# Board of Adjustment Hearing - May 9, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 9, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5569 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5569?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-05-09 - **Last revised**: May 9, 2022 - **Length**: 15,228 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on May 9, 2022, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Thomas Glover presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items during the session, all of which resulted in approvals for the applicants seeking various zoning accommodations. The meeting focused primarily on variance requests and conditional use permits for residential and religious properties throughout the community. The board approved variance applications for Amy McSharry, Sara Morken, Lynn Winter, and Dillon Oaks, allowing these property owners to proceed with projects that required relief from standard zoning requirements. Additionally, the board granted conditional use permits for Dominique and Blake Stevenson and Northeast Christian Church, while also approving an amendment to an existing conditional use permit for Center Point Church. Throughout the proceedings, the board conducted eight formal votes on the various matters before them. The meeting included one public comment period, providing community members an opportunity to address the board regarding the agenda items under consideration. The unanimous approval of all seven agenda items demonstrates the board's assessment that each application met the necessary criteria for zoning relief or conditional use authorization within the city's planning framework. ## Attendance The following members were present at the May 9, 2022 meeting: • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Branden Gross (arrived late) • Chad Needham • Chad Walker • Joan Whitman All members were in attendance, with Branden Gross arriving after the meeting had begun. No members were absent from the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted eight votes during the May 9, 2022 meeting, approving all items presented. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Chad Needham motioned to approve minutes from the March 14, 2022 and April 11, 2022 meetings, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously with 6 ayes and 0 nays from Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, and Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-22-00013** [timestamp: 10:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve Amy McSharry's variance to reduce side yard setback from 10'10" to 3', seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion passed unanimously with 6 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention, subject to four conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-22-00017** [timestamp: 20:00] Raquel Carter motioned to approve Sara Morken's variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously with 7 ayes and 0 nays, subject to three conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-22-00018** [timestamp: 30:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve Lynn Winter's variance to reduce front yard setback for balcony addition, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously with 7 ayes and 0 nays, subject to two conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-22-00012** [timestamp: 40:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve Dominique and Blake Stevenson's conditional use permit for a home-based esthetician business, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously with 7 ayes and 0 nays, subject to four conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-22-00016** [timestamp: 50:00] Harry Clarke motioned to amend Center Point Church's conditional use permit to expand their church facility, seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion passed unanimously with 7 ayes and 0 nays, subject to two conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-22-00011** [timestamp: 60:00] Branden Gross motioned to approve Dillon Oaks' variance to reduce front yard setback while disapproving additional paved parking, seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion passed by roll call vote with 7 ayes and 0 nays, subject to two conditions for the approved variance. **PLN-BOA-22-00014** [timestamp: 70:00] Raquel Carter motioned to approve Northeast Christian Church's conditional use for establishing a child care center, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously with 7 ayes and 0 nays, subject to six conditions including modification to limit capacity to 98 children. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the meeting during the public comment period. **Pat Harris** spoke in opposition to the Northeast Christian Church child care center proposal [timestamp: 75:00]. Harris raised several concerns about the potential impact of the proposed facility on her property and the surrounding area. Her primary concerns included: • **Noise issues** - Harris expressed worry about noise generated by children using the facility as well as noise from HVAC units that would be part of the child care center operations • **Traffic flow concerns** - She indicated that the increased traffic associated with the child care center would negatively affect her property and the immediate area Harris's comments focused specifically on how the proposed Northeast Christian Church child care center would impact neighboring properties, particularly regarding noise levels and traffic patterns that would result from the facility's operations. ## Contested Items Two agenda items generated significant discussion and community opposition during the meeting. **Variance for Dillon Oaks** The variance request for Dillon Oaks sparked contentious debate centered on parking requirements and permitting issues. The discussion focused on the applicant's need for additional paved parking spaces beyond what was originally planned. Community members and board members raised concerns about the lack of initial permits that should have been obtained before proceeding with the project. The variance request highlighted procedural oversights in the development process, leading to extended deliberation about whether to approve the additional parking accommodation despite the permitting deficiencies. **Conditional Use for Northeast Christian Church** Northeast Christian Church's application for a conditional use permit to operate a child care center faced opposition from neighboring residents. A nearby resident voiced specific concerns about the potential impact of the proposed facility on the surrounding area. The primary objections centered on anticipated noise levels that would result from children's activities and the increased vehicle traffic that parents dropping off and picking up children would generate in the neighborhood. These concerns about quality of life impacts for existing residents created tension between the church's desire to expand their community services and neighbors' wishes to maintain the current character and tranquility of their area. Both items required extended discussion as the board weighed the merits of each application against the legitimate concerns raised by community members. The contested nature of these items demonstrated the ongoing challenge of balancing development and expansion requests with existing residents' interests and community standards. ## Variance for Amy McSharry [timestamp: 10:00] The Board of Appeals reviewed application PLN-BOA-22-00013, a variance request submitted by Amy McSharry to reduce the required side yard setback for a proposed garage addition. The current zoning ordinance requires a 10-foot 10-inch side yard setback, but McSharry requested approval to reduce this setback to 2 feet 8 inches. Amy McSharry presented her request to the board, explaining the need for the variance to accommodate the planned garage addition on her property. The significant reduction in setback requirements would allow the structure to be built much closer to the property line than typically permitted. Staff had reviewed the application and provided a recommendation that differed from the applicant's request. Rather than approving the full variance to 2 feet 8 inches, staff recommended that the board consider granting a lesser variance that would reduce the setback requirement to 3 feet. This staff recommendation represented a compromise position that would still provide relief from the standard setback requirements while maintaining a slightly larger buffer from the property line. The board deliberated on both the applicant's original request and the staff's alternative recommendation. After considering the merits of the case, including the specific circumstances of the property and the proposed garage addition, the Board of Appeals voted to approve the variance request. The approval allows McSharry to proceed with her garage addition project under the modified setback requirements, providing the relief from zoning standards necessary to move forward with the construction. ## Variance for Sara Morken [timestamp: 20:00] The Board of Adjustment considered application PLN-BOA-22-00017, a variance request submitted by Sara Morken to reduce front and side yard setbacks for a property conversion project. The request involves converting a non-conforming commercial structure into a single-family residence. Sara Morken presented her case to the board, explaining the need for reduced setbacks to facilitate the conversion of the existing commercial building to residential use. The current structure does not meet standard residential setback requirements, necessitating the variance to proceed with the conversion. The board reviewed the application materials and heard Morken's presentation regarding the proposed residential conversion. The discussion focused on the specific setback reductions needed and how the conversion would transform the non-conforming commercial use into a compliant residential property. After consideration of the request and applicable zoning requirements, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance application. The approval allows Morken to proceed with converting the commercial structure to a single-family residence with the reduced front and side yard setbacks as requested. The variance approval enables the transformation of a non-conforming commercial property into residential use, bringing the property into better compliance with the surrounding neighborhood character while addressing the practical constraints of the existing building footprint. ## Variance for Lynn Winter [timestamp: 30:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-22-00018, a variance request submitted by Lynn Winter to reduce the required front yard setback for the addition of a balcony to a single-family residence. Lynn Winter presented the request to the board, seeking permission to construct a balcony that would extend closer to the front property line than typically allowed under current zoning regulations. The variance was necessary to accommodate the proposed balcony addition to the existing single-family home. The board reviewed the application and supporting materials for the setback reduction request. The discussion focused on the specific dimensions of the proposed balcony and how it would impact the required front yard setback requirements for the property. After consideration of the request and any relevant factors, the Board of Appeals approved the variance application. The approval allows Lynn Winter to proceed with the balcony addition at the reduced front yard setback as requested in the application. The variance approval enables the construction of the balcony addition to move forward in compliance with the modified setback requirements established through this decision. ## Conditional Use Permit for Dominique and Blake Stevenson [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-22-00012, a conditional use permit request from Dominique and Blake Stevenson to operate a home-based esthetician business in a Single-Family Residential zone. Dominique Stevenson presented the application to the board, explaining the proposed business operations and how they would comply with residential zoning requirements. The request involved establishing an esthetician practice within their home, which requires special approval due to the commercial nature of the business in a residential area. The board discussed the application details, including potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, parking considerations, and compliance with home-based business regulations. The proposal was evaluated against the criteria for conditional use permits in residential zones, with particular attention to maintaining the residential character of the area while allowing for appropriate home-based commercial activities. Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved the conditional use permit for the Stevensons' home-based esthetician business. The approval allows them to proceed with operating their business from their residential property, subject to the conditions and requirements outlined in the permit. ## Amend Conditional Use Permit for Center Point Church [timestamp: 50:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-22-00016, a request to amend the conditional use permit for Center Point Church to allow expansion into adjoining commercial space. Key speakers during the discussion included Brice Stockton and Graham Withers, who presented details about the proposed expansion of the existing church facility. The request involved expanding the church's operations into adjacent commercial space, which would require modification of their current conditional use permit. The discussion focused on how this expansion would affect the church's ability to serve its congregation and the surrounding community. The board ultimately approved the amendment to the conditional use permit, allowing Center Point Church to proceed with their expansion plans into the adjoining commercial space. This approval enables the church to utilize additional space for their religious and community activities while maintaining compliance with local zoning requirements. ## Variance for Dillon Oaks [timestamp: 60:00] The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-22-00011, a variance request for Dillon Oaks regarding a single-family dwelling project. The application sought approval to reduce the required front yard setback and modify additional paved parking setback requirements. Dillon Oaks presented the variance request to the board, outlining the specific setback reductions needed for the proposed single-family dwelling. David Lewis also participated in the discussion as a key speaker during the proceedings. The variance application addressed two primary components: reducing the standard front yard setback distance and obtaining relief from additional paved parking setback requirements. These modifications were requested to accommodate the specific design and site constraints of the single-family residential project. Following the presentation and discussion of the variance request, the Board of Adjustment approved PLN-BOA-22-00011. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the single-family dwelling construction under the modified setback requirements rather than adhering to the standard zoning code provisions. The approval of this variance enables the development to move forward with the reduced front yard setback and modified parking setback arrangements as requested by the applicant. ## Conditional Use for Northeast Christian Church [timestamp: 70:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-22-00014, a request from Northeast Christian Church to establish a child care center for up to 100 children in a Planned Neighborhood Residential zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Abby Pace and Keith Parish, who presented details about the proposed child care facility. The application sought conditional use approval to operate the center within the church's existing facilities. The request involved establishing a child care center with capacity for up to 100 children on the church property, which is located in a Planned Neighborhood Residential zoning district. This type of use requires conditional use approval in the designated zone. Following presentation and discussion of the application details, the board approved the conditional use request for Northeast Christian Church to operate the child care center as proposed. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of minutes from March 14, 2022 and April 11, 2022 meetings - **PLN-BOA-22-00013** — passed (6-0): Variance for Amy McSharry to reduce side yard setback from 10'10" to 3' - **PLN-BOA-22-00017** — passed (7-0): Variance for Sara Morken to reduce front and side yard setbacks - **PLN-BOA-22-00018** — passed (7-0): Variance for Lynn Winter to reduce front yard setback for balcony addition - **PLN-BOA-22-00012** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for Dominique and Blake Stevenson to operate a home-based esthetician business - **PLN-BOA-22-00016** — passed (7-0): Amend conditional use permit for Center Point Church to expand church facility - **PLN-BOA-22-00011** — passed (7-0): Variance for Dillon Oaks to reduce front yard setback and disapprove additional paved parking - **PLN-BOA-22-00014** — passed (7-0): Conditional use for Northeast Christian Church to establish a child care center --- ## Full transcript Ladies, when you're with me I'm smiling Give me, whoa, whoa, whoa, your love Your hands build me up when I'm sinking Touch me and my troubles all fade Lady, from the moment I saw you Standing all alone You gave all the love that I needed So shy like a child who had grown young Lady, welcome on me Love shines in your eyes Spot me, fear and love me You're my lady Lady, turn me on when I'm lonely Show me all your charms He stands when you're left beside me Take me gently into your arms You're my lady of the morning Love shines in your eyes Sparkly, real and lovely You're my lady Baby, from the morning Love shines in your eyes Spine me, feel that love can be You're my baby Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End We'll be right back. Thank you. Welcome to the May meeting of the Board of Adjustment. I forgot to sign in. There we go. I recommend that everybody silence their phones so you won't be embarrassed at any time during the proceedings. I have done that myself, so I won't be embarrassed again during the proceedings. We are going to go through the agenda and those that are, we will ask you to identify yourself if you're an applicant, just when we go through the first time and then we'll come back and call your case. The first item on the docket is the approval of the minutes. We had minutes from March and April. that were circulated to the board. Anybody on the board have any questions about the minutes or changes, recommended additions, improvements? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the minutes for March 14th and April 11th. Thank you very much. Motion has been made by Mr. Needham to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman seconds. the motion all those in favor signify electronically and the motion carries I'm different than everybody else. I use the mouse with my left hand, even though I'm right-handed. So I always have to move it over. Okay, I'm going to sound the agenda. Oh, first, I'm going to swear all the witnesses. Anybody here who is an applicant or who intends to testify during that particular case, would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will testify, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you. You may be seated. Now I'll go through and go through the agenda to see which applicants are here. When I call your case, please stand up and acknowledge that you are here. The first case is PLNBOA 22-11 Dylan Oaks. Dylan Oaks is present. This case, the first one on the docket, it's partially recommended for disapproval. And as is our custom for cases recommended for disapproval, we will hear you at the end of the docket to give the staff a chance to tell us why they recommend disapproval. so dylan oak sit tight we'll hear you at the end of the docket the next case is plnboa 22-13 amy mcsherry applicants are here thank you very much uh is there anyone in opposition to the application of amy mcsherry anyone in the audience in opposition all right thank you very much You'll be first on the docket. The next case is PLNBOA 22-17, Sarah Morkin. Sarah Morkin is here. Is anybody here who opposes this application? Anybody who, no opposition, so this is uncontested as well. We will hear you second. Thank you very much. The next case is PLNBOA 22-18, Lynn Winter. Lynn Winter is here. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak or testify in opposition to the application of Lynn Winter? I see no hands. Thank you very much. You'll be the next one on the docket. The next case, PLNBOA 22-12. Dominique and Blake Stevenson, are the applicants present? Back in the back, are present. Is there anyone here who is in opposition to the application of Dominique and Blake Stevens? I see no hands. Thank you very much. You'll be next on the docket. Next, 22-14 Northeast Christian Church. Are the applicants here? I see they are. Is there anyone in opposition to Northeast Christian Church's application? I see one hand in opposition. Are you in opposition to their application? Okay. We will hear you at the end of the docket, Northeast Christian Church. The next one is PLNBOA 22-15 Little Caesars. Is Little Caesars present? You are present. Anybody here in opposition to the Little Caesars application? I see some people standing. So we will hear you at the end of the docket as well. Thank you. The last case on the agenda is PLNBOA 22-16 Centerpoint Church. The applicant's present, they are. Is there anyone in the audience who is in opposition to the application of Centerpoint Church? I see none, so you'll be on the regular docket. Thank you very much. That concludes the initial call of the docket, or the sounding of the agenda. So the first case on the on the unopposed docket is Amy McSherry. Just come up to the podium if you will. The staff has recommended the approval of a lesser variance for a side of the side yard set back to three feet. Are you aware of that fact? Yes. Do you have any questions about that? Not a question, but we were hoping to petition or ask if it can be, if you guys would approve it for the two feet, eight inches rather than three feet. The pad has already been poured. We've opted not to go with the additional dwelling unit above so it would just be a garage. And then we went around through our neighborhood and got a bunch of people who are also in our neighborhood on that same list who are requesting the same thing just so it would expedite the building and completion of the construction so if the so if the recommendation of the staff is approved then you'd have to tear out that pad um i would assume so we would have to talk to our new contractor we had an old contractor he got coveted filed bankruptcy had a lot of problems we assumed this was already approved because he told us it was. So yes, there would be some sort of a cost. I don't know that we would have to tear out the whole pad, but we would have to do some sort of an adjustment, and I don't know the monetary impact of that. Let me ask staff what kind of – give us your thoughts on this. So are you just keeping it as a garage and no longer connecting it to the primary structure, or is it going to be – We can do either. Okay. So originally we were going to build like a secondary unit just because of our sick parents and stuff. So we're going to do that because of the drama, for lack of a better word. It's just going to be better for us to just kind of close up and do the garages. So that pad that's poured will turn into a two-car garage connected to the existing one car. And then if you guys would like us to connect it, cool, we'll connect it. If it's better as a standalone, it can stay standalone. I believe if it remains detached, it is still classified as an accessory structure, which they are allowed to be within a foot and a half or 18 inches to the property line. Okay. And so as of right now, if it remains detached, it is permissible and you don't need any variances or anything like that. Okay. As long as it just stays a garage. Gotcha. Yeah. So I don't know what the best path forward is. We get the approval of the variance just in case. And then. Is there any way. Sorry. Do you know what the footprint of the garage would be? It is. It is larger than 50 percent. It's larger than 50 percent. Between the two. Okay. I think that's where our original issue was. If it's larger than 50 percent of the total square footage of the primary house, then it cannot be an accessory structure. It would have to be attached at that point. And you would