# Board of Adjustment Hearing - November 14, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 14, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5688 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5688?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-11-14 - **Last revised**: November 14, 2022 - **Length**: 26,058 words - **Speakers**: Quick Question > ⚠️ **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 November 14, 2022, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed nine agenda items during the session, including variance requests, conditional use permits, an administrative appeal, and an early rehearing request. The meeting featured three public comments from community members and resulted in nine formal motions and votes by the board members. Of the nine agenda items considered, eight were approved and one was postponed. The approved items included the meeting minutes, multiple variance requests from property owners Victor and Faida Natour and Stacy and Eric Henry, an amendment request by Dream Care Learning Center, LLC, and an administrative appeal by Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC. The board also granted an early rehearing request by Heidi Frazier and approved conditional use requests from Independence Bank and Kim Bragg. The only item not resolved was a variance request by John Dehart, which was postponed for future consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the November 14, 2022 meeting: • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Branden Gross (arrived late) • Chad Needham • Carolyn Plumlee • Linda Tucker • Chad Walker All members were in attendance, with Branden Gross arriving after the meeting had begun. No members were recorded as absent from the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on nine items during the November 14, 2022 meeting, with eight items approved and one postponed. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Harry Clarke motioned to approve minutes from the September 12, 2022 and October 10, 2022 meetings, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote (7-0). **PLN-BOA-22-00052** [timestamp: 11:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve Victor and Faida Natour's variance request to reduce setback from a floodplain, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously (7-0) with conditions requiring construction to follow submitted materials and obtaining necessary permits from Building Inspection. **PLN-BOA-22-00055** [timestamp: 20:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve Stacy and Eric Henry's variance request to reduce rear yard setback for deck addition, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously (7-0) with conditions for compliance with submitted materials and obtaining Building Inspection permits. **PLN-BOA-22-00053** [timestamp: 30:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve Dream Care Learning Center, LLC's amendment request to expand their childcare center, seconded by Linda Tucker. The motion passed unanimously (7-0) with conditions requiring compliance with Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services regulations. **PLN-BOA-22-00057** [timestamp: 40:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC's administrative appeal to change non-conforming use, seconded by Chad Walker. The motion passed unanimously (7-0) with extensive conditions including a 99-child limit and outdoor play area requirements. **PLN-BOA-22-00029** [timestamp: 50:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve Heidi Frazier's early rehearing request for fence height variance, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. This was the only contested vote, passing 4-2 by roll call. Voting in favor: Harry Clarke, Carolyn Plumlee, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. Voting against: Raquel Carter and Chad Needham. **PLN-BOA-22-00045** [timestamp: 1:20:00] Branden Gross motioned to approve Independence Bank's conditional use request for drive-through facilities, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously (7-0) with conditions requiring compliance with Town Branch Commons Master Plan and various departmental approvals. **PLN-BOA-22-00047** [timestamp: 2:00:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve Kim Bragg's conditional use request for drive-through facilities, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously (7-0) with conditions for Traffic Engineering compliance and Environmental Services approval. **PLN-BOA-22-00054** [timestamp: 2:30:00] Branden Gross motioned to postpone John Dehart's variance request for front yard setback, seconded by Harry Clarke. The postponement was approved unanimously (7-0). ## Public Comment Three residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing concerns about a proposed drive-through facility in the downtown area. **Blake Hall** [timestamp: 1:10:00] addressed the appropriateness of drive-through facilities in the downtown area. Hall raised concerns about safety and traffic issues that could result from such development in the downtown core. **Paula Singer** [timestamp: 2:10:00] focused on traffic congestion and safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists. Singer expressed worry that the proposed drive-through would create additional hazards for non-motorized users of the area and contribute to traffic problems. **Peter Brown** [timestamp: 2:15:00] voiced opposition to the proposed project, citing two main concerns: increased traffic congestion and the potential negative impact on property values in the surrounding area. All three speakers shared common themes of traffic and safety concerns related to the proposed drive-through facility, with no speakers voicing support for the project during this comment period. ## Contested Items The November 14, 2022 meeting featured several contentious items that generated significant discussion and opposition. **Early Rehearing Request by Heidi Frazier** The board faced a split decision regarding an early rehearing request for a variance application submitted by Heidi Frazier. The request divided board members, ultimately