these three units will have access to this. They will have a deck like everybody else does. In addition, we have a gentleman here with us today, Mr. Cameron Stratton, who wants to buy this unit here, number 1135, and he has some comments I think he'd like to make on his thoughts on this variance as well. So I hope I have not skipped anything I wanted to tell you, but we think it does qualify very strongly for a variance. We think it meets the criteria, and we think, as I said again, that this will be the best use of this property, both for us and for the community. I think it's significant. We have no objectors. We notified 33 properties here and have no objections to it from neighbors. Hey, Mr. Murphy, before you move on, I'd like to ask you some questions. Personally, I'm not overly offended, given the open space that you're providing for each of these lines. You know, my feeling is that when people buy them, they're going to see what they have. And whoever's buying this clearly doesn't want a yard, or they wouldn't be buying this particular product. But I do have a question, and I know staff will chime in at some point. I see what you're doing adding in the open space, but there's no way to get there. And I'm only asking questions. You're going to hear from staff, I'm sure, before when they come up, but you've thrown in some green space in the back. But I don't see where there's a lot of sidewalks on this property to access that space except for the parking lot. I just wanted you to go ahead and speak to that particular issue and whether or not there is a way to maybe add in some additional sidewalking so that this is going to be a children's play area. And before I do that, I'm going to tell you a story. This is a story my mom tells. We lived in an apartment when I was a kid, and there was a big dirt pile on the other side of the parking lot. and my mom would not let me cross the parking lot i was probably four or five at the time um but being smarter than the average bear um i took the sidewalks convoluted all the way around this apartment complex so i get to that dirt pile um and get to the you know the area where the other kids are playing and so and the reason i tell that story is because it if it is going to be sold as a children's area it would be i would prefer to see some way for children to access that area safely. Is that possible given? Because that doesn't look like there's a lot of dirt between the parking and the roadways to make that happen. Whether you can lose the space, maybe put in some striping or some other things, but if you could respond to that. Well, we have considered that as well. These are the units right here. what we've labeled the children's play area, and we can label it. We want it to be open space. I mean, if it's desired to be labeled something else, we can. And this area, too. The distance you can see, this is the rear of the units where you saw the decks and the stairs coming down. It is across this. This is a driveway coming through here with, as I mentioned, It only has one aisle of parking here as opposed to having two. It is close. It's a very low traffic situation here. Most of our traffic to these 17 units comes in off the main entrance off Unity Drive. They do have a second way in and out, which is, I think, important for fire and safety to have a second way in and out through here up to Unity as well. It's used quite a bit less than the main one down here. But this is a distance. You can see the car there, what, 40 or I'm guessing 40, 45 feet between the edge of this property getting to this point here. We could paint a crosswalk through here to make traffic more aware of that and to slow it down. We have thought about putting a crosswalk right through here. and we have from getting to this one to this one, we do have the grass area through here. We could put a walkway through there. A sidewalk might be a little more difficult because we do have some drainage going off down there, but we could put a walkway through there if needed. It could be a crosswalk through here. Again, down here, nobody's going anywhere. That's the end of the parking space, so there's no traffic going through. here but we could paint a crosswalk at this point as well for that purpose mr. perfect let me ask you two questions and number one where is the parking for those three units somebody buys one of those where they gonna park well it's going to be common parking here there's we meet the parking requirement there's More than enough overall, you see there's four spaces here. There's three units here. There's four spaces here. There's two units here. There's one, two, three, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight spaces there. Plus these two units have four spaces there and there. So there's plenty of parking for these three. So we've got first come, first serve. type of parking. So second question is this then, how difficult would it be to expand the decks or the patios, what do you want to call them, to be large enough to satisfy the zoning regulation? This is Jeff Morgan who is the builder who would answer that for you. Hello, Jeff Morgan. I built the first phase 20 years ago and I built this section 2009. If we expand the decks, we lose the stairs. I'm not sure that the stairs get counted in the open space. I can meet the requirement, tear the decks off, but I think the money is better spent in doing the sidewalks and making the common areas serve the whole property. But again, if I expand the decks, I lose the stairs and you lose egress. The stairs are where now? They're on the back of the decks. I don't know if there's a picture. The back deck? Yeah, the back deck. Mr. Clark, if you look at this one, they're hard to see, but you can. There's the stairs. There, there, there. It's this one, this one. That was the challenge was trying to get a stairway to meet. That's right. The one on the left, 1135, and the one in the middle, 1133, they actually come together and hit a shared pad. And I'm not sure that the stairs are counted in the calculation, which may make it have a higher percentage. But if I tear the stairs off and I expand the decks, I meet the percentage, but then you don't have a back door way down. You'd have to come out the front and then come all the way around. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Stratt. Yeah, let me ask you a question, Dick, before we get Mr. Murphy. What do the red lines on this colored chart represent? Those are the lot lines. Technically, in these condominiums, or the townhome units, typically lot lines go out into the parking lot. I've had them where part of the parking lot is shared by all lots, and you have a common easement over it. So on these ones, the common easement for parking would go to these dashed lines and go through here and there. So the red lines are technically the lot lines, but they're going to be subject to the Declaration of Restrictions, which imposes a common usage for all parking areas and maintenance requirements of the Homeowners Association. on it so why why is uh that middle unit number 16 why is that red line deeper into the parking lot that's to get the required square footage of a lot in the r1t zone which we have to meet and this has been approved by the planning commission it was uh it was that way to get the required square footage for the lot is that mr phillips is nodding yes on that does does the does that unit number 16 meet itself the 10 requirement no none of these none of these three do well that that means i don't understand what the i think it's more narrow It's to meet the square footage necessary for the actual lot itself, not just the open space. For the lot itself, meaning the area inside the red line. Yeah, it has to be, what, 1,500 square feet? Is that the minimum? We have to have 1,500 square feet per lot for a townhome, which means we must have at least 150 square feet private open space and we meet that on all 14 except except for these because of the fact that the decks are elevated and we have a stairway going down and that stairway cannot be counted as part of our open space if we could count the stairway as part of the open space we probably wouldn't be here in front of you today or if these were if we didn't have the basement and we had the the parking up at grade we could have enough room to have that as a patio or deck and count but it's the fact that we have the grade differential which requires the stairs which doesn't give us us enough square footage in the deck to meet the 10 requirement per lot all the units have patios except these three units the only reason they have decks is because they're it's a basement lot we built basements all the way on the front edge of unity and down right mile because of the great of the existing law well if the if the decks weren't there would you meet the 10% requirement we're debating I'm here and maybe some do some don't we think we would we're not sure on that the middle one says it's 7.4 percent open space with it so that one might be closer the one they submitted you can't see it on their time it's the one that was submitted with the go you know jeff why can't why can't you just increase that lot line on 15 and 17 into the uh into the um pavement Yeah, pavement is not private usable open space. That doesn't help them. That just makes it a lot bigger and covered by more pavement. But if the parking lot is 16 that way? 16 has been, the red line that represents the property line is solely so that they can get to 1,500 square feet of land in order to subdivide. I see. So the minimum lot size for an R1T is 1,500 square feet. which is the smallest lot we can too much create in the urban county. This type of lotting pattern is not unusual for townhomes. And as I said, the declaration which governs it states that all these paved areas are open to all and are available for parking and circulation. And ours will say that these two lots are available and open to all as well, but not for parking, but for recreation or what we're labeling them for. Are those two green spaces on your map, are they adjacent or directly accessible to your three? Well, they are adjacent to some of our units, and we feel they're directly accessible to all units. I mean, I'm reading from 8-10K. Well, that's what we're asking. And the private open space has to be adjacent and directly accessible. Now, we're asking for a variance on that. The common open space does not have to be directly adjacent to each lot. It just has to be available to all the lots. I'm still not clear. I'm not talking about the decks or the stairs. I'm talking about extending the grassy area out into the parking lot, making a grassy area as part of the extension there, which would mean taking some parking lot space out of that area, but planning it so that it would give each resident additional grassy area. That's my question. We do need a two-way traffic flow through here. It's just a question of having enough width to have the two-way traffic flow through here on it. I think Mr. Stratton would like to talk to you for a second. I think it would be helpful to hear what you're saying. Okay, sure. Mr. Stratton. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to be here today. And Jeff had talked to me about the open space concern and mentioned he's going to be here, and I asked for his permission to join today. So thank you for allowing me to be here. As a future owner of the number 15, 1135, what I'm hearing today, and I apologize, I'm not a builder, I don't know a lot of this lingo, but the economics of this building, the space, the location for my family, I'm a single father of three. And looking at whether we can extend possibly a deck or whatever other way you're looking at this, I like the idea, my children like the idea of having that play area right across the way. So again, my personal input as a future homeowner with an agreement is I really like the opportunity to have that for my children versus expanding the deck or adding some additional room, however you guys would do that on the building. Does that make sense? Are you a prospective purchaser of number 15? Yes, sir. 1135. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scherzer. Thank you. Thank you. And once again, Mr. Glover, I don't have an issue with the lack of private open space. But if they're going to say these two areas are supposed to be open space, I would like to see some sort of safe way for the residents to be able to access them. And that could be maybe losing two or three parking spaces and striping that area to be a crosswalk instead of parking spaces. I think it's an easy, cheap, limiting. I like the idea of a crosswalk if that solves the problem. Yeah. If that eases anybody's mind, still the crosswalk is going to be crossing traffic. No, I understand that. That's all, yeah. Sure. Yeah. But at least if there's a designated area where the lines are clearly delineated that pedestrians will be using those areas, I don't necessarily, they don't have to be new sidewalks. And this is probably a question for staff, but I believe I read they do have front yard space here, but we can't include that. Is that the issue? That is correct. Front yards do not count as private open space. Okay. Because in this case, these units actually do have front yard space and these other units do not. That is correct, but the ordinance specifically states that front yards cannot count as private open space. Well, staff, let me ask you, would you maybe have a difference of opinion if there were a safe way to access the proposed open space? I think that would certainly be beneficial. I think that we would still have issues with some of the proposed findings that Mr. Murphy has presented. but I do think that we would certainly support a safe crosswalk and sidewalk access between the two green spaces. Mr. Murphy, would that be something you guys think you could work through? I don't mind committing to the crosswalk. I don't want to lose any parking. And again, this seems complex right now. The stairway on the back of these decks allows you to access the parking. There's four spaces on the end, and there's several spaces right there, and that historically has been the parking for this building. So I probably could solve this tomorrow and tell my guys to rip the decks off, but you lose the stairs. And so you have to come out your front door to get to all the parking in the rec area. So, you know, to me, someone who's built a lot, I would keep the back door and add the common areas. I just think that's the best solution for the property. It's a win-win for not just these units, but it's a win-win for all the other units as well. Is there no street parking on Unity? There is, and they've been trying to take it away for 20 years. I've been fighting to keep the on-street parking. Right now, they don't allow it in front of the three units. They allow it in front of the first phase, the first 14 units. And I know that I should let my attorney speak all the time, but the first 14 units are sold and absorbed and renovated and function perfectly. Of the 31 units, only the three missed the open space, and they only missed the open space because I put the steps on them. And here we are. So, you know, this was always planned from 02 on to retail sell back to the community. This is, yeah. you're saying you're you're saying uh mr morgan that if the if the steps weren't there but the decks remained you'd meet the requirement well if i expanded the deck over top of the footprint of the stairs and deleted the stairs and expanded the decks sure i can meet it but then you lose you lose access you lose access yeah i understand that we understand that let me go one one step further if i might mr murphy the staff said this in in their rationale they say another option while more costly could involve the reconfiguration of the parking area behind three units to allow for additional open space and you're saying that there's not enough room for two-way traffic is that correct well that's that's the issue the two-way traffic in and out of here i ms wade and i were discussing this and she suggested that as well just just a moment ago the the people up here don't really have a reason to come through here but our residents may want to come in and out through that exit way too so we really need the two-way traffic in through here Why is that? Well, so our residents could either leave or get in using that alternative access. Now, most of them do use here. The dumpsters are right there as well. Well, yes. The dumpsters for this development are actually on the next development. They're up here, so we need access to those. Any other questions for anybody? No, I was just going to point out I agree. I'm a broken record these days discussing the need for having some affordable housing options. So I do see the need for some of these going to market. However, the thing that would concern me, staff mentioned initially in their report, and I think the applicant just mentioned here briefly as well, is that in the original plan, you know, we did circumvent some of these requirements by going as that, I was a group residential instead of going with the original, I guess, plan to sell eventually. And if it had always been our intention to sell, we would have a much easier road, you know, if that had been addressed easier, I mean, earlier than now. but I am still agreeable to these options. My question is the worst case scenario, could it be approved for all of those three units or those three units could continue to be rental and the others could be platted for sale? Is that? I'll let the applicant answer as to whether or not that's desirable for them, but from our standpoint, technically, yes. Well, we'd have, if we were to do that and keep this as a three-unit lot, we'd have to meet all the lot requirements for this, and I'm not sure we can or not. But the overall goal is not to have a pocket of rental in the midst of the other ones that have been individually sold. We do own the property north of it, right? that has been sold off individually as well and it has been sold okay mr. Stratton wants to buy this one himself I don't think I asked him before the meeting he doesn't want to buy all three he just wants to buy the the the end unit here to live in I know it's a difficult situation but I think the result is a better situation if you approve this then if you leave it as it is. Right now it's a rental community. This space is grass but it's not devoted to any particular recreation. This has been fully occupied. People have lived there in the configuration it is. If you approve this it'll allow us to sell them out individually plus we'll have the commitment to these areas which will be maintained by the homeowners association as well. So I think it's a better situation tomorrow than it is today if you approve the variance for this mr. Murphy are the other properties on the map that you gave us are they rental units or are they going to be sold individually as well in the notification area okay those are these are all we can't sell any of them until the plat is approved so there have been no sales so far the rental i've asked jeff there have been a number of people who have bought them for owner occupying and we think some may not be owner occupied we can't discriminate again on that but we're trying to make it available to people who can purchase those any other questions for mr murphy Should we hear a rebuttal from staff? Yeah, we can. Staff, do you have rebuttal? I think that we can answer any questions that you all have. Again, we have an issue with some of the findings that Mr. Murphy has proposed. So do I. particularly I think number two and number five, that this does not allow for an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. And that, sorry, number three, because the property was developed according to the group residential standards. If the intent had been to subdivide and sell these individually, they should have been developed at that time in that manner. And that was a choice that the applicant made at that time. So that is not a special circumstance or a hardship on the applicant. So we would take issue with those two findings. And we would certainly want to see the pedestrian connections that we've talked about to ensure that these are accessible and usable open space that is safe for individuals living in these three units. I had my issue was with number five but I also had a question about that the and Mr. Murphy your proposed findings I don't I didn't think you needed that anything in number three passed that first sentence uh i thought the rest of it was just um was unnecessary for for findings uh i mean your intent is your intent but doesn't need to be in the findings i'm certainly agreeable to taking that that out yes okay And the last sentence in number five seems to be a statement from the applicant, but not necessarily findings of fact. Okay. Are you able to take out number two? Chairman Glover, we really can't just strike the supporting sentence. Take your mask off, sorry. We can't really just strike the supporting sentence without striking the first part. If you have the first sentence in each of his findings. Which number are you talking about? Both three and five is just basically a repeating of what the ordinance and CARA says. There's a special circumstance. or we're not trying to circumvent the ordinance. Mr. Glibert, would it be helpful if maybe you, the law department, the applicant, and the staff look at these more closely or during the recess? I think a recess is probably in order to talk about this in detail. if we're if we're if the board is divided if it's not divided and we're going to deny it then there's no reason for a recess but we may need a recess to figure that out about that let's take it's 3 20 let's take about 10 minutes and and figure out what we need to figure out okay so 3 30 of PLN BOA 21-68 University properties LLC's request for variance to reduce the required private open space from 10% to four and a half percent in order to subdivide existing townhomes in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 1151 Unity Drive based on the following findings. granting these variances will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not alter the character of the general vicinity, and will not cause a hazard or nuisance to the public because