need the variance. Okay. I think that's where we got to where we are. We would have to be attached. So then, yeah, we would just be asking for the exception to just be like at two feet, eight inches where the pad is already poured. So we can just finish the construction. We've got like fire rated drywall, the fiber rated paint on the side. And that's in line with the existing garage that's already built. So it would just basically be flush with the existing structure. Was there a reason why the construction was started without approval? It had a permit. We were told that it had a permit from our contractor, so I couldn't say why he put it there without the necessary. We were told that he had a permit for both the addition on the main house as well as the accessory structure. and after he filed bankruptcy we found that he only had for the main house and had started pouring the concrete in the pad without approval so i couldn't speak as to why i know you've uh i know this has a long history of of of contractors going broke and things like that so i have some sympathy for your for your situation this is our first one and it was a 90-day project that's turned in the three years. It'll be three years. I understand. Anyone on the board have questions? I have a question. This is probably more of a statement. The four inch differential doesn't I mean, we can make a decision on that, but right now I'm concerned about I don't believe I have clarity on what the plans are. So whatever variance or whatever agreement we agree to, we do have to know what the actual plans are because we're only going to agree to them in terms of that one particular context and literally all we're going to do is what was originally going to be a three-car garage with a separate dwelling unit on top we're going to just take off the dwelling unit make it a three-car garage put a roof on it and then just wrap the project up okay except that we're saying it needs to be attached at that size yes it still needs to be attached and it's capable to be attached yeah that's the plan that we have it was with the plans that were submitted with the application it was attached plus the dwelling unit on top so we would just remove the dwelling unit and put a roof on so if we do an approval it's for these plans minus the apartment on top okay any other questions from the board I would say I just have another question for staff. What does, in your analysis, how does that affect what we're reading here? I believe they would still, building inspection uses the three-foot minimum side yard for the sake of fire safety. Autumn may be able to speak more, too. I think that our recommendation, as is in the staff report, would not change based on the reduction of the accessory dwelling unit. I think that our analysis and recommendations and conditions would remain the same. It would not be different for just a garage than for a garage with an ADU. So it would be still the three foot is what we'd recommend, even if it's just the garage? Okay, okay. Okay, any other questions? And can I add one note to you all? Just to clarify, on the other side of the structure and the neighbor's yard is nothing but open yard space. There is nothing close to the structure. Okay. Okay. Any other comments or questions from members of the board? So you want 2.8? You want 3 or 2.8? I'm not sure. We would love it. So it was recommended from these guys to give us the variance down to 3 feet, give us that exception to go to 3 feet. We're asking for those additional four inches just so we can build on the pad that's already been poured. We totally understand the whole reason for the three feet is for fire safety where there is no structure on the other side. That's why we're like, we're hoping that it would be considered that it's still very far from any other structure. And we are fire rated. And it is going to be fire rated. This is difficult for us because we typically go with the staff's recommendation, especially when it's a recommendation that's there for the distance is there for safety purposes. So for us to approve your application, especially since the construction was started, the pad was poured without first getting approval. and even though it's four inches, it makes it quite difficult for us. So I'm just pointing out the fact before we take a vote. What I would say is that we would approve what staff has recommended of a lesser variance for a side yard setback of three feet. If you want two feet eight inches, based on this change, I don't think that I would probably be open to that. Any other comments from the board members? Like I say, this is tough for us. The fact that it's only four inches. And the main reason we're coming here is to get it done, to complete the neighborhood. There's been people sleeping in it because it's unfinished. There's been kids throwing rocks and stuff because it's unfinished. So it's really to make the neighborhood better. Yeah, we understand that. We understand the problem. Any comments, Harry? Yeah. It looks like to me that the whole request needs to be rewritten. And if we're not talking about ADU, it looks like the description of the project as it appears on the application is not correct. I mean, we're not approving a garage in addition in the ADU. Is that correct? We're happy to build that if you are willing to approve it. I'm just saying we need to be sure of what we're looking at and what we're going to approve or disapprove. We just changed it because we thought it would be easier for you all to approve it. So the only difference is that it's not ADU. Is that correct? So if that was taken out of the statement, we would just be talking about a garage addition. Correct. That needs to be clear in whatever motion we make. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. some kind of motion. I'm sorry, I'll go back to the, I was going to make a motion to approve the three-foot, but I still feel like, as Harry said, we're making a vote on something I'm still not quite clear of. I appreciate your willingness to, I guess, be flexible, but we can't make a vote on a flexible thing. I'd like to know that this is the plan for sure, and I feel like we should have some language in here that says this is what we're approving, which is different from the application. The application itself is to vary the setback. Okay. As I understand it, that's the only thing that we're approving. If we approve this either way, we're not approving the constructing of an ADU. Correct. Is that correct, staff? Sorry. If we approve this application in either form, either the two feet, eight inches or the three-foot setback, we're not approving the constructing of an ADU, are we? Yeah. No, the ADU would still have to go through the typical ADU permitting process. Sure. I will say that if you approve what was requested with the ADU, that would not prevent them from doing what they're saying that they want to do. If you were to approve a variance for the structure with the garage and the ADU above, and they ended up deciding not to do the ADU, we would not make them return to this body to change their site plan since they would be constructing less. Sure. So that's something to keep in mind if you, you know. The other question becomes. You don't want them to construct an ADU, you could condition it as such that it's based on an alternate site plan. But again, the ADU is sort of a separate issue because either way it's in addition to the structure. And then an ADU is not necessarily, even if they were to construct a two story garage, that would not necessarily be an ADU, so I don't want you to get hung up on the ADU. That's not really part of the variance request. And that's not part of the request, as I understand. The request is only to vary the setback. Well, the original request actually referenced it as an ADU. And in the staff case, the zoning ordinance that they cited was specific to the ADU. So I guess different from this particular case in front of us, you guys know we're going to have a lot of ADU cases come before us. And so I just want to have some clarity on the decision that we're making going forward. We will not be reviewing ADUs unless they are intended to be used as short-term rentals. Otherwise, you will not see ADUs. Okay. Okay. Okay. So if we approve this request at either setback, we're not approving the construction of an ADU. We're approving the construction of a garage addition. and that's all we're doing okay yeah i'm glad you i'm glad you brought that up i think we need to make sure that that's we understand what we're approving if we approve or if we disapprove go ahead I'll go. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 2213, Amy McSherry's request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback for a deep building from 10 feet, 10 inches to three inches. Three feet. Three feet, I'm sorry. Three feet in order to complete construction of a garage addition slash ADU if desired, property located within a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1029 McLean Drive based on the staff's recommendations of approval of a lesser variance for the side yard set back to three feet and then subject to the four conditions outlined by staff. You mentioned in your motion Chad the ADU but we're not approving ADU. Okay everybody understand what the motion is? okay do we have a second okay miss carter seconds now does the applicants understand what what the motion is and okay all those in favor we will indicate electronically motion carries uh your setback is at three feet is approved thank you okay thank you they're really strange yeah Thank you. The next case is PLN BOA 22-17, Sarah Morkin. Come on up to the podium in case we have questions, please. This application is to reduce the front yard setback and the side yard setback as well to construct additions to a non-conforming structure and you're going to turn this into a residential correct gotcha okay i don't have any questions i read the application anybody on the staff have any questions of ms morkan i have a small question but that's okay I have a small question. Sure, you can ask questions. When you said that I needed to put the oaks and plantings along the frontage of the lot to the existing pervious surface, where would that be? Because there's a garage, but if I block it, then I can't go in the garage. So where would those plantings be? So staff just included that condition. As of right now, it's just all pervious surface in front, and we just want to discourage parking right in front. So just to break it up a little bit so that a car can't fit like illegally parallel park in the front You could probably because it's all solid Asphalt I would say either just break it up So you have entrance into your garage space and then maybe a walkway a little landing pad there But just try to break it up. So it's can't fit a whole car. Yeah You get a good answer. Yes, okay Anybody have any questions for the applicant? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN BOA 22-17. I request for variances to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 1⁄2 feet and to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 1 1⁄2 foot in order to construct additions to an existing non-conforming structure so that the non-conforming commercial structure may be converted into a single-family residence on property located within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high-density apartment R4 zone on property located at 634 Ballard Street. And that's based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the three listed conditions. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Motion's been made. Is there a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman seconds. All those in favor, register your vote. Motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thank you. The next case is PLN BOA 22-18 Lynn Winter. Ms. Winter, come up. We'll see if the staff has any questions of you. We'll see if the board has any questions of you. Any members of the board have any questions to Ms. Winter? This is a request for the balcony. is this your is this part of your application yes it's a very slick proposal thank you this winter did you used to own a restaurant in louisville yes i did i'm not asking for a parking waiver let me tell you that you're not what asking for a parking waiver okay i understand i used to live in louisville and i think i remember the restaurant uh anybody have any questions for miss winter about this application no but this is why i can't afford prosh to do my renovations i'm sorry yeah yeah well because it'll cost you a whole bunch of money yeah these are fancy it's very fancy um yeah i'm fine with that i think it'll if it's it suits her and the neighbors are okay with it and i know prajna does does good work so i think it's a win looks like it fits into the neighborhood as well yeah we got unanimous approval from the neighborhood association from the mentel neighborhood association that's good very good i'll entertain a motion mr chair Chair, first I'll say I think this is a very good project and applaud you for doing this. Mr. Chair, move the acceptance of PLNBOA 18, Lynn Winter, request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 32 feet to 24 feet in order to construct an addition of a balcony to the front wall plane if a single family residence are properly located within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single family residential zone on property located at 176 North Ashland Avenue. Based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions. So move. Thank you Mr. Clark, is there a second? I'll second. Thank you Mr. Nita. The motion has been made and seconded. Please register your vote electronically. Motion carries, good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Ms. Winter, before you leave, was the name of your restaurant in Louisville, what was it? Lynn's Paradise Cafe. Lynn's Paradise Cafe. Yeah, solidly back here. It was very popular. Thank you. I remember it well. It was very good too. Yeah. Yeah. All right, the next application is PLN BOA 22-12, Dominique and Blake Stevenson. Are the applicants present? Come on up to the podium in case we have any questions. First time in my life I've heard the word esthetician. Me too. What is that? I'm a skincare professional. You have one? I don't. Yeah, I'm supposed to have one. So this is to operate a home-based business. And I understand this was the first of something. Staff, explain to us what that means, because this is the first time we've seen this application. Yes. So historically, beauty parlors and hair salons were not permitted as home-based businesses. Recently, as of March 17, 2022, that prohibition was lifted by ordinance. So they are now able to operate as home-based businesses. The board has historically noted that esthetician services are substantially similar to beauty parlors and hair salons. And so this is the very first of those related applications since the ordinance was created to allow for them as a home-based business or occupation. Okay, very good. Thanks, Daniel. And identify yourself for us, please. Are you Mr. Stevenson? Yes, sir, I am. Okay. Any questions from the board to Mr. Stevenson? Yeah, I guess for the record, do you mind if we have a little bit more elaboration on what the service is and how it's close to a beauty and salon? I'm not saying it's not, but- Don't you know what an aesthetician is, Brandon? Unfortunately- Let's go, Brandon. Unfortunately, I was blessed with great skin, so I've not needed one. But if you could just- And eyelashes. eyelashes eyebrows too yes they're listed here a few of them is that right dominic that's right oh okay i apologize i see on the first sentence okay that was it you're good okay i'm good any other questions uh from the board If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 22-12 Dominique and Blake Stevenson's request for a conditional use permit in order to operate a home-based esthetician business in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 617 Freeman Drive, based on the reasons outlined by staff and subject to the four conditions. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Motion's made. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. Who'd you get? Who punched the button first? Ms. Whitman. I'll recognize Ms. Whitman's second. Motion's been made and seconded. Please register your vote electronically. You got all the votes. Good luck with your project. Have a good day. The next case without opposition is PLN VOA 22-16 Center Point Church. applicants coming up to the podium in case anybody on the board has any questions of you as i understand the application you're just going to expand the facilities you're not adding people children cars anything like that just making it making it bigger that's my question anybody else have any questions this is expanding into an existing building that you're already in is that correct yes what was it before what you're expanding into it's windows I'm sorry champions windows facility oh okay a business that was next door attached to you yes Yep. Fair enough. Any questions? No questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 22-16 Center Point Church. Request to amend an existing conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly in order to expand the existing church facility to adjoining commercial space within the existing building on property located within a highway service business zone on property located at 163 Old Todd's Road based on the staff recommendation and the two conditions listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? Thank you, Ms. Carter. Ms. Carter seconds. Please register your vote electronically. Motion carries. Good luck with your project. next case is uh we go to the those cases that are for which there was opposition or what what or the staff has recommended for disapproval or partial disapproval the first case on that docket is dylan oaks plnboa 22-11 applicants please come forward oh i'm sorry i'm sorry in this case we do it a little bit differently you all have a seat for for a second because of the recommendation for disapproval we hear from staff first. So Daniel tell us who you are and then go right ahead. Daniel Crum planning staff. So the next item on the agenda is a request. This is BOA 2211 and this is a request for two separate variances. One variance in order to reduce the front setback from 30 to 15 feet and to reduce the required setback for an additional paved parking area from six feet to zero feet for property located at 2367 Millbrook Drive. So here we have an aerial view of the property shown, and the subject property is outlined in blue here. It is generally south. Southland Drive is located to the north here, and in the vicinity we also have Southview Drive as well as Maplewood Drive. Let me get a little closer, you get an aerial view of how the subject property is currently laid out. Here we have existing single-family residence, driveway serving this residence, and then an attached carport shown to the left. Here, here's an older photo. This was taken approximately 2015. It shows how the site was previously laid out. Here we have the single-family residence, the attached carport, as well as the existing drive, an additional paved parking area. So the applicant has undertaken a couple modifications to the site that were not originally permitted. He had enclosed this side carport for additional residential space, and then added additional paving in this portion of the driveway here. The site photo kind of demonstrates this. So once again, we've got this enclosure that previously served as the carport, as well as the residential drive, which has been extended in width at the property line and within the right-of-way. So the zoning ordinance here touches on a couple aspects that kind of cause the need for these variances here. The first is kind of where required parking has to be located, and then portions pertaining to the regulations for additional parking. So within this zone, the required front setback is 30 feet. For residential uses, one off-street parking space is required, and it is required that that parking space be located outside of the front setback area. Article 11 deals with definitions of driveways, and for single-family residential dwellings, a driveway is defined as having a maximum of 24 feet in width and extending the shortest reasonable path to the front required parking space. It should be noted that building inspection has historically interpreted the shortest reasonable path to mean that the driveway doesn't exceed the width of the required parking space or the garage-less structure that is containing the parking space. So we make a distinction within the ordinance for required parking and then parking provided outside of that. That additional paved parking has a setback that doesn't apply to the normal parking, and then it must be set back six feet from the front property line. And I'll bring up some images in a moment to kind of clarify the differences between the two. So with the applicant's proposed work, so by basically enclosing the existing residential carport, shown here, which previously housed the parking space for the residential use, so one single parking space, by enclosing it, the applicant now has to provide that same space in the front of the building. So essentially, the only places available on the site to accommodate the required parking is within that 30-foot setback. So the applicant's first variance, which staff is recommending approval for, is to reduce the setback to 15 feet to allow the applicant to provide that paved parking directly in front of the enclosed addition. It should be noted that within the immediate vicinity, and the applicant has provided some photos of these properties, parking in the front setback area isn't uncommon. There have been several additions in kind of the larger area that have had similar treatments, and so there is some precedent for that. The second variance that the applicant is seeking is for the paving that's occurred in this area here. So this is, once again, going back to the imagery of the properties circa 2015. So what the ordinance considers to be the driveway is shown in red here and this portion here, while the blue is that additional paved parking. So the driveway is that immediate direct access to the parking space that was provided previously in the carport. The blue is that additional paved parking and had to be set back six feet. This is how the site was constructed. This is how the site is historically operated in compliance with that ordinance requirement. As you can see by this is more updated aerial. So this is 2022 aerials. There's been paving that has occurred in that area. So it's outlined in red here that was not permitted. So this is the area that was required to be set back for those additional paved parking areas. So the staff, there's two parts of this variance. The first, the variance in order to reduce the front yard setback to allow the applicant to park within the existing driveway. Staff is recommending approval. This is generally reasonable because the orientation of the building really doesn't allow parking to be located elsewhere on site. There's really not a good way to access the rear of the property. So if that carport is enclosed, the only available avenues is to park in front of the home. Staff also finds that there are several other instances in the immediate vicinity that have similar enclosures of parking located within the front setback. And so we are recommending approval of that subject to the two conditions you see on screen, which relate to construction in accordance with the site plan and obtaining all necessary permits. The second part of the variance, which we are recommending disapproval for, is for that paving for that portion shown in red just a moment ago of the additional parking area. This has come about because the applicant didn't seek any permits for it, and that there doesn't seem to be any particular circumstances that justify the need for the variances. This applies to all residential properties, and the site was able to function historically at this location with the existing driveway width and without that additional paving being present. Staff would be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time. If this were new construction, Daniel, and the proposal was to build the driveway as they have modified it, would that be approved? No, it would not. So, like I said, historically, building inspection takes a look at the existing or takes a look at the proposal. If it's in line with the, for instance, the existing carport or the existing garage, they factor that into the size. but this exceeds anything that would be permitted currently under building inspections interpretation and our zoning ordinance. Part of that has to do with the fact that the 10-foot driveway width is still in effect. Is that right? So this is not located