resulting in a narrow 4-2 vote in favor of granting the early rehearing. The specific details of the original variance request and the reasons for seeking an early rehearing were not detailed in the available materials. **Independence Bank Conditional Use Request** Independence Bank's conditional use application encountered substantial community opposition during the meeting. Local residents and community members voiced concerns about the proposed drive-through facilities in the downtown area. The primary objections centered on potential safety hazards and increased traffic congestion that could result from the drive-through operations. Community members argued that such facilities were inappropriate for the downtown location, citing the potential negative impact on pedestrian safety and overall traffic flow in the area. **Kim Bragg Conditional Use Request** A conditional use request submitted by Kim Bragg also faced significant community pushback. Similar to the Independence Bank proposal, this application involved a drive-through facility that raised concerns among local residents. Community members expressed worries about the potential for increased traffic congestion in the area and the safety risks posed to both pedestrians and bicyclists. The opposition focused on how the proposed drive-through operations could create hazardous conditions for non-vehicular traffic and contribute to overall traffic problems in the vicinity. Both conditional use requests highlighted ongoing community concerns about balancing commercial development with pedestrian and bicycle safety, particularly regarding drive-through facilities and their impact on local traffic patterns and safety conditions. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board considered the approval of minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under review were from the September 12, 2022 meeting and the October 10, 2022 meeting. Raquel Carter presented the minutes for the board's consideration. The board reviewed the documentation from both meetings before taking action. The minutes from both the September 12, 2022 and October 10, 2022 meetings were approved by the board without recorded discussion or concerns raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## Variance Request by Victor and Faida Natour [timestamp: 11:00] The board reviewed variance request PLN-BOA-22-00052 submitted by Victor and Faida Natour. The request sought to reduce the required setback distance from a floodplain to allow construction of an addition to their property. George Day served as the key speaker presenting information about the variance request to the board members. The discussion centered on the specific setback requirements and the proposed reduction needed to accommodate the planned addition. The board evaluated the variance request against applicable zoning regulations and floodplain management requirements. The request involved modifying standard setback distances that are typically required to maintain appropriate separation between structures and floodplain areas. After considering the details of the proposal and any relevant factors affecting the property, the board voted to approve the variance request. This approval allows the Natours to proceed with their addition project under the modified setback requirements rather than the standard floodplain setback distances. The approved variance enables the property owners to move forward with their construction plans while maintaining compliance with modified zoning requirements specific to their situation. ## Variance Request by Stacy and Eric Henry [timestamp: 20:00] The board reviewed variance request PLN-BOA-22-00055 submitted by Stacy and Eric Henry to reduce the required rear yard setback for an addition to an existing deck on their property. Stacy Henry presented the request to the board, explaining the need for the variance to accommodate their planned deck addition. The variance would allow construction closer to the rear property line than typically permitted under current zoning regulations. The board discussed the specifics of the setback reduction and evaluated whether the request met the criteria for granting a variance. Board members considered factors such as the impact on neighboring properties, compliance with other zoning requirements, and whether the variance would create any precedent concerns. Following their review and discussion of the application materials, the board voted to approve the variance request. The approval allows the Henrys to proceed with their deck addition project under the modified setback requirements. The resolution of PLN-BOA-22-00055 enables the property owners to move forward with their home improvement plans while maintaining appropriate oversight through the variance process. ## Amendment Request by Dream Care Learning Center, LLC [timestamp: 30:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-22-00053, an amendment request by Dream Care Learning Center, LLC to modify an existing conditional use permit for expanding their childcare center operations. Mike Scott served as the key speaker presenting information on this agenda item to the board members. The request involved amending the current conditional use authorization to allow for expansion of the existing childcare facility. The board considered the proposed modifications to the childcare center's operations and physical capacity. The amendment would enable Dream Care Learning Center, LLC to expand their services beyond the current permitted scope under their existing conditional use permit. Following discussion of the amendment request, the board voted to approve the application. The approval allows Dream Care Learning Center, LLC to proceed with their planned expansion of the childcare facility under the modified conditional use terms. The resolution of case PLN-BOA-22-00053 enables the childcare center to move forward with their expansion plans while maintaining compliance with local zoning and conditional use requirements. ## Administrative Appeal by Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-22-00057, an administrative appeal