this development has already been built and occupied for over 10 years. Granting the variances will not result in any change to the existing development. There will be no change in number of units or population density. C, it will simply allow the units to be sold separately rather than to one investor. B, granting these variances is generally reasonable because each unit has a private deck, balcony, and grass area. The front yard grass areas on these three lots cannot be counted under the definition of private open space. There also will be common areas maintained by homeowners association to provide other space. and C, strict application of the regulations of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of its land to create an unnecessary hardship because it would prevent the sale of reasonably priced residential units to individual purchasers. And based on the following conditions, one, the applicant shall create a homeowners association to maintain the common area and substantially the configuration is shown on the applicant's exhibit the common area should be available for for use by our residents of the development crosswalks shall be installed to provide direct accessibility to the common area currently identified as children's play area by removing the one parking space directly adjacent to the common area in three the action of the board shall be noted on the final record recorded Platt. Mr. Glover, before I second, did the applicant, was he agreeable to the conditions? Mr. Murphy, did you hear and understand Ms. Carter's reading of the reasons and conditions? The applicant is agreeable, yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you with that, I second. Thank you Mr. Gross. Motion has been made by Ms. Carter, seconded by Ms. Gross. Indicate your vote electronically. Motion carries, good luck with your project. Mr. Glover, I need to recuse from the next suitcases, so I will be taking my lead from the chamber. and i wish you all a happy holiday and happy new year this seems like a fitting in to the year for me and i look forward to seeing everybody in january thank you mr gross we'll see you next year and i'll i'll check my stocking to see if you've given given us all gifts i'll give you two lumps like normal two lumps like normal sure mr walker mr chair i also have to step out after this one and uh contrary to mr grossman i'm not looking forward to seeing you guys in the new year but I'll still believe through it so I wish you guys a Merry Christmas as well I hope so All right, I think we have two left. The next one on my docket is Exeter Newtown Land, PLN VOA 21-69. Is the applicant still here? Mr. Turner? Sorry, I was muffled. We have no objectors at this point. No objectors? They were here. I had another question. Yeah. We were able to resolve. I noticed that as well. This has to do with the sign. Where is the location? I couldn't tell from your map where the signs were going to be. These are at the two entrances. actually I can where the arrows are well they're not arrows exactly they're traffic dividers on the new street there are two entrances into the property Mr. Chair they're denoted by asterisks on your site plan if that will help orient you off of the street aid I see the asterisk that says typical sign it's actually on oh oh I got you okay okay and the request is simply I think we are entitled to two three foot signs at each entrance three square foot signs at each entrance not to exceed three feet in height and we would like a variance to put one six foot square foot sign at each entrance it's a massive project and these are directional signs related to the employees go this way pickup goes that way visitors go this way and so forth so that's they need to be a little larger so six feet would be three by two and not over three feet high so and is that the public street that comes in from Newtown? Yes. Is that a dead end or does that come through? It dead ends back in the back. So there's no access on to the citation development? Not at this point. There may there is a connectivity that will likely occur sometime in the future through other property to that street and man and then you have a link with man of war up right up above as well but the plat is actually being signed now by the owner to dedicate that street and it was always it was all meant always meant to be a public street and it will be submitted to planning here shortly as soon as we get it back is all the traffic going to come in to that that Western entrance there are two entrances actually one at that new street and one to the you can see it on this exactly but it's right right in here yeah and that's where those are both right in right outs but you don't need signs you don't need signs at that entrance we have two signs they are permitted one one large sign at each on each street frontage and so there's one sign at the south southernmost entrance which is already permitted and and then one sign on the corner of the new street in newtown which is actually permitted on the new street if that makes sense so those are taken care of okay it was just these two directionals originally we had asked for a variance for for three signs but we were able to resolve the one side at the southern entrance by just making sure the addresses we recognized we had two public streets i see on the schematic that the top left side top left corner looks like what is going to be the typical sign is that yes yes and is that going to be the same sign for both in both locations they will be slightly different depending on the directions right the arrows might be arrows will go in different directions yes okay any other other questions for mr turner i i had one thing that i would like to if i could just then the staffs would I do it on the weird is on the the last condition where it says Board of Adjustment action shall be noted on the car Larry final development plan for the site there there already is a final development plan there's likely not to be another amended development plan so if we could change that language to read noted on any future development plans or record plat and we'll get it on the record plat right away that's getting ready to be submitted is that okay with staff yes that's fine okay any other questions for Mr. Turner from the remaining board members. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Move for approval for PLNBOA 21-69, Exeter, Newtown, Land, LLC. Request variances to increase the allowable area of two traffic directional signs from three square feet each to six square feet each by transferring three square feet each from two other allowable traffic directional signs along the same frontage in a light industrial zone on property located at 1180 Newtown Pike based on the staff's recommendation and the three recommendations including the changes made on number three. Thank you Mr. Clark is there a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor indicate your vote. Motion carries. Good luck with your project, Mr. Turner. I think you need more signs, but they say we can't do that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're limited. Thank you. All right, the last case is PLN BOA 21 day 67251 E. Maxwell LLC request for conditional use. Applicant present come on up to the podium. Good afternoon my name is Jake Michael I'm an attorney with Denton Bingham Greenbaum here on behalf of the applicant and I have Gordy Hoagland and Eric Bivens who are representatives of the applicant here with me today. In the interest of time I won't go into too much detail this is a conditional use application to operate a fraternity house in the former Chrysalis House building and property at the corner of East Maxwell and Stone Avenue. It's an existing building. There will be a little bit of interior fit up and renovation, but exterior-wise, it will continue to look quite like it has for some time. There's a long history of fraternity houses operating at this location as far back as the 1950s, as I understand it. The staff has recommended approval in addition to the conditional use. One aspect of this application is to reduce the required parking from seven spaces to six. As part of their approval, the staff has requested that part of the current asphalt parking lot be removed and replaced with landscaping. And as I understand it, the primary intent of that is to deter unauthorized or impromptu parking. and what I would like to submit and put up on the monitor is an alternative site plan that I run by staff. For various reasons that I'll get into, we would prefer not to go to the unanticipated time and expense of removing existing asphalt and putting landscaping in place. Partially that's because of the cost, but also partially because this relatively small area there, which hopefully you can see on the screen, is more usable to the fraternity as paved area than it would be as landscaped area. It's a relatively small space that's behind those planters in the back of the property along the parking area. We've already worked with staff to come up with this parking configuration you see here, which accounts for six spaces. as it currently stands. We believe that you could fit eight, and that's kind of how it's striped at the time, or at this time. And so to avoid the parking issue, but without going to the expense of removing the asphalt, we propose to put these planters in that will deter that parking, but allow us to use that area for more maneuverability to come in and out of the parking lot or back out of parking spaces, avoid a muddy mess where cars are, you know, traipsing or inching into the landscaped area along the edge, It will allow access to the air compressor units that are sort of next to that enclosed porch that you see there. On your left, you can see those boxes. They're not labeled, but it says enclosed porch, and just immediately to the left of that, there are two air compressor units. So having that remain as asphalt with the physical barrier to parking will let us use that for access, for entry, for move in, for move out, for maintenance, for deliveries, for all kinds of things that require some use of the pavement going forward. So we've gone back and forth with the staff on what exactly the nature of those planters would be and whether they would be movable or permanently affixed to the land in the interest of accommodating everybody's interest, providing that barrier to parking, but allowing us a use. My client would be open to those planters being permanently affixed so that they couldn't be moved as soon as this is approved and they're installed, moved off to the side and disregarded permanently. So my understanding is that there will be some openness on the staff to accepting that. I'll defer to any questions you all have for me or my client or for the staff. I have some comments sort of administratively if the board is open to this related to some of the specific conditions that I'll get into, but this might be a good time to pause to see if there are any questions. Well, first, let's go to the staff and see if you all are in agreement with the substituting planters for removing the asphalt. I think that we would most prefer, of course, the