within the infill and redevelopment area, so the 10-foot wide provision does not play a part here. Okay. Does not. Okay. I have a question. Even on your approval, will that require them to take up paving that's already there? Yes, it would require them to remove the, as you can see, it's kind of lighter color. That would require them to remove those portions of pavement. But otherwise, the approval for the second variance would allow them to utilize the parking. So they would be allowed to have the addition as proposed, but they would require them to pull up the unpermitted paved parking. As I understand it, the reason for the recommendation for approval of the first request from 30 feet to 15 feet is because they enclosed that carport. Yes. So the enclosure, so we'll go back a little bit, enclosing this portion of the carport while done without a permit, there are limiting characteristics of the site that kind of justify the need for the variance. the way everything's laid out, it is limited in where they can reasonably or feasibly provide that parking. And there is sort of a history in the area of that similar parking style being how the homes were just constructed at that time. And so looking at the picture that you've got up there, the red and the blue areas are not, you're not recommending disapproval of any part of that? Yes, so this is currently every part of the diagram you see on screen, which is how the property was in 2015, meets the ordinance requirements. They've got a parking space beyond the building setback line. They've got the additional parking setback from the front property line. And so, yes, every part of the existing configuration there worked. And so the variances were just necessary because they wanted to enclose the side of that building and then pay that additional area. And real quick. The small area. Yes. So the only issue we're concerned about is the 10 or 12 feet of concrete from the blue to the street? Yes, sir. So this, yes. So the portion shown here. So the six to eight feet here and then the portion in the public right-of-way extending to the street there. Widened out, it appears that at full width there, the driveway is about 18 to 20 feet in width. We wasn't dimensioned on the site plan, but that's the approximate dimensions based on GIS imagery. Daniel, it appears to me from that picture that that's a perfectly reasonable looking way to improve your property, and it makes common sense for them to have a driveway that goes straight back from the street without having to drive over grass. Is that the way the ordinance is? It seems to me the ordinance is against common sense. It certainly is a leading question. We have to apply the ordinance as it is written currently, and this has been building inspection and planning staff's longstanding interpretation of the ordinance. You all have heard requests before, various other sites. specifically for this one specific provision. So I think that's about all the clarification I can provide. We've seen this a number of times. It seems like we used to get these frequently, and it's been a long time since we've actually had one on that place. I think the last one I can remember is maybe on Jesslin or whatever, the new Albany. Off of Southland, yeah. Right across Southland. I think that was the last one that I can recall we had. Well, I remember one on Holiday Road that we approved. We approved the one on New Albany, too. Yeah. So I'm just saying. Interesting. I guess if you can go back to the red and the blue. Yes. So I had thought we were saying you were approving the red part and disapproving the blue part. So this is an existing feature. So the additional parking is just what we, so this, the red is the driveway, the blue is the additional parking. That is existing. That has been at the site for a number of years, and it meets all of the ordinance requirements. It's just to differentiate the fact that the ordinance makes a distinction between what is a driveway and what is extra parking, additional parking, that is handled somewhat differently. That's the reason for the red and the blue. Yes, those are the two colors. Both of those are existing elements that were at, you know, historically at this property. And that picture that we're looking at is in compliance with the ordinance? Yes, sir. Well, if we approve the recommendation, the first recommendation. Yes. Okay, so it's not in compliance now. Not currently. But if we approve the variance to reduce the front yard setback, then that is in compliance. I'm not sure I follow. So what we're referring to, so currently, so this is without the garage being enclosed. But it's enclosed. The garage is enclosed right now. Yes. So for that red and blue part to be approved, we have to approve the variance to reduce the front yard setback? Yes. Okay. So I think maybe one way of asking the question, what if we didn't approve the first request? So if you did not approve the first variance, which is to reduce that building setback, the applicant would be required to provide that parking space somewhere on the property that met the ordinance requirements. So I'm going to go back a couple slides here. So this yellow line is currently the approximate location of that 30-foot building setback line. In order to get the permits retroactively to permit this construction, they would have to show where on the property they are going to meet that requirement, which may result in having to remove the work that's been done in order to reaccommodate that back within the carport or demonstrate that they can accommodate it somewhere else on site. However, based on just general dimensions provided on GIS, it looks like that may be a difficult task to do to provide that parking anywhere other than within the driveway itself. I would say that I don't see any way it could happen. That's why it's important that we approve that first clearance. Well, let me go back real quick. Just to confirm, when they enclosed the carport, they did not get a permit. Is that correct? They did not receive a permit at the time for the enclosure of the carport or the work that occurred with the paving. So neither one of those. In my understanding, those were both required to get a permit. Yes. Both of those require permits. Yes. No, I understand that. No, I get that part. And normally I'm sympathetic on these older neighborhoods that don't have a lot of driveway. But at the same time, this could have been possibly avoided if the applicant had pulled his permit like it was supposed to have done. So just on that, making sure we're all still on the, factually on the same page. No, I agree that I'm like, oh, it's 10 feet. Now, personally, you know, I look at the driveway right next door, doesn't appear to be that much wider, the existing driveway. And the fortune of these neighborhoods, they were built back when people had maybe one, two cars only, and it's, you know, it's difficult. So, but I just wanted to remind everyone that I think this could have been, part of this list could have been avoided, or we could have asked permission instead of forgiveness. And that was my question. Is this a result of a complaint? So there was complaints, I believe, in November of last year was when this was brought to building inspections attention. And so that's sort of they were in contact with the building inspection division from that point onward. And so this is kind of the next step in trying to get this work, which has already been completed, you know, approved through the proper channels. If they had gone through the proper channels and gotten a construction permit, would the construction permit have allowed them to build that extra space that you outlined in red on the other picture? So both components of this, they would still have to have received both variances in order to do what they wanted to do on the building permit as well as expand the driveway. So both parts of that still would have required variances regardless of if they had applied to this board before they did any work or not. So both components of that would have had to come through you. How many additional square feet did they get by enclosing? Do you know? I'm not entirely sure the applicant may be able to provide that information. I think it says 249 or 279. Can't read the writing. 249 square feet. Any other questions for Daniel? Thanks, Daniel. Let's hear from the applicants. Come on up and tell us your name, please. Bill and Oaks. Bill and Oaks. And who's with you? David Lewis. David Lewis. Okay. So why didn't you get a permit? I didn't initially think that we needed one. I thought it would fall under existing structure that we were just kind of finishing out. Once the complaint was made, we went through all the necessary channels to get the permits. We've had structural engineers pay lots of money for structural engineers and engineers come in and sign off on all work that was done. And this is just the last step in getting everything approved and finalized. Questions? I'll ask a fairly obvious question, probably obvious answer, but why did you need that extra space on the curb? It just seemed like for the amount of cars people own today, being able to pull straight in made more sense. I mean, if we can get approval on both of them, that'd be fantastic. If not, then we're perfectly happy to go with staff recommendation. I mean, I think the staff is doing you a big favor here. it'd be hard for me to in most of our experiences if you were to come for approval of this we would say no you built the you know you can close the garage or the carport without really going through the proper channels and now we are giving essentially you the the parking spot this small little you know additional concrete at the triangle right when you come in on the curb cut I mean we don't give you're we just talked about it but most of the time that is not approved the angle back is what we've done before the or after the sidewalk so that's it's tough I mean I think what the staff has recommended is being very generous I'm perfectly happy with that one comment I would like to make like you said when you don't have it concrete up everybody's driving through the yard and getting there anyway and usually makes a much bigger mess I understand and I'm sympathetic to the idea that you have constructed here I mean it makes perfect sense to me to and it looks like if you'd had a permit for this gotten approval or applied for approval it might have been something that we would have have approved but but perhaps not because of that 10 foot maximum driveway width and that and that is what the ordinance requires so i'm sympathetic to the idea that that with an enclosed uh uh carport there you and to use that additional parking as a as a driveway as well it makes perfect sense to put in those two extra triangles but but under the totality of the circumstances, I think we probably, I'm probably not in favor of that second proposal as well. But I am in favor of the first approval of the first variance. That's my personal feelings, but I'm only one of several. May I ask the staff this question? If this were a two, just remind me of this. I know we've talked about this before. If this was a two-car garage and it was the width of two cars, would this extension be okay? So building and inspections interpretation has been if that driveway matches up with the parking spaces. So in this case, if they had a two-car garage, they would be able to extend to match that width all the way back. And if that lined up with the applicant's current proposal, then that would be permitted without needing a variance for that portion. Right. That's what I understood. So the fact that they only have a one-car garage but need more parking space eliminates the possibility of a curb cut. There's not a garage. Well, not now. No, not now. But if there was a two-car garage, then it would be legal. I'm ready to move to a motion, but I will say this. Staff needs to kind of help us with formulating. I'm going to recommend staff's approval, but normally we would read the intro sentence. So should I read that intro sentence for the record and then say approval of X for the reasons and then disapproval of Y? Is that how I should do it, Tommy? I would think so, yes. Okay. Then that's what I'll do. Yeah. No one else wants... No, you... Okay, I'm ready. You're perfectly capable. Do it. Okay. Go right ahead. All right. Mr. Chair, I hereby move for PLMBOA 22-0011 Dylan Oaks in regards to the