submitted by Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC. The appeal sought to change one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use on the property. Chris Clendenen served as the key speaker presenting information about this administrative appeal to the board members. The case involved a request to modify the existing non-conforming use designation for the property owned by Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC. The board deliberated on the merits of allowing the transition from the current non-conforming use to the proposed alternative non-conforming use. This type of appeal typically requires careful consideration of zoning regulations, the impact on surrounding properties, and whether the proposed use would be more or less detrimental than the existing non-conforming use. Following their review and discussion of the case details, the board voted to approve the administrative appeal. The approval allows Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC to proceed with changing their property's non-conforming use classification as requested in their application. The resolution of this case represents the board's determination that the proposed change in non-conforming use meets the necessary criteria and standards for approval under the applicable zoning regulations. ## Early Rehearing Request by Heidi Frazier [timestamp: 50:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-22-00029, an early rehearing request submitted by Heidi Frazier regarding a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence. Jessica Winters served as the key speaker presenting information on this matter to the board. The request involved seeking a variance that would permit a fence height exceeding standard municipal regulations. The board reviewed the early rehearing request, which allows applicants to request reconsideration of previous board decisions under specific circumstances. This procedural mechanism enables parties to present new information or address issues that may not have been fully considered during the initial review process. Following their deliberation on the merits of Frazier's early rehearing request, the board voted to approve the motion. This approval means the board agreed to grant the early rehearing, allowing the fence height variance matter to be reconsidered through the standard review process. The approval of the early rehearing request does not constitute approval of the underlying variance itself, but rather provides Frazier with the opportunity to have her fence height variance application reviewed again by the board under the early rehearing procedures. ## Conditional Use Request by Independence Bank [timestamp: 1:20:00] The board reviewed agenda item PLN-BOA-22-00045, a conditional use request submitted by Independence Bank to establish drive-through facilities for a proposed bank location. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker presenting information about the conditional use request. The proposal involved establishing drive-through banking services as part of Independence Bank's planned facility. The board considered the application for the drive-through facilities, which required conditional use approval under local zoning regulations. Drive-through services typically require special consideration due to their potential impact on traffic flow, site design, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Following discussion of the proposal, the board approved the conditional use request, allowing Independence Bank to proceed with their plans to include drive-through facilities at their proposed location. The approval enables the bank to move forward with the drive-through component of their development plans. The resolution of PLN-BOA-22-00045 represents the board's determination that the proposed drive-through facilities meet the necessary criteria for conditional use approval in the designated area. ## Conditional Use Request by Kim Bragg [timestamp: 2:00:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-22-00047, a conditional use request submitted by Kim Bragg to establish drive-through facilities accessory to a gas station. Kim Bragg presented the request to the board, seeking approval for the drive-through component of the proposed gas station development. The application required conditional use approval as drive-through facilities are not permitted by right in the applicable zoning district but may be allowed through the conditional use process. The board considered the proposal for drive-through facilities that would operate in conjunction with the gas station, allowing customers to make purchases without leaving their vehicles. This type of accessory use requires special review to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and compliance with applicable development standards. Following their review and discussion of the application, the board voted to approve the conditional use request. The approval allows Kim Bragg to proceed with establishing the drive-through facilities as an accessory use to the gas station, subject to any conditions that may have been imposed as part of the approval. The approved conditional use will enable the gas station to offer enhanced customer convenience through drive-through service while maintaining compliance with local zoning regulations and development standards. ## Variance Request by John Dehart [timestamp: 2:30:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-22-00054, a variance request submitted by John Dehart seeking to increase the maximum front yard setback for a retail use. Chris Clendenen served as the key speaker presenting information about this variance request during the board's consideration. The specific details of the variance request involved modifying setback requirements that would affect the positioning of the proposed retail development on the property. However, the board did not reach a final decision on the application during this meeting. After discussion, the board voted to postpone action on the variance request. The postponement allows for additional time to review the application materials, gather more information, or address any outstanding issues that may have been identified during the initial presentation and board discussion. The case will be rescheduled for consideration at a future board meeting, giving the applicant and staff additional time to prepare or modify the request as needed before the board makes a final determination on whether to approve or deny the variance. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from September 12, 2022 and October 10, 2022 meetings - **PLN-BOA-22-00052** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Victor and Faida Natour to reduce setback from a floodplain - **PLN-BOA-22-00055** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Stacy and Eric Henry to reduce rear yard setback for deck addition - **PLN-BOA-22-00053** — passed (7-0): Amendment request by Dream Care Learning Center, LLC to expand childcare center - **PLN-BOA-22-00057** — passed (7-0): Administrative appeal by Shunar Concrete and Construction, LLC to change non-conforming use - **PLN-BOA-22-00029** — passed (4-2): Early rehearing request by Heidi Frazier for variance on fence height - **PLN-BOA-22-00045** — passed (7-0): Conditional use request by Independence Bank for drive-through facilities - **PLN-BOA-22-00047** — passed (7-0): Conditional use request by Kim Bragg for drive-through facilities - **PLN-BOA-22-00054** — postponed (7-0): Variance request by John Dehart for front yard setback --- ## Full transcript between the front and the back even some retro arcade games that you know I grew up with the old Galaga and Pac-Man Astroids those sort of games we have a rage room so if you got anger issues or just need to release a little bit of stress we have a rage room for you to do that but yes we do have the bowling we have cornhole we run tournaments every Mondays and Fridays in here I'll have upwards of 40 50 players okay so yeah there's a lot of different things to do And you have a snack bar. Yes. Do you serve alcohol? Yes, we have a full bar, and we also offer over 100 different varieties of beers and ciders and seltzers. Wow, that's a lot of fun. Well, my son, he loves arcades, so he'll have a blast with that. And, you know, one of my favorite things to do is to throw axes. So I might have to come out after work every day to throw axes or use the rage room. then go home and feel even throwing axes is a great stress reliever it really is yeah and it's a good workout yeah it really is well the go-karts you spend eight minutes on a 40 mile an hour go-kart you're you get a little bit of a workout yeah yeah and you all put a big investment into this business didn't you yes ma'am yeah and so um i want people to know that this exists um and that You know, there's a lot of neighborhoods nearby. People could come out. They could have a party. They could come out after work, go on a date night. And that we can support our local business owners by coming out to have a good time, right? Oh, yeah. We offer birthday packages. We have a party room. There's a lot of requests for that over at our old location. But it seats up to 40 people. We also televise all the U.K. games now. Oh, wow. Yep. So we have a big screen. It doesn't look big in this building, but there is a big screen TV over there for watching the UK games. And we also have one in the party room as well. If you just want to rent the party room and have a UK party, you can watch the UK games in there and eat and drink. Okay. Come out here and participate in attractions. Well, that's great. That sounds amazing. And then you have food that people can order, or do they need to bring food for a party? No, we don't allow outside food. Okay. The only business that we still cater with, which we catered with over there for the last four years, is City Barbecue. So we do have larger groups that do cater through City Barbecue a lot. Like tomorrow, we have a party of 100 coming in, and they've catered City Barbecue. But we offer some of the best pizzas in town out of our concession stand, and some basic finger foods, cheese sticks, loaded tots, loaded fries. Brandon was right behind me. I was going to give him a quick minute. All right, I think we can go ahead. We have a quorum. Brandon will pop in. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call today's Board of Adjustments meeting to order. Okay. Let's see here. These are minutes from last week. Our first order of business was we did have the minutes sent out. We had September's previously and then October's this morning. We may not have had time to review each of them. But if you have been able to review it and like to make a motion, we will. If we need to table October to give you more time to look at it, we can do that as well. Madam Chairman, I've read both of them, and unless there's an objection from the board, I'll make a motion to approve both September and October minutes. I second. We have a first by Harry Clark and a second by Carolyn Plummer. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, well, we'll take a vote. At this moment, if anyone is here to speak on behalf of the case, if you're an applicant or witness on the case, if you could stand at this time so I could swear you in. Okay, if you could raise your right hand and repeat after me. I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Yeah, that's fine. It's always my favorite part. It's my law and order part. I'd also like to have anyone who would like to speak in regards to a case be sworn in at this time. I'm not sure if everyone heard that. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, if you would like to speak either for or against the case as well. If you could. Okay, here we go again. Right hand. I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Good deal. And also I'll mention at this point if you are speaking, make sure you've signed in with your full name and information on the signing sheet. At this point we've found the agenda and what I'd like to do is I'll read through the cases. I'll make sure the applicant is here or not here. Make sure the applicant is here. At that time we'll also see if there's anyone to speak for or behalf. If there is no opposition, if the staff recommends approval, then those will be heard first. The other cases with either opposition or some input from the staff, those will go at the end of the agenda. And first, I'd like to see, we do have a withdrawal, right? That's correct. The PLNBOA 22-50, the Redwood Cooperative School Incorporated, will be withdrawing their application this month. They're doing this in order to be reviewed under new parking regulations that were adopted by City Council on October 27th. And so they are moving forward with refiling and they'll be back before the board in December, just officially under the new parking regulations. Okay. And as we discussed, there's no need for a motion or anything regarding that. So you guys can mark one off, one down. Okay. Okay. So the first case is actually PLN VOA 22-29, and that's Heidi Frazier. Is the applicant present? And that one is recommended for disapproval, so that one will be fully heard. Yeah, nice of you to join us, Brandon. I was late, too, so that's why I'm giving you a hard time. Okay, the next one on the docket is PLNBOA 22-52. That's Victor and Theda Nator's request. Are the applicants present? All right, this one has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this particular case? Okay, well, this one will be heard first. No? All righty, our next one is PLNBOA 22-55, Stacy and Eric Henry. Are the applicants present? This one's also recommended for approval. Is there anyone to speak in opposition? I think he was waiting. No opposition? Okay. That will be heard second. All right, our next one is a conditional use appeal, PLNBOA 2245. That's Independence Bank. Is the applicant present? Presentation. And this one is recommended for disapproval, so we will hear it, fully hear it. Okay. We hear everyone. Okay. Good deal. So the next conditional use appeal is PLN BOA 2247, and this is Kim Bragg. You're present. That's also recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this particular project? For or against? Against. Against, okay. So that will be heard as well. It's withdrawn. Our next one is PLN VOA 2253 Dream Care Learning Center LLC. Is the applicant present? Do we have anyone that has been recommended for approval? So do we have anyone here to speak for or against this particular case? Okay. That would make that actually number three on the docket. Then we have PLN VOA 22-54, John DeHart. Is the applicant present? And that has been partially recommended for approval and partially disapproval, so we'll fully hear that case. Yes. As to the conditional use permit, by the code. Yes, please. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I'm Chris Clendon and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We would like the variance to be heard, but we would like to request a two-month postponement on the conditional use permit for the drive-through. Okay. Give us the opportunity to work with the staff on it. Great deal. So the variance itself has been recommended for approval, so we will hear that one. And do we have any opposition on just the variance for the setback? Not drive-through related? We do back here? Not drive-through related, just, we do still, okay. So we will still hear you, but we'll just hear the variance part. And then I'll need a motion to approve the postponement for the conditional use for the drive-through for two months, if you guys are acceptable to that. Okay, since we're going to hear the variance, we could just take care of that then. Just want to do it at that time? Okay. No problem. Thank you. Okay. Let's see. So we have the conditional use appeal, PLN, VOA 2257, that's Shunar Concrete and Construction. Is the applicant present? On behalf of the applicant, Ms. Watkins is here also. She's the operator. The applicant is in Tennessee today on business. Okay. That has been recommended for approval. Do we have anyone else here to speak for or against that particular case? So I think that would be number four if I'm keeping good track. Okay. I think that's it. Did I miss anything, Steph? All right, let's start back at the beginning. So number one is PLNBOA 22-52, Victor and Theta Notorious Request for Variance to Reduce the Required Setback from a Flood Plane. If the applicant will move up. Take the podium, please. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. If you state your name for the record. Yes, ma'am. My name is George Day. Have you been given permission to speak on behalf of the applicants? Yes, ma'am. I have. All right. And the staff has recommended approval. Do we have any questions or discussion from the board? Okay, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 22-52 Victor and Fida and the tour's request for variance to reduce the required setback from a flood plain from 25 feet to 18 feet in order to construct an addition in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1045 Chasewood Way based on staff's three reasons and subject to the two conditions. And I'm sorry, I should have asked that. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And you're okay with them? Absolutely. Thank you. Forgive me. Thank you. So we have a first. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Mr. Clark, second. Any other questions or discussion? Okay, we'll take a vote, please. Okay, looks like your motion has passed. Your project is on its way. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay, we have PLNBOA 22-55, Stacey and Eric Henry. Please state your name for the record. Stacey Henry. And the staff has recommended approval. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions, the two conditions? And are you okay with those conditions? Yes, ma'am. Does anyone on the board have any questions regarding this particular project? I did have a quick question, just a point of clarification. The deck itself was already there. When we bought the house in 2013, the deck was there. And all we're trying to do is repair the steps out the back door down to the deck because they're rotted. We're not even touching the deck. We're just touching the stairs. Okay, and you got the proper permits to do that? Yes, that's what started all this, is the contractor went to get the permit. I'm actually giving you great praise. Thank you. You and your contractor for going through all the correct steps in the correct order. I'll entertain a motion if there's no other questions. Madam Chair, I move to approve Stacey and Eric Henry's request for variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 to 0 feet in order to construct an addition to an existing deck in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 446 Monticello Boulevard based on staff's reasons and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Second. Thank you. We have a first by Mr. Needham and a second by Ms. Plumley. Any further discussion? Okay, I'll take a vote. Motion is passed. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you. All righty. Okay, number three is PLN BOA 22-53 Dream Care Learning Center, LLC. Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. Mike Scott. And the staff has recommended approval. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions? Yes. And are we okay with those conditions? Yes. Does anyone on the board have any questions or concerns about this particular project? Okay, we'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 22-53 Dream Care Learning Center. request to amend an existing conditional use in order to expand an existing child care center in a light industrial zone on property located at 2414 Palumbo Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the two conditions as listed. Thank you. Do I have a second? Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay, we'll open a vote. Motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you guys. Okay. We have PLN VOA 22-57 that's Shunar Concrete and Construction LLC. The applicant? Madam Chairman, Chris Clendenin on behalf of the applicant, Chouinard Concrete and Construction. Now the staff has recommended approval, but there are several conditions listed here. There's five conditions. Have you had an opportunity to look at those conditions? And are we? Yes. Okay, okay. And are we comfortable with the conditions? Yes, we agree to the conditions. conditions. This time does the staff have any questions? I think just in looking at it as long as staff feels good about it it was just questioning the required 2475 square feet of outdoor area and where that would be if you could maybe. Well if the if there's some sort of overhead that would help me illustrate and answer your question, Mr. Needham? Okay. So surrounding the property is what they talked about, narrow strips. Okay, on the side yard, there is some paved area, but it's mostly grass. In the back, it's mostly grass, but then there is also paved area. And on the side was what they had alluded to made the previous tenant. Yes. Oh, I don't have the pointer. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Gross. It's the button with the long line across here. Right there? This one right below. This one right there. Okay, there we go. Okay, here we are. Thank you. Okay, here's the parking lot here. Here's the building. This is where the front door is right here. There's a play area here, play area back here, play area along the side. And then if you notice in the report, they had talked about play area that the previous tenant had paved over that's along here. Now, this area here is fenced off for play area all the way back here, and there's a fence here. The plan right now is to fence this area here along the building and then where the paved area is and make that part of the play area. They are looking at removing the concrete to increase the grassy area. However, the paved area can also be used for play area. But the measurements that we have around here, from this site here, all the way around this way, and then all the way back around here, is close to 3,000 square feet. So that would be sufficient to support 99 children. We would need 100 children for the 25 square foot requirement would be 2,500 square feet. And we have that plus about 500 square feet more. Now, again, there's going to be a decision, but they can either make this paved area here, once it's fenced in, play area, or remove the concrete and make it grass and also make it play area. So for 99 children, for the purposes of this appeal here, they'd have more than sufficient play area. I hope that answers your question. On my plan, it shows that the concrete area that's on the corner there between the two roads is parking. Is that correct? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, sir. The concrete area there at the intersection, yeah, right there. Right here? Yes, that shows we have it as parking. Well, it currently is parking. What they're going to do is change that and get rid of the parking. They have more than enough to fulfill the parking requirement here and here. And they're going to, right now there's not a fence along the building. And this portion of the play area here, there's a fence that comes up to where this grass is. So what they're planning to do is fence this off and use the paved area as additional play area. Or possibly remove the concrete and naked grass, but also use it as play area. But either way, this is going to be fenced off from the building down to where the fence is, the other part of the fence that runs along Appian Way. Okay, thank you. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. My question is, why was this nonconforming to begin? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Why is it nonconforming? Over time, what was permitted as a conditional use within the residential zones changed. So originally, this went through the conditional use process early in the 70s, but after it was approved and established, the zoning was changed to no longer allow it in that zone. So from that point on, in order to continue to operate or to switch over to another non-conforming use, it's had to go through the administrative appeal process instead. But this site originally obtained a conditional use permit in the early 1970s. Thank you. Thank you. For some history on the property, it was a daycare originally, the conditional use permit, and then as a non-