condition that we recommended, but we do understand the applicant's desire to have that hardscape space for outdoor activities that would occur on a patio. But we do have concerns that if those planters were able to be moved, which they had previously indicated a desire for those to be moved to accept deliveries and things like that, that we would not be in support of that. But if they are permanently affixed and unable to be moved and would truly prevent any informal sort of parking to occur in this area, then we are generally agreeable to that. Mr. Michael, there's only one way in and out of this property, right? Yes, and that's part of the reason we'd rather do these planters than rip that parking out, because it will allow a little bit of extra space to back in and out and pull in and out. But it's hard to see on this image, but there will be a 24-foot drive aisle in between. And with the planter structure, it'll be a little bit more than that. But there'll be at least 24 feet for ingress and egress in the parking lot, which I believe is what the traffic engineer had asked for. is the standard for the two-way traffic. Okay. Yeah, I was just going to ask staff to maybe articulate a little bit more while we were requesting the removal. We were requesting the removal because without those planters shown there, that area is just paved currently. There is not sufficient space for a formal parking space in those areas, but it's enough that you might look at it and think, oh, I could park there. And that's a pretty common thing that we see in the campus area is folks trying to cram as many vehicles in as they possibly can. And that does create traffic issues. So we're trying to prevent that as best we can. And our hope is that we've accommodated by making them permanent, both of those interests. If there aren't any questions, I know there are some folks here to speak in opposition. I had, as I said, a few kind of administrative cleanup comments related to the specific conditions in the staff's report. I don't know if you want me to address those or to. Go ahead. Essentially, and I'll go in reverse order, five is the requirement. Condition five is the condition that requires removal of the asphalt and replacement with landscaping. And so we would propose to just replace that with the applicant agrees to maintain permanently affixed planters substantially in accordance with this most recent submitted plan here today. and then the second cleanup item I guess I go in and reverse orders number four which it states that the final configuration of the parking area shall be subject to approval by the division of traffic engineering and the parking area shall be paved with spaces delineated and landscape screened in accordance with the requirements of zoning ordinance the landscaping is kind of become a non-issue because we're using these planters versus actually removing the asphalt and then as far as the the final configuration of the parking area the configuration here is actually less parking than what currently exists and what we had initially hoped to have and so we've we've come up with this configuration in working with the staff and traffic engineering so as far as we're concerned, this is the final configuration and wanted to clarify for the record that we don't need any further approval if we're going to have parking that complies with this site plan. We're just not sure what those further approvals would be or what would be necessary. Where are you referring to? I'm sorry? Yeah, number four, sorry. Condition four. Oh, subject to the approval. Okay. And so I would suggest that given we have reconfigured the parking for this plan and we have come to a different agreement on how to mitigate improper parking, that condition four is not relevant and we don't need that or anything in its place. I would say that that's a pretty typical condition that we place on conditional uses and other applications that we see. Just that is really sort of a relief valve for whenever this goes through the permitting process that traffic engineering will see the plan and that this gives them a little bit of wiggle room to make some minor adjustments to what you all have approved should it be needed. Of course, traffic engineering has looked at this and has not identified any problems at this time, but I think we would prefer that that condition remain just in case to allow them to have a little bit of discretion. I think taking the condition out would cut out traffic engineering altogether, and we don't want to do that. We like them to keep their hand in it, and they like that too. We will keep that in. Sure. But the other one, your first suggestion on number five, I think, is reasonable because of what you've shown us on the overhead. And I assume that overhead sheet is going to be made a portion of the record of this particular application. Is that correct? That would be our hope, that we can make it part of the record and we can submit it into the online system post-hearing. but yes we would want this site plan to be the site plan that is under consideration and the staff had seen that in advance yeah we'd like that too um any questions for mr michael well we still we would still remove the second part of number four though about the landscape and screen portion i think that it's it's appropriate either way honestly article 18 is our typical landscaping requirements but since this area is already paved they would not be be required by Article 18 to install new landscaping that would be required if they were paving it today. So they'll be in accordance with Article 18 as it is. So I think that that condition can go or stay. It's not increasing what they have to do. Sure, and I think that we're fine with that, particularly in light of that comment. The issue is just kind of the surprise that we presented this configuration and my client proceeds to purchase the property based on having been approved for this and that we understand what our obligations are, and there's not so much wiggle room that we're asked to do what we thought had been resolved otherwise. So if staff is fine striking that, we'd request to do that, and if the Division of Traffic Engineering approval is kind of a standard matter and understanding what's been said here, we're fine to leave that portion of the... Yeah, we're on the record here. So whatever record we make here is the record that you can rely on and staff can rely on too. That's why we go into such detail. Yeah, of course. So my recommendation is to leave it in with the understanding that the planners are going to be in compliance of Article 16 and 18 of the zoning ordinance. Understood. Is that a fair statement? That's fine. Thank you. Okay. And unless you have other questions for me, that's all I have. Or my client, like I said, they'd be happy to speak. Any other questions for Mr. Michael? Thank you. Have a seat. We may have some people in opposition to your application, and we'll hear from them. Thank you. All right. Who's in opposition? How many of those hands that are raised want to speak? uh okay i will i will allow you uh three minutes each to speak and i'd prefer that you not repeat anything that that uh the other one has said that'll make it more efficient for you and for us and you can pick the order that you want to go into it's up it's up to you you Hi there good afternoon. My name is Peggy McAllister. I live on Stone Avenue. I have property there as as well as my sister We live there. We also have rental property Right next to the property in question is another fraternity that was approved on a location that was inadequate for the amount of members in the fraternity We found immediately that the five parking spots they had were immediately discarded. It was parked solid with cars, including on the grass, leaving muddy places where the landscaping used to be once it was driven over many times. Because of the nature of a fraternity being a large organization, there's a lot more people that belong to that than who live there. So when there's a game or event, a lot of people come and clog up the street. This area is already over packed as far as parking goes. There's a lot of students that park there that go to the university. There's people that live on the street that use street parking. So there isn't a sufficient amount of street. In addition, the street itself is not wide enough to accommodate a lot of people. It's only like a lane and a half wide with the parking. Is there parking on the street? There is. And so the corner, we need. Is it on both sides of the street? Just on one side. Okay. there's about a lane and a half. So it's very difficult to go up and down the street with existing parking. Especially on that corner on that picture where it's yellow often people are parked there and two people cannot pass each other to get in or out of the street. So parking is a real issue in this neighborhood and allowing more residents than there are parking spaces is not practical because I know as if when I was a student I had given my 30 or some parking tickets I wanted to park as close as I could to where I lived so I wanted to move my luggage and my food and everything else I'm not going to park and then you have the intention of I'll move my car later to the parking lot down the way or whatever but it doesn't happen so that's just it's just not practical in perfect world we want everybody to do what they're supposed to but that's not what's going to happen there we've already seen that with the other fraternity that was approved. They never, they didn't obey the rules from day one. So, and that's right across the street. So we already have, well I think other people are going to talk about the excessive partying that ensued after that fraternity was approved for that area. Even though they're required by the university to follow university rules about partying and stuff, it doesn't mean they don't rent a property just on our street and then cause a lot of mayhem there on the street so um i uh i think we want infill you know we agree with that but this is in this case it's overfill so please consider disproving this um motion because uh it's just it's too much for the area so thanks for listening to my concerns and i think we have some others want to speak as well thank you miss mccallister who wants to go next got a little tangled up here i guess we're free now my name is amy clark and i live at 638 castle road um i think your first question has got to be what's one more? There's so many fraternities and sororities around here. There's such chaos. There's such disorder. What could be the objection to having one more? I think it's a tipping point. It's a question of there could be a firestorm. One more is one too many. It's already an area that's overtaxed and it's a time in the traditions and the behavior of fraternities that is also at a crisis, I would urge denial of this fraternity use. It's characterized as an administrative house, an administrative fraternity house. It will have only 10 members resident in 10 single bedrooms. This seems to be what they have in mind. They're adding a bath. and the rest, the entire downstairs, well except for one