request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet and to reduce the required setback for additional paved parking from 6 feet to 0 feet in order to enclose the existing carport and utilize the existing driveway for the one required parking space for a single-family unit in the R1C zone on property located at 2367 Millbrook Drive. I recommend, I mean, I move for approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback for the reasons set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions set forth therein. And within my motion, I move that we disapprove the variance request to reduce the setback for additional paved parking for the reasons set forth in our staff report and also based upon the hearings within this, the facts within this hearing. So moved. Would it be possible to separate those into two motions? One more time. Where were you? I tried to stop you. I said Mr. Gross and you kept talking. Okay, so Mr. Chair, I will hereby amend my motion to strike the reference to this approval variance portion thereof and only have the approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback. Does that work? All right. So moved. I second. Ms. Carter seconds. Mr. Gross moves. Mr. Carter seconds. That motion is before you on the first request for a variance and I'll make it a unanimous vote on the first variance. Okay so I will once again move in relation to PLN BOA 22-11 Dylan Oaks. This is in regards to the second variance request of the property located at 2367 Millbrook Drive. I hereby recommend disapproval of the variance request to reduce the setback. Which one is that one? Yeah, okay. Well, I'm just going to put setback for additional paid parking for the reasons set forth in the staff report and the facts in this motion. Is that good enough? All right. So moved. All right. Mr. Gross is moved. And Ms. Carter seconds. Second motion is on your screens. That motion also carries. So I want to make sure the applicants understand what we voted on. We voted as the staff has recommended. So do you understand that? All right. Thank you very much. The next case is PLNBOA 22-14, Northeast Christian Church. Please come up to the podium in case we have questions. What about the Little Caesars case? Sorry. Was that one going to be last? Okay. Let's go, Brandon. I know. I know, I've said that once before. Excellent. He's still on the last motion, Brandon. You're still on the last motion. I know, I'm scrambled still. No, I accidentally struck this one thinking it was the earlier church case, and that's the reason I got confused. Okay, no problem. Everybody on the same page now? Okay, this is 22-14 Northeast Christian Church, and tell us who you are. I'm Abby Pace. I'm the director of the preschool at Northeast Christian Church. Okay. And I'm Keith Parrish. I'm the executive minister. tell us about this application yes so I am applying to get approval for us to be able to use the already existing building as a preschool Monday through Thursday and from 9 to 2 o'clock and students wouldn't arrive till 9 30 and then dismissal would be at 2 p.m. and we aren't adding anything to the facility We're just going to be using the children's ministry wing that is already in the church and has been there since the building was built and conduct child care for children two months to five years old. I anticipate that that if anybody opposes your application, it's going to be because of perceived increase in traffic, picking up, dropping off and things like that. So tell us about how this application will affect the traffic at the church. There's two different entrances into the actual church parking lot, and we have ample parking spaces to accommodate pickup and drop-off where we can have 100 students. But I don't foresee it actually being a problem because we have so much to and from parking. You can enter in from either direction of Pink Pigeon Parkway or Starshoot. Okay, thank you. Any questions from the members of the board? Well, have a seat and we'll get to you in a second. There is opposition to this and we did have somebody in opposition, so come on up and tell us who you are and the grounds for your opposing this application. Hi. Pat Harris and I live directly behind the church. My, I have not had through the map that was passed out, any location for the outdoor playground, which is 2,500 square feet. Do we have an answer for that? Yeah. Where? It is on the, so it's the map. It is going to be the highlighted green area that is outside. There. That large space right there, that is the gated facility that has already been, we've already had it fenced. So we're not adding anything. It's already been fenced and it's ready to go. I know it's a very small area. Right now the children are coming when there's anything that they have extra children for. They bring the two adults and they put it at the very back right behind my house. I've already got a huge HVAC system that's very noisy right behind my house. All the coming and going goes on that street out to Starshoot. So when you're dropping those kids off and you're leaving, that goes right behind my house. It seems like anything that's noisy or that causes a problem, it has to go through that area. Would you move a little closer to the microphone so we can hear you? I'm not sure we're picking up everything. You want me to repeat all that? I live at the top of that map, behind the sanctuary. And any time they have brought children out to do whatever they've got going on before preschool, they bring small children out, they're very noisy, and they're right behind my house, right by the huge HVAC system that is already very noisy. Is that the HVAC system that belongs to the church? Mm-hmm. Okay. They have two of them. The very large one is behind mine. I moved once when they put the small one in and said that this would take care of the whole church. No problem. So I moved. Now they brought in an even one that's over twice as large, and it sits back there and runs 20 minutes at a time, and it's very noisy. Now if they drop those kids off at the green area, they'll be pulling around back to go over there to Starshoot. That also goes right behind my house. It's the noise that's the biggest problem. Is there any screening between your property and the church property? There are a few trees. Most of the trees are deciduous. They're not evergreen. No. Still, I think even with evergreens, the noise would be. We can hear where I live in that area of Prestwick. We can hear Liberty Elementary when they go out on the playground. So, and I know I can hear the small amounts of children that they've been ringing out in the back by the sanctuary. Ma'am, what's your address? 2631 Flying Ebony. Well, what do you think the church should do about your concerns? Well, I really have looked over it. I used to teach in preschool when I retired. There are not many places that you can have a green grass area and have the children come outside. And I'm still concerned about that is a small amount of space. I know when you're inside, you are required to have so much square feet per child. I don't see how that outside space is going to cover that. It's very skinny. It's not being used now, not even for the church's Sunday school classes or whatever, the children that they watched there. It's not being used for that now. So I don't know what they think they're going to use it for. There's no playground equipment. There's not even a bare space where somebody's run around. I don't know. I don't know if it's large enough. You've got the Marriott on one side and a hill. The part in front, the face is pink pigeon, has concrete gullies that go there, and plus you've got the cars. There's very little green space off a star shoot between there and those apartments. I don't really have a good solution for it. If you're going to have to have outdoor space, and maybe you don't. Let me ask the staff, isn't there a requirement in the ordinances that child care facilities have to provide 25 square feet per child? Yes, that's correct. And so does this application meet that requirement? They are 50 feet short, but we have included a condition that it's 25 feet per child. So there's a little bit of flexibility with your approving up to 100 children. And they do have ample space on the site to provide the full 2,500 square feet that are required. Sometimes they bring out riding toys. And they bring them out right back at my house. Because there is no space in the green space to bring the riding toys. So you're saying that pavement runs all the way up to your backyard? There's a small area, about four feet on my side and about four feet on the church's side. Of grass. And that was actually, I'm sorry. It's a gully, really. Yeah, so just in orientation, is it all parking lot or is parking lot in its building, the church building is between you and the green space in the front, correct? No. We're really facing both those areas. But to the left, this is parking. It would be like my house would be here and they would have one over here and one over here. So I can see both areas. On this one, where's your house on that picture? Is there a pointer there? It's the fourth house down. About right there. Sorry. I'm going to watch me fail. It's okay. Right button. We'll make that laser come off. Oh, it's up on the ceiling now. Right in there. That's your house, okay. My house. And then where is the green space? Do you see the white room area to the right? That green area right there. I'll say. That was given by the board. to have approved for the fenced in area. So that is what we have had fenced in by Irmwine, which I included that in our application, fenced in area. That was what we were given in the best location with the appropriate amount of square footage per child for our preschool facility. And I would like to clarify that the ordinance doesn't require the outdoor play area to be on grass. It can actually be in the parking lot. It just has to be fenced and screened and meet the minimum 25 square feet per child. So when staff was working with the applicant on the site plan, I just highlighted that grassy area to say you could provide it there if you wanted. On their site plan, they are also including indoor play area, which I think is required by the state's department. I thought the 25 square feet was an outdoor requirement. Just outdoor. It doesn't have to be on grass. It doesn't have to be on grass. It has to be outdoor. It has to be fenced. Fenced and screened. And so do they comply with that? Okay. Well, we're going to cut out part of the blacktop by that in order to comply with that. Yes. Yeah. Right now, I think it's handicapped parking. Is it? Right in front of your green spot? The entire grassy area, that entire area is all grass. But I'm talking about blacktop that's in front of it. Yes, there is handicapped parking in front of it. That's right, handicapped parking. But the basement area is actually that grassy area that we were talking about. So you couldn't enlarge it into the blacktop? No, but we don't need to because it actually already meets the square footage per child. Well, she said it did not. The site plan just has the outdoor play area. the square footage label is 2450. So just 50 square feet short if you wanted to provide for a full 100 children. We would never have all 100. We don't have 100 children that we're going to be enrolling to begin with. We're not going to meet that full capacity. And we would never have all the students out there at one time. They will have designated recess and outdoor play. So we would never have all. But just to clarify, we'd be approving this based upon the site plan we're looking at, which proposes to fence in that grassy area. Yes. So the pavement really has nothing to do with anything. So I'd say we move on from... If you wanted to enlarge it to be... They'd have to come back to us. They'd have to come back to us. Put the pavement in. Yeah. I was stating earlier that they have plenty of grass area to make that area even bigger to meet the full 2,500 square feet that aren't on the site plan. I guess would they have to come back to us to do that? I would like to, I think we could amend. Go ahead, Donna. In our conditions for child care facilities, we sometimes allow for a little bit of flexibility. So we have recommended a condition that states that they have to have that 25 square feet per child. so in order to for up to 100 currently they're showing enough for 98 children but we are recommending that you all approve them for up to 100 providing that they can provide that additional 50 square feet somewhere so if they cannot and they want to stick with what they've shown on their site plan they would be limited to 98 children it's sort of a moving scale that you would be approving that they could have up to 100 but they would have to provide that full 25 square feet per child I'm 5.8 Well, I guess that's the question is, because we're, the condition one is we're going to approve it. Well, let me start here. I don't have any questions for this current witness. Mr. Glover, if you want to close it for us. Yeah, our questions now probably, thank you for your testimony. Have a seat. We may call you back up. Our questions now are probably for staff and for the applicants. Just to clarify it for us. Go ahead. Yeah, so what I just want to clarify is the applicant has submitted a site plan that shows generally where they're going to put that grassy area. And my question is, is that we're approving that they're going to comply with the site plan. And was the site plan as drafted, would that allow for 100 children is my question. With the site plan that's on the screen right now, it allow for up to 98 children. Okay. So if we make the approval up to 98 children. Then this is where they're going to put the kids. It's on the other side of the building from the citizen. You know, I'm comfortable with that. I just wanted to clarify. I think there was a lot of extra information we were getting. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. We should note that the condition number five says 25 feet per child. Yes, so we can amend the condition number four to be 98 children instead of 100 children, up to 98. I recall the applicant saying that, yes. I think with condition five, you probably don't have to amend it at all. If condition five is approved, then they have to provide 25 square feet per child, fence per child. If they're going to provide for those extra two kids, they've got to find another 25 square feet. We'll hear from you in a minute. Thank you. Well, I think, Tommy, if we just say 98, it takes care of finding that other 25 or 50 square feet. I don't have any problem with that. And the applicant doesn't, then. I'm fine with 98. Yeah. Okay. I'm fine with it too. Works for me, sir. I'm full capacity with two kids. I don't think we addressed the- I have three and one on the way. I'm done. I don't think we addressed the issue that was brought up by your neighbor behind you and you want to be, I know you want to be good neighbors. So she was raising questions about the noise level in the back because of those HVAC units. So tell us about that. That would probably be for the HVAC. I don't have any placement or have any input on where they put the HVAC. I can say that with this now fenced in area that we're going to have for the children, there won't be any need to have riding toys or have them. Because prior, you're right, there's a little back parking lot where there's not much through traffic. Is there a guarantee that will never happen? Yeah, I mean, our students will still go, we do wagon rides for our little ones. But they will not be playing in that back space anymore. They would be playing in the Graston area. So yes, that would be taken care of. What are the cars that are pulling in and out for the children? How are you going to get them in and out? There's also a driveway. If you see the map, there's also food traffic. Do you have that light pointer in front of you, Ms. Pace? Show us where the cars come to drop the kitchen. So if you're entering in from this side, you'll drive through here, and then they can most of our families park and then they drive off they can either enter or exit this parking lot exit your door is or they can top of the green our door is right here yes and our families park here they pull all the way around to the back and have to start shooting there's no reason why they can't you know yeah we're let let's have let's hear from one person at a time i mean we'll try to we'll try We try to address those issues, but- I mean, we can have traffic flow go either way. I mean, if they want, they can turn it around and do a U-E and come back out this way, go that way in front of the church. There is a drive through passageway to the back to get to this exit, or they can come back through the front exit, which most of them do enter in through anyways. I mean, there's multiple ways that they can go, and not every family goes through this back area. And the entire lot, it's all parking, it's all drivable space, right? It's already there. not adding anything, they could drive to the back and front, back and forth if they want. It's a big circle. You can go all around the whole church from the parking lot. I want the lady that had the objections to understand that what's before us now is not the noise level of the HVAC units. That's not the issue before us. The issue before us is the child care center, whether to approve the application for addition of a child care center. So I'm not sure that we have jurisdiction with this application to address your noise concerns about the HVAC units that are on the back of the property. That's not an issue that's before us. We understand that you have those issues. Perhaps you can have a conversation with the church either after this meeting or sometime later in the day or the week or the month, and you all can have that conversation. but it's probably not appropriate for us to try to address that here because that's not in front of us. So thank you. And we're going to be keeping the children in the play area at the front of the church. Towards the front. Okay, we do have a question from Ms. Whitman. Describe the screening that you're planning to do. There's already screening there for whenever we originally got the site plans to build the church to begin with. And the screenage from my understanding was that there just needed to be some shrubs and some trees, and we have that already designated in there, in the playground area. In the background, the parking lot, those are also lined with shrubbery. And the fencing? The fencing is, are you asking what type of fencing? It's iron. It's an iron fence. Aluminum, I'm sorry. An aluminum fencing. How high? Any of the specifications? Was it four feet? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant from the board or from the board to the staff? Any other questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN BOA 22-14 Northeast Christian Church's request for a conditional use to establish a child care center for up to 98 children in a planned neighborhood residential zone, on property located at 990 Starshoot Parkway, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the six listed conditions, including the modification on condition four of the child care facility being limited to 98 children. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Is there a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman, seconds. All in favor signify your vote electronically. Motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. And the last case we have is PLN VOA 22-15 Little Caesars. For an application to establish drive-through facilities, come up and tell us about the project. if you would. You're the applicant? Yeah. We only hear from the staff when staff recommends disapproval. Okay, gotcha. We have opposition. We'll hear from opposition. Could I ask what the status is right now? I'm sorry? Could I ask what the status is now? You have an application pending? Yes. The staff is recommending approval. Okay. I just wanted. Yeah, the staff has recommended approval. Okay. Okay. Well, basically, it's a building on Southland Drive. I'm assuming it's not, we don't have pictures of it, but it's going to be for Little Caesars. It's right now, it's a conditional use change for a drive-through being permitted. The building, I would assume, since it already has a drive-through lane, it has a drive-through window, it's an approval that has been done in the past. I guess looking at some of the neighbors and kind of preempting a little bit what they have voiced concerns about, But, you know, for us, there's lighting concerns that I think they're going to be brought up. And, of course, this building abuts two homes, backyards of homes. And certainly I'm a homeowner. Most of us are all homeowners. We understand those concerns. And I think we would certainly feel all of their concerns are valid. The one conditional use that they have asked to not include in our plan is for a drive-through speaker. As you know, there can be noise that's created from a drive-through speaker, and I think that is one of the instances that I'm sure you'll hear from them, and I'll let them speak to that of some of the concerns. And if you don't mind any concerns they may have, I would like the opportunity to talk to them about it and certainly will be reasonable in discussing anything. Sure. I have a question. The drawing that was attached with the application incorporates three separate parcels, as I understand it, and your parcel is $269? Correct. Is that right? And the other two parcels that are listed on this map are owned by other people? Yes. Two different owners. But you have an agreement, an access or egress agreement with those other people about driving through their property? We have not completed that. There is one owner that he wants to, that he has a few concerns, so that's not finalized. I think more of the issue at this point is the conditional use for us. It's not the site plan approval, but it's conditional use to use that property as a drive-through. How it's set up, I think, is still open to interpretation at this point. Sure. I can bring up a site on the guys there. There should be a laser pointer underneath. Yeah, you wouldn't mind handing that to Seth. We can bring that up just to illustrate. Thank you. There you go. Yeah. Here before you is the site plan provided by the applicant for the request. Yeah. And it looks to me that the proposed, it looks like there's no proposed standalone order box you order at the window. I don't see one on the site plan. That's a really good question. I'm not sure that it's on there either. You have a picture of it, Rob? Generally speaking, and certainly they can correct me if I'm wrong, but generally the pedestal sits. You have to have five cars behind the window. And so if you were looking at this drawing, if you can see the stack. Now, there's a couple. You've got another stacking from the order spot, not the window. If you can see where the end of the building is, according to what a drive-thru needs for stacking, there needs to be five cars after the drive-thru menu board. So where our menu board would be, would be facing, would be right at the very end of our building there, right where the fourth car is, is where the menu board would be, and the drive-thru menu speaker. Yeah, and I think that's kind of, I mean, real quickly, real fast, if I could finish. I just wanted to, because you're talking about the noise from the ordering. It would be helpful for us if we knew where that ordering was going to occur before. Because I mean, I'll tell you, I am, this is my stomping ground. The building on the right was an old walk-and-go Chinese restaurant, and this was the least famous recipe restaurant. So this was, at some point, a fast food establishment. But what I want to get to is we can't really address neighbor concerns if we don't know where the actual speaker box is going to go. Well, I think you said the speaker, the menu board is where the fourth car is. And there is a small indication there on the drawing that I have. Yes. Just right in front of the, just to the left. there in front of the fourth car. Correct. I see that. I see it. Where? Right button. Right there by that error, that last error. So the menu board would be right here. Right here. This doesn't exist. So it already, it's existing there right now? No, there's no menu board there currently. Well, then that's not showing. That's just a spot on the pavement. Menu board is. Right. Yeah, that's not showing. That's the design. Okay. We'd also like to note that these won't be the finalized plans. I mean, I can say for certain I've met with both of the other landlords. And, you know, we're still in negotiations as far as trying to – there's – the whole lot layout is just kind of weird the way it is currently. And it mainly affects, you know, ourselves and then the building in the very back. That makes no sense. but the tenant next