bedroom, the large meeting area downstairs, which you can view on the real estate listing noted, will be for gatherings. You know that the zoning ordinance allows living and or gathering quarters for a fraternity, so if you allow the fraternity, you allow both, unless you attach certain conditions with good cause for attaching them. An administrative fraternity house represents an extraordinary increase in intensity of use for this property of less than a quarter acre. Greek houses in the immediate vicinity are past the saturation point already. In fact, the corner house faces a sorority just across Maxwell and the Kappa Alpha fraternity across Stone. And I would add that Kappa Alpha is currently under censure, under procedures, disciplinary procedures with the university council, the fraternity council. Many Greek chapters have been sanctioned by the university for bad behavior in recent years. I have to say I object very much that our speaking time should be limited when no other was. This matter is important to all of us, and we have things to say. For the past 35 years and more, this property has been used for a residential rehab home. If you look on the photos of the real estate listing with Block and Lot, the second floor has five bedrooms. Three of those have two beds each. The other two have a bed and a crib. It houses, counting the cribs, ten people. Offices are found on the ground floor and also the third floor under the eaves. I can't even tell, but that's for building permits to tell whether that's habitable space. They propose sleeping rooms under those EFs. The Chrysalis House for Recovery from Alcohol and Drug Dependency has been a very welcome neighbor. Its women and their families have contributed to the civility and stability of the community. It adds variety of housing and residence to the neighborhood. Ms. Clark, do you need extra time? I would thank you for extra time. It's given into the record, but I would appreciate it if you had the opportunity to hear it. Can you think you can finish up in another two minutes? I can try. I think probably I'll need three, four. We'll give you another two minutes. Go right ahead. Okay. The bulk of the ground floor and open plan great room with a kitchen opening off the rear would provide space for gatherings, whether study session, ceremonies, or parties. For the 129 fraternity members, this is not a small fraternity, plus their alumni, plus their guests. This is what's permitted in general for a fraternity permit. We neighbors call this kind of an establishment a party house. There are fraternities which will rent a house in a neighborhood. They don't always go through a permit for a fraternity, but they use it for gatherings. They don't live there. have the stability and the civility that comes with actually living there. For example, guests at the party are not going to lose their home if they misbehave. They're not going to be hit in that degree. I won't tell you the zoning ordinance. You can read it. The immediate vicinity is oversaturated with Greek houses. They make a disproportionate claim on city services, and I mean police, emergency code, and zoning enforcement. noise, nuisance, drug and alcohol abuse, danger and threat of violence and medical emergency, there is constant call for city services. And it belongs to you to consider whether city services are adequate. UK does join in enforcing a student code of behavior, giving oversight of fraternity affairs, and also UK policing. But it can control these matters best when students are resident on campus and especially hold their official university-affiliated Greek society's gatherings there. UK suspended this Sigma Chi fraternity, the applicant, then about 100 members in 2018 for a single year for various infractions, including alcohol and drugs. They used to have quite a large house on Columbia Avenue opposite the library with room for members resident. In the two years following, they've shown some good behavior. More recently, two other fraternities saw disciplinary action by UK. SAE was suspended for two years, asked to vacate the facility. Delta Sigma Phi was associated with them in one incident, they may have been the victims, was reportedly revoked as a student organization. Late this October, there was a young man who died in the farmhouse fraternity. It seems to have been alcohol poisoning. They suspended that fraternity's activities. And in fact, all pledge activities are suspended and the older members of the fraternities have to go through retraining. So what's going on here is you have a question about is this the right location, but also is this the right location in time? The fraternities are really in crisis right now. It's a terrible thing. I think it's associated with the virus. The Kappa Alpha directly across Stone is one of the ones under sanction. The staff recommends not adding a null and void condition should you grant the fraternity application. The only reason to grant it would be if you found these gentlemen exemplary and had every promise of never needing extraordinary enforcement activity. Surely, the last thing it needs is to leave off the null and void condition. They're not making the kind of investment, like if you build a church, yes, you don't want. it you'd want to be able to transfer it if need be because you've built a whole church there they're doing a few interior modifications it is not fair for UK to send its errant Greek houses members and activities off campus into the neighborhoods certainly and this is for you it is not reasonable that this board allow this fraternity use at an unsuitable location overburdened already at a time when things are not going well for fraternities in general. And that it set conditions seeking to make it compatible with the neighborhood, which is your responsibility, and thus accept on behalf of the city the responsibility of enforcing these conditions. And I know some of you on the board, I guess Mr. Glover and possibly Mr. Maybe just him. you remember a lengthy and difficult series of pleas for revocation, hearings, amended conditions, eventual elimination of a troublesome use on Euclid associated with large gatherings and bad behavior. And in the end, it was not the board here that was able to revoke that use and cure that situation despite the neighbor's repeated pleas and endeavors. It was the alcohol, the state liquor license. Do you need more time? Yes, just a little. You can see that I am organized. I am saying different things. I do see that. That's why I've been granting additional time. Do you think you can wrap up in a couple of minutes? You can see what I have, and some of it I don't need to go through in every elaborate detail. Let's see if another two minutes will be sufficient for you. Thank you. Sure. Does a fraternity that has been suspended and shown good behavior for two years following that one-year suspension deserve a chance? Does it deserve a fresh start? Absolutely it does, but not at the heart of a neighborhood already suffering too much where complaints and offenses abound and the city labors to control the situation, not terribly effectively. Not when the enormous burden of oversight and enforcement must fall upon the neighbors. That fraternity belongs on campus in a residential facility adequate to its membership of 129 brothers, not every one, I'm sure, with gathering places available for its use, assembly halls, places that are within the campus and among like folks, and under the closer supervision and collaboration of university staff and services, for instance, regarding use of alcohol. I ask that the board deny the fraternity house use at 251 East Maxwell for the following reasons. and I'm offering for you to work with. The property is not adequate to house any significant proportion of the membership, and use of the house primarily for large assemblies and social gatherings, which we tend to call a party house, is inappropriate in a residential zone. It's a permitted conditional use in that zone, but the conditions you need to attach to make it compatible with this fraught area are extraordinary. The number and scope of the conditions you need to make this work is enough to argue that it's a bad use for the area. The immediate vicinity is saturated with fraternity and sorority uses and distressed and overburdened with offenses and complaints arising from the same. The applicant has not demonstrated that the house and its meeting space are adequate to the numbers anticipated to the particular uses and scope of them that it intends to have there. The occupancy permitted by fire and building code regulation is not known. I'd like to know that. I know that comes in the condition of getting necessary permits. And finally, this is not a dreadful hardship to say no. At this location, the applicant has the opportunity to seek facilities on the university campus to better meet its needs. And I would add that one of the alumni has been very forthcoming and had long and friendly discussion and this alumni rep was explaining that the dorm fees are too high for them. If you have an on-campus fraternity you're paying UK's a thousand a month for the dorm space. And all I can say to that is to their credit two of their most significant alumni, significant sigmas, are Paul Cheldgren who donated a residence hall and Thomas Lewis who donated the honors hall. In the unwelcome event that the board is inclined to approve the use I ask that the board consider further conditions such as those drafted here and I will sketch them but I will not go through them it's it's really something the community has already asked the applicant whether they could postpone this hearing to kind of get some better sense of whether we could agree or how. So these are more draft. We do have the written list that you tendered. We have the list before us, so you don't have to read those. So I'll just comment on them. They're part of the record. We'll make them part of the record. Okay. And your time has expired, Ms. Clark. Okay, well, I thank you for giving me some of the time that I needed. Because this is very important to the neighborhood. I don't think they need a variance because they have the option of contract parking with the university under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance 16-7. And, of course, the conditions of staff we welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Hi, I shouldn't need more than three minutes of speaking, and I've got about a minute of a video of behavior in my neighborhood that I'd like to show after I speak. Okay, that'll be fine. Tell us your name, please. Okay, so my name is Vita Vitaliano. I live at two four zero stone Avenue which is right behind the two five one East Maxwell Street property I've been there for the past five years it's an area of mixed residents regular working folks retired people disabled folks in rehab let me stop you for just a show have you been sworn in oh I have not I was supposed to ask about that you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you thank you uh and the rest of you that have spoken are planning to speak have you have you all been sworn in have not let let let me have you stand uh the ones of you that have spoken and have not. Yeah, we just missed it. All speakers at the beginning were asked to swear, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. Should I begin at the beginning? Sure, let's do that. Why don't you begin at the beginning? Okay. My name is Vita Vitaliano. I live at 240 Stone Avenue which is located right behind 251 East Maxwell Street location. I've been there for the past five years. It's an area of mixed residents, regular working folks, retired people, disabled folks in rehabilitation as well as university students and staff. The Chrysalis House and its residents have been excellent neighbors and we're really sad to see them leave our area. In a good faith effort to explore the viability of establishing a fraternity house at this address, I recently met with a representative for the Sigma Chi project. It was a pleasant and productive first meeting. We discussed ideas regarding Sigma Chi's possible stewardship role in our area. The vision seems plausible, but discussion is neither policy nor means to enforce any policy. I feel it's necessary to have those critical elements in place, that is, both policies and conditions, as well as the means to enforce those policies and conditions, prior to allowing a broader Greek community footprint off campus. I'll list some but not all obstacles that will require legally binding remedies in order for the neighborhood to accept the establishment of yet another fraternity house. Six parking spaces for 10 residents plus guests will be a burden on other residents as well as work and school commuters who park in the area. There's already a 24-7 parking violations issue, many of which are by the Kappa Alpha Order Fraternity at 253 East Maxwell, which exists on the corner of East Maxwell and Stone Avenue across the street from 251. I do have many photos of proof of this. Also, noise-related activities, which includes but not limited to official meetings, social gatherings, and more. continued upkeep of property, including long-term maintenance, but also temporary ongoing incursions of trash, etc. These are all problems that currently exist with the fraternity presence that's already there, by the way. Establishment of another chapter house in the area will inevitably attract more Greek-affiliated residents and activity in a residential neighborhood that is currently overwhelmed by young white male students of a particular type, specifically fraternity partiers, noting that there are sorority participants as well. The list of issues is longer, but I'll leave it there. I have documentation to back up all of my claims, photos, videos, letters to and from law enforcement, UK city council, and so forth, as we have all tried, mostly in vain, to do discover and apply remedies. I'd like to thank the Lexington Police Department actually for really saving us last year when it was just hell in our neighborhood. Each year the behavior of the Greek party culture in our area and other near campus areas has increasingly imparted a negative impact on the quality of life for neighborhood residents and has destroyed properties both public and private. Concerned residents are already acting as neighborhood babysitters for these bad actors. I ask that you don't add to our burden by allowing an increased Greek foothold in our area. I have provided a one-minute video that sums up the treatment of regular neighborhood residents by fraternity members residing in our off-campus residential neighborhoods. I was recording one of the many fraternity party hops that had been plaguing the neighborhood. After I stopped this recording, which we'll play, a ball of ice thrown hard from the crowd nearly hit me in the head. Hey, put your mask on! She's recording you! Hey, cut! You're fucking cut! What are you doing? What are you trying to do? I don't have it to sound. There's more name calling and cursing and... Yeah, he cuts a bit. because of the vulgarities? We can't hear that. It's full of vulgarities. They're calling me names. And were you just recording this on your phone? It's just on my iPhone. So the story is, previous to this, I saw that party hopping was starting to begin. It was beginning. And I went over to Grosvenor Avenue, which was one of the main party hop houses, just to get some photos and so forth. Someone had already called the police. Someone had been calling the police over on Grosvenor regularly. And I was just in the crowd. I have photos of being in the crowd and how many people there were. There were at least 100 people all in the streets, the sidewalks, everything. And I hadn't said a word to anybody except just before I started recording, a girl in a car asked me what I was doing and I said I was making a recording for student conduct, which I did send this to student conduct. And that's all I had said all day. They knew who I was because I was friendly when they moved in. I don't talk to move-ins anymore. And I introduced myself and gave them the rules and ordinances and how to behave in the neighborhood. And I was very polite like I'm being now. but they were just basically high school bullies who'd come to college. What was the location of that video? That was right on the corner right outside my house, the corner of Kalmia and Stone Avenue. What was the house we were looking at? That was 249, residence of 249 Stone Avenue. Was that a fraternity house? It was an unofficial fraternity house. There were many meetings. That was a Kappa Sigma stronghold in the area. They were the main culprits last year. But many houses right along that area and down East Maxwell Street to Lexington Avenue, those are all party houses. And Hagerman Courts now being taken over by party houses, which is sad because I've lived in these neighborhoods off and on since the 80s. And I've watched Hagerman Court come up that was basically a slum back in the 80s and early 90s. And it was looking really good when I moved back into this neighborhood a few years ago. And it's going downhill really fast due to the partying. And I just don't know how we can get control. I've been trying to work with UK. Got some inroads there. Of course, they're resistant to change. We've been working with Hannah and other council members to try and hammer some things out to change policies and ordinances and so forth. But as you know, it's a long process. And even though, I mean, we had a good meeting with a Sigma Chi representative, there's, I mean, words are one thing, but things have to be on paper. And we're still going to have to police it. I mean, who's going to make sure these conditions, even if we hammer some good ones out, who's going to make sure they're enforced? Okay. Any questions? Well, I just wondered when the video was taken. That was last, I think it was January. 2021? 2021, yes. Those residents have moved out. New ones have moved in. The neighborhood wasn't quite so bad this year. and that's the pattern. The bad years, we hammer on them with law enforcement. Then the next year, it'll be quiet. After a quiet year, it'll be bad again because no one's gotten ticket citations and so forth. So with another fraternity house in the neighborhood next year, I just, I'm concerned. Thank you, Ms. Vitagliano. Thank you for listening. I appreciate it. Good afternoon, my name is Chris Eustis, 709 Lenn Road. I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal for the change to have a fraternity there. I'm a former employee at the University of Kentucky, and I've lived in a neighborhood, and observed all sorts of behavior that is basically toxic because of the university and the city and enforcement and landlords and students and fraternities and sororities allowing it to continue for several decades. I've even been held up at gunpoint and nothing was done. Police didn't show up even when I called it in. I'm also objecting to a couple of the staff recommendations. where it says under number C, granting the variants should not be adversely affecting the public health, safety or welfare. I don't believe that. I think this toxic behavior has proven itself time and time again in and around university neighborhoods, including Waller Avenue, not just Stone Avenue, Park Avenue, where I had friends, A family, including their grandson, had to put up with the violence and the fighting and the drunkenness and lack of enforcement of various codes and ordinances with the city. They put in a party ordinance, but that has not stopped anything. So, yeah, this is not good. The UK and the affiliates such as the fraternities and sororities should not be giving anything for at least a year, coming up with some kind of system to put them on hold where that they don't get anything. We've given them services, public services, material, probably money, and all sorts of aid, and we're supporting bad behavior. We need to support good behavior. Give them a year as some kind of probationary period before any of these kind of variances be changed over to fraternity and sororities because we know their behavior. They trashed the neighborhood. They're violent. People have died, and it's not good, and nobody's being held accountable for it. And until somebody says, okay, it stops here and says no more. They have to grow up, learn how to be adults, and learn how to be good neighbors and citizens. And that goes with the university as well. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Eustis. Is anyone else speaking in opposition? I don't see any. Mr. Michael, you want to come back up and speak? Yes, I'll be brief. We've heard a lot. It was kind of a general theme. I think a lot of it, you know, and it's all terrible behavior, lots of things that were described. But a fraternity house is a specific contemplated use in this area. We are pursuing this under the zoning ordinance. Unlike a lot of these houses, they're not formal fraternities. So the fact that this is a formal university sanctioned fraternity is a good thing. In fact, they're subject to the zoning ordinances, local laws, the university student code of conduct, plus the university and the national fraternity zone governance of what's going on. So we certainly don't condone any of that behavior. Who enforces that? I mean, locally speaking, I think that we've heard from some of the opposition that by just calling law enforcement, it does make a difference. Again, I can't speak to what other people have done or don't do, but I think that if behavior that isn't appropriate is going on, there are channels to enforce it. I can't speak specifically to how the university. Does the University of Kentucky enforce its code of conduct? Yes, absolutely. And I think that they can tell you, and based on what people read in the news, you see an awful lot about fraternities losing their official standing with the university and that sort of thing. So this is not that situation. You know, we're certainly sensitive to the situation that is going on there. But, you know, I've talked to my clients and advised them, and they're well aware that that's not acceptable behavior and don't have any intention of doing those sorts of things. So as far as fraternities and students as a whole, if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to address