to us doesn't really have too many issues. We're still in negotiations as far as the site plan goes, but this is more just a conditional use for a drive-through. Yeah. No, I understand that, and trust me, the staff will let you know that I am not the first one to stomp on people's ability to do new developments in old locations. But I just want to make sure I've got the facts straight because the neighbors are going to be raising some issues and if we don't have the facts from you it's hard for us to respond to them of how things could be possibly changed like i'm curious about what your plans are for um the buffering in the back between your property and their property well so i mean that's where it's going to be a lot of it's going to be subject to the city and also with the neighbors itself so i mean on the property line i mean it's been overgrown for i mean quite some time there's several very large dead trees there's i mean the fences are in very poor shape so i mean for our benefit you know we want to clean that up and obviously make it as good as you know very good looking which would include landscaping but it all depends on you know city approval with that as well you know so i mean we'd have to take a plan to the city and said this is what we propose. Is this something that's going to work? And that's what we still don't know at this point. And obviously we want to accommodate to our neighbors the best that we can and keep the noise and keep the light out of the backyard just like I would want myself. So that's our goal. It's just we don't have an exact plan that's going to say, hey, this is exactly what we're doing. One of the requirements for approval is maintaining a six-foot solid fence on the back part of the block side of the property. Is there fencing there now? No fencing there? There is fencing. It's just a chain-link fence. It's in very poor condition. So the fencing that's there now doesn't comply with the requirements of this application? Absolutely not. One of the errors on your drawing seems like it's going the wrong direction. Just to be sure, what we have is an error going out, which looks like to me it should be coming the other direction. Right here? No, on the other side, yeah, right there. Yeah, it's pointing toward the driveway. That's a two-way drive. This was our proposed plan. So when I met with this landlord here, Jeff Malikovas, who owns this building here, we had discussed trying to open up this middle section to make it flow a little bit better for our building, their building, and this building in the back is what we were proposing. But it didn't do a lot of benefit for this building, so he didn't see a need. So we kind of are back to the drawing board on how exactly this will work. We have several other plans that are just what? Sorry, can I interrupt a second? So my daughter, who just made me a grandfather here a couple weeks ago, she submitted this plan. And I apologize, I was a little confused when I saw that one, because that is not the plan that he nor I thought was submitted. I think she submitted this. This is kind of a working plan that we were trying to go on, but I'm a little confused as to the purpose of this hearing. Conditional use, and just some explanation. Conditional use, I thought all we were doing is trying to come up and remake this building as a drive-through building, not necessarily submitting a site plan for approval. So am I clear? You're mistaken. I am? Yes. Okay. Yeah. That's the reason why I was in these questions, because normally we would see a site plan. Yes. That would give us a better feel for what your plans are. Okay. And then we approve a plan that says, okay, this is what they're doing. There's some flexibility, but there's something on paper at least that gives us an indication of like here's the speaker box. We're putting a solid fence here. We plan on putting pine trees or we're going to just do the bare minimum underneath the landscaping ordinance. Okay, so you need an all-encompassing plan. The first condition is that the property is operated in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. Okay. So we need a site plan before we can approve the application. Perhaps that was misunderstood. Well, Tommy, the condition, I think they specifically wrote it that way for them here, subject to revisions to the site plan as being necessary during the permitting process. That's not our permitting process. That's the permitting of the construction. Yeah, so just for clarity for the applicant, there are things that aren't resolved by us. You know, they still have to go through traffic engineering. You do still have to go through planning and building and permitting. We just need to have enough bases of what you plan to do so that we could actually say a drive-through could work here. You know, we'd be okay with giving you the conditional use. But you do still have to work out the details with the other departments, correct? That's correct. But I think the staff thought that this was the site plan that we were supposed to review, but it sounds like maybe it's not. And it may have changed since then. Yeah, and I just handed that. Sorry to interrupt. Okay. I just handed them that. Are you all able to put that up? Yeah, so staff is bringing up. Okay, let me reorient. Let me ask you guys this, how quickly are you planning on starting construction? We're a ways off. Okay, it may be beneficial if we just kick this till next month, let staff review this plan before we go any further. We were just discussing that over here as well. because the plan that's submitted with the application shows egress but no ingress on your property. So that was confusing. Yes. And I was under the misunderstanding that perhaps you had some kind of agreement with adjoining property owners already in place. Yeah, and I apologize. That's 100% my fault. I should have followed through with her. and made sure that I at least knew what we were submitting. But this is what I thought that we were submitting, and this is probably what we're going to have to go back to since the other property owner isn't open to doing it as was in the other plan. Okay, well. And that does have a menu board on it. Let me ask the staff, do we have an existing plan before us? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Do we have an existing plan submitted with this application that we can approve or do we not? Well, I think we have a plan, Tommy, that they submitted, but... I mean, the plan that was submitted with the application doesn't appear to be workable to me, and it's not the one that the applicants intended. Is that correct? Well, with the plan that we're reviewing, there is no menu board labeled, but it does show enough stacking to consider with the drive-through facility. The discussion on the menu board was, I think, has been addressed. There's enough stacking with where they've now clarified. it will be located. But the applicant wants to replace the plan that we're looking at with this plan, correct? So we need to replace the previously submitted plan. The plan they submitted had extra details about the shared parking on the other properties. This site plan that they've now shown us just addresses the flow of the traffic through the site and the stacking and where the menu board's going to be in my opinion, in staff's opinion. Well, I think, but this plan is different, completely different. Like, parking spaces are different. I mean, it's, I don't know. If you guys are comfortable with, if staff's comfortable with moving forward with this plan, I have shown that we can talk about this plan as shown. But neighbors haven't seen it. We've just now seen it. I just want to be on record that the staff hasn't seen this plan at all until 10 minutes ago when the applicant brought it. So either there was miscommunication or something, but we reviewed what's labeled as a concept plan. And we get all kinds of site plans of various quality. so we don't get stuck on the word concept. If it shows how their drive-through is going to function, really that's the point. And missing a menu board, certainly that's applicable or important information, especially if it's a noise issue. But we reviewed this, and we made our recommendation based on this. And I just want the record to show I am not at all holding staff or blaming staff. I'm just saying, is the staff comfortable moving forward having just received this, if this is the conceptual plan? Or are you guys, I mean, I'm comfortable, I mean, just to be honest with you, I've read the plan, I know the property, I'm comfortable with the drive-through at this location. I think there could be some things to possibly eliminate concerns of the neighbors, which would help if we had more information to address those issues. But overall, you know, I'm comfortable moving forward if the staff's comfortable moving forward. Or the option is a continuance. Is that what we're talking about? I still think we need more information. I would prefer to postpone it. Continue to next month? It seemed like to me it would be better for everybody if we have something really definite and we can say, yeah, yeah. And it's thought through because it seems like to me it's a little bit temporary right now, including the joint ideas about parking and all that that's in the proposal here. And so I think a continuance would be excellent. I think the biggest issue was the drive-through portion doesn't appear to be changing. They do appear to have the five stacking spaces, but this parking layout is much different. And although they seem to be meeting the required number of parking spaces, I'm not sure that traffic engineering would sign off on that. Yeah. I would think that with all the pending questions and with the apparent neighborhood concerns, that it might be more feasible for us to postpone this for 30 days so you all have a chance to properly submit your site plan to the staff to circulate it to the neighborhood or to publish it in keeping with the requirements so the neighbors can have a chance to review it and propose any questions and that next month you all come back and be prepared to discuss the site plan. The correct site plan. The correct site plan. So I'm recommending a continuance of the case. We've already heard from you briefly, and we haven't heard from those in opposition. It may be that in the 30 days between now and then that some of that opposition will be satisfied. Mr. Glover, if I could, do we want to check with the neighbors that some of them might be able to return if they want to put any concerns on the record, at least that way we know what the concerns are? I'm assuming concerns are going to be typical concerns with lighting, traffic flow, noise from the speaker, adequate parking. Same things we always hear from neighbors that are on contiguous pieces of property. So I don't know that that's a requirement. And perhaps if we have a full hearing next time, we won't have to repeat the things that are said today. The neighborhood, are the neighbors, you all in the second row there are neighbors. I understand. You're sitting in a row. You live in a row. Sure. Would it be a great burden for you all to come back next month? Okay. We apologize. In the meantime. Maybe if you have a little time afterwards, we can talk. Yeah. Yeah. Is this our first communication with them at all? That would be helpful for each side for you to discuss things. It might answer some questions and it might not have the need for so much testimony when it's heard next month. Okay? Okay. So I'll entertain a motion to continue this hearing for 30 days if somebody wants to. So moved. There's a motion from Mr. Gross. Second. Second. Second by Ms. Whitman, all in favor, motion to continue, indicate on your screens. Motion to continue this case for 30 days and the next hearing date will be June 13th. So this case is continued to June 13th at 1.30 in this very location. Motion passes and motion carries. So the case is continued and that's all we need to hear. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Thanks. I was hoping to postpone until July. Are there any board items? Any members of the board wish to raise anything at this time? Hearing none, are there any staff items that we need to hear before we adjourn? Hearing none. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. So made, second and move. We're adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. I said, everyone you meet, they're jamming in the street all night long.