those, but I would just leave it at that as a general matter. Does Sigma Chi have another location? They do not have another location, no. So Sigma Chi has not had a fraternity house connected with the University of Kentucky? They have been an official fraternity as recognized by the university, but they've not had a house on campus in a couple of years. I believe that they've been using dormitories and this is an opportunity for them to have a house. Okay. If there are any other questions, I'd be happy to address. Any questions for Mr. Michael? Yeah, clarify that for me, please, sir. They have had a house on campus, have they not? In the past. They have had a house on campus. They do not currently have a house on campus, which is why these successful upstanding members of the community who are alumni of the fraternity are helping them with this opportunity. It may not be pertinent to this discussion, but why do they no longer have a house on campus? I do not. I don't know if one of you all can speak to that. Eric Bivens, a member of the 251 East Maxwell LLC. I personally do not know why they were kicked off, but I'm sure the University of Kentucky can provide that information. Was Sigma Chi kicked off campus? They were not kicked off campus. They were removed from their housing on Pennsylvania Avenue. Okay, so they did have a house on Pennsylvania Avenue. The house was owned by the university. It was a house that was owned by the university, as you can tell driving through campus. fraternities, sororities get shuffled all around as do the rest of the, you know, everything else around campus. So they were never kicked off campus, quote unquote. They've always been an active fraternity. There are some that you could read about in the news where that's not the case. But this wasn't a matter of being, quote unquote, kicked out. But the university had other uses for their house, whatever those might have been and whatever their motivations might have been. But they were not, quote unquote, kicked off. It wasn't a discipline matter. Not to my knowledge. Yeah, again, I think it's, I don't know why they were kicked off or out of the house. Why they lost the kiosk using that house. Thank you. Mr. Michael. Could you just explain, you mentioned this, and I don't know if I read it or not, what the difference is between this house and an administrative house? That is something that was brought up by one of the objectors. that was not particularly part of our application. I don't know the answer to that either. Any other questions? A question for staff. It is true, isn't it, that conditional uses are reviewed annually? That is correct. Okay. and if there are violations of conditions they can come back they will come back before us that's correct so conditional uses are inspected annually by our zoning enforcement officers and as any complaints come in our zoning enforcement officers would would investigate a complaint but at the time of their annual inspection they would ensure that all of the conditions that were approved by the board were being met and if they were not they would give the applicant the opportunity to come back into compliance and if that proved to be an issue where we could not reach compliance the board could potentially lead to a revocation hearing or other that would that would be the next step I guess if the conditions were unable to be met or the applicant could apply to have a condition removed or something like that can you can you tell me how many members sigma chi has right now and i know we're talking about 10 people in the house but how many members of the sorority this fraternity so i believe the number and it was listed in our justification letter i think it's 129 active members but that's a little bit misleading not every one of them is in that house on a given day not everyone that is in town i think that statistically the number of people attending any event whether it's a meeting or studying or or anything else is much less. The number of people in the property will be conducive to the size of the property at any given time, I mean just physically speaking. That was my question. If you have a fraternity meeting which is required certain periods of time, do all those people come and how many people are there? I can't speak to that for certain and there's going to be some variability, but I think that on an average meeting, attendance is somewhere closer to the 25 to 50 person range, maybe, and the thing to keep in mind is that a lot of these people live on campus. They live in dorms, they walk. They have the ability to lease parking in university parking lots. They all know one another. It's not an apartment complex of strangers, so most likely they're riding together. So the answer is there'll be a more modest number of people. At times, there will be more than others, but always conducive to the size of the house. It wouldn't make sense for them to even attempt this if it wasn't so. Let me speak as a former professor at UK. None of my students would have acted like that. I'm kidding. I am very concerned about this student action, and I've seen it myself, And I'm very worried that in a community like this, it really bothers me that residents have to undergo this. That's just really a shame and I feel your pain. I don't know how this particular fraternity controls itself. I have no way to know that. But I am concerned about the action of students who are not well disciplined. And I'm not saying that this is not an appropriate application by any means, but I want to know the objectors that I want them to know that I really feel your pain. Because I've seen it, I understand it, I understand the students. And I think it's up to the university to make things like this not happen. And I think one of the things we have to understand is that a lot of the action is not people that are residents of a fraternity or even members of a fraternity. They're students who live in these houses and they're all over that area. You all know that. And so I don't think we should indemnify the idea of fraternities being the cause of this. Yes, we've seen some problems, but I don't think we can blame the fraternities or sororities for conduct of students who are not well disciplined. So I think I have to consider that as well in considering this application. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any other questions for Mr. Michael? If not, what's your pleasure? Ms. Clark, did you have a question? I have additional information in response to what the applicant has said. What kind of information? Well, by the way, it's rebuttal. We don't, yeah. Mr. Michael is in rebuttal. You are in opposition. We don't allow SIR rebuttal. There's no provision in our bylaws for SIR rebuttal. So. Well, there is information you don't have. There's a purpose. And actually there is misinformation that will be presented. Okay. We'll hear that. up to the podium and tell us what we haven't heard so far. And I'll give you three minutes. And in all fairness, I should say it's in the record, there are links to the record I sent electronically that furnish this background information. Apparently they don't know the infraction or the offense or what went on. The fraternity was suspended for a year. It did lose its house at the corner of Columbia and Pennsylvania. The infraction, there were several, but some of it was associated with drugs and alcohol. I believe the phrase administrative house comes from the letters of application. of the applicant. The important thing to consider is that this whole process of enforcement is complaint driven and I believe you've seen very clearly what the neighbors go through to give information that's pertinent evidence and to assist in the enforcement and it's extraordinary burden that falls on these neighbors. The intent alone of good behavior I believe is not sufficient for you to adopt this use for this location. Not here, not now, not another. Directly across the street, across Stone, is a fraternity that is currently under discipline and this fraternity was under discipline it lost its house which was not just a party house an administrative house with a with a with a few officers but a residential house it's it's very telling that they don't seem to know the history of their own fraternity it's wonderful that they're doing better now the question is whether it warrants allowing another conditional use what kind of conditions would you have to write for that use to really make it work and how much of the work and the suffering comes from the nearest neighbors who want to live a civilized life and in fact personally from what i know of vita Vitaliano. She has been the champion of student welfare, of safety code enforcement, and of their own safety, keeping them from risks and dangers. They're losing their lives at times. And for her to be targeted as someone known to be someone who gives information and works with the university city governance and works with the city and the police, please ask them to be on campus at this juncture. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. There are links in the electronic record and one of them is actually information from the university regarding infractions and discipline. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Michael, I do have one question for you. Is the fraternity in good standing at the University of Kentucky? And this is something, and the objection in the record was apparently submitted just before this hearing, so I haven't seen any of these pictures. If there is information that the fraternity was suspended or sanctioned in the past, I won't dispute the fact. I don't want to accept something that was stated that's not official, but if that's the case, I certainly don't dispute anything that would have been reported. They are in good standing now, and my understanding is they have been at least for several years. There's a turnover in the university, and there's a turnover in fraternities, and sometimes you do get bad actors anywhere, whether it's a fraternity or anything else, and if there were events that were associated with this fraternity in the past, but again, I don't dispute anything that happened. I just don't personally know, and it wasn't brought up, so I have not researched some of those things in detail. But they are in good standing now. And one of the conditions that the staff had requested is that we would be operating in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct, and it goes without saying that we intend to be a fraternity house for an officially sanctioned fraternity in good standing. Would it be fair to say that if the fraternity violates the student code of conduct, which is a condition of the conditional use, that that would be grounds for repealing the conditional use? I have to talk to my client about that. an initial reaction I guess one it I'm trying to think of how to phrase this as a conditional use for a fraternity house that under the staff's recommendations would allow that use of this site it you know something to the effect of again I'd like to talk to my client before I commit to anything but what I'm thinking is something to the effect of it would not be leased for use as a fraternity house for a fraternity that was not recognized by the the university. If one person was punished that had nothing to do with this house or something, I don't know how to answer that question in one sentence if that makes sense. I think condition 6 addresses that and it says the conditional use shall be transferable to another fraternity or sorority that operates in compliance with the approved conditions. Any fraternity or sorority that occupies the premises shall be a University of Kentucky recognized fraternity or sorority that subscribes to the student code of conduct. I guess that's what I'm getting at is that I think it's covered it will be a fraternity that's recognized if there are people who do things they shouldn't they will be you know dealt with according to the code of conduct. Thank you Mr. Michael. Thank you. Any other questions for anybody on the board from the board? No I'll just mention you know i'm empathize with the issues i've got a teenager that will be in college soon i have no pray that he's one of the good ones i was also in college myself and as you said i know how the the turnovers go it is a unallowable condition uh... and it is the area in which it would be most convenient to have such a condition the expectation is that those houses need to be in close proximity to the university so uh... i don't think that we can get into the business uh... monitoring behavior you know that the things that happen afterwards outside of our purview i just want to stay in our particular lane and authority on the the use the conditional use which is allowable and whether or not we're gonna give a variance for parking spaces Thank you, Ms. Carter. Any other comments from the board? I would have to agree with Ms. Carter. Yeah, well said. Are you ready to vote? I'll entertain a motion. Sorry, that was me. Before you vote, I think Mr. Parker would like to add some clarification to the record. Mr. Parker, sure. We'll be glad to hear from you. Just so everyone knows, today is the first time that I saw that plan and the permanent fixture of the planters was proposed. But one thing that I noticed, I was back looking at Google Street View and the placement of the proposed planters is such that you can still get a car. So what one of the conditions, and so they wanted to know what their costs were, we would want those planters placed at the edge of that 24-foot drive aisle to prevent vehicles from illegally parking. An additional cost and one of the conditions, so those would be set three to four feet apart, planters would be and they would have to be crash rated to permit so just testimony that this patio was going to be used and I assume when you're used you're gonna have people standing there the last thing I want is a vehicle intruding into a pedestrian space so those have to be crash rated planters they can't be a plastic or a lightweight type of thing or simply bolting down they would have to be crash rated planters the entrance apron to the property is is inadequate does not meet our standards so that will have to be replaced and sorry the bridge the entrance a but the driveway entrance into the property it looks like a single used to be a single driveway and they've kind of scabbed on to the edge of it we would want that all removed and rebuilt to current standards and then there is there was testimony about parking and there is indeed parking issues out here there there is the curb and sidewalk has not been maintained along this property frontage so any damaged curb or sidewalk that is damaged and lacking would need to be replaced as well with Did those items fall under condition number four, the final configuration having to be approved by you guys? That would be, but I wanted that for the record since it was brought up. And I appreciate you letting us. But that is my 30-second review real quick in the back of the room, trying to think of everything that could come up so that the applicant knows the limitations of the site and what the costs will be incurred. and the expectation from traffic engineering for both safety and maintenance of the property. Could you repeat the requirements for the permanently affixed planters? You want to place at the... Three to four feet spacing between the planters. And they have to be crash rated, crash worthy. It's very similar to what you see bollards that are placed to protect. It's more than just a wood pole. It's more than just steel. It is a rating that... And you say placed at the edge of... Of the 24-foot drive aisle. 24, okay. Mr. Parker, if you place those planters at the edge of the driveway, is that going to leave enough room for the cars to back out and... 24 feet is adequate for 90 degree parking. So that's the requirement for any parking lot. Angled parking, you can shrink that drive aisle down, but we require 24 feet. Okay. And there is 24 feet between the edge of the... According to their engineer that submitted the plane, yes. All right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Michael? Come back up, please. You heard what Mr. Parker said about the planners. I was trying to digest that, and I apologize if I missed anything. We were trying to take that in. I apologize if you hadn't seen that. I thought you were copied on the email that circulated that alternative plan last week. I guess part of what we're trying to understand is just, and again, I don't want to overcomplicate things. We're not really sure what an impact-rated planter is, and just want to make sure that we understand what we're committing to. You know, this is a parking lot with people backing in and out. It's not a barricade along street level. So I guess, and part of the reasoning for placing those where we did is kind of what was addressed, while 24 may be the bare minimum necessary for backing in and out, that we thought that that would provide a little bit of additional buffer so that people aren't bumping into them, you know, as you can imagine. So I guess I don't want to make that the issue, but we felt like permanently affixing something, you know, whether it's concrete or something and having some understanding of what it is. Concrete, you know, poured into the ground or something versus a standard we don't understand. And then as far as that driveway, that's the first time. That doesn't really have anything to do with the barriers or removing the asphalt or anything else. That was never part. That's the first that I've heard of that. That wasn't in the original conditions. This driveway is here. That really has nothing to do with any of these things. So, again, I hate for that to be the issue and don't want to say that we want it to be denied, but feel that some of those things are a bit of an overreach and maybe hard for us to even interpret sitting here right now. I think the reason for putting the language in condition number four is so that you and traffic can sit down and talk about it and perhaps come to some agreement between yourselves without us as a board getting involved in that. And so we don't want to impose chapter and verse on the parking. That's between you, the applicant, and traffic engineering. They're the experts, and you're free to hire whoever you want to design or discuss with traffic about how to comply with their requirements. But I think Mr. Parker was just giving you a heads-up about what their requirements might be. But the particulars of that is up to traffic engineering. And so I guess going back to what we discussed, that it would be subject to finalizing with traffic engineering consistent with this hearing and the applicable laws and ordinances and all that, and we would still be proceeding based on the plan that was up here. I think the requirement in number four, which we're going to keep in, is that you have to get the approval of traffic engineering in order for you to be in compliance with the conditional use. so whatever that requirement is you have to be in compliance with their requirements and their requirements are based on the ordinances so we're not just made up as you go along sure I understand okay any other questions we've heard from objectors thank you right yeah they say ten beds I don't know either but I mean staff has suggested building inspection yeah yeah I mean they had 18 they had 18 patients before it was already a commercial use yeah I'm saying I don't think they're doing any modification. There's no increase in the occupancy over what it was before. That's my understanding. Okay. Are you ready to vote? I'll make a motion. Sure. I think I can leave my notes. I move for approval of PLN BOA 21-67-251 East Maxwell LLC's request for conditional use to establish a fraternity house and variance to reduce the required parking from seven spaces to six spaces within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high-density apartment zone on property located at 251 East Maxwell Street, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to conditions one through four as listed and condition five as amended that the applicant agrees to install permanently affixed planters placed at the edge of the 24-foot drive, spacing to be three to four feet apart and crash rated as indicated on the adjusted or submitted adjusted site plan which would be entered in record and condition number six i'd like to make a suggestion before we ask for a second i i don't know that we need to in the conditions specify the the space between planters and so i would recommend that we simply have the final configuration of the parking place be subject to the approval of the division of traffic engineering and without without the additional detail because it may be that mr parker having given it his you know 30 second review from the back may come up with different and maybe even less stringent requirements so that's that's my suggestion no trouble I appreciate that so I'd like to amend the motion on the floor on condition number five that the applicant agrees to install permanently affixed planters as approved by division of traffic division of trafficking that adequate yes very good thank you miss Carter is there a second a second thank you mr. Clark motion's made and seconded indicate your vote electronically motion carries good luck with your project thank you all um That completes the agenda for today. Are there any board items that any board member wish to bring up anything before the board? I think we did, yeah. Any other board items, any staff items for the board? I hear no. Sorry, we do have one staff item. We have a new planner that is going to be helping with Board of Adjustment and zoning enforcement cases. This is Daniel Crum. He is joining us recently from Owensboro. Welcome, Mr. Crum. Glad to have you. Are you going to be supplementing or replacing anybody on the planning staff? I will be assisting with Board of Adjustment items, so you all will see me from time to time. Okay, very good. Well, welcome, Board. It would be nice to be dealing with you in future meetings. Thank you. All right. Nice to meet all of you all. Look forward to working with you. Our next meeting date is January 12th. If there's no further business, we will be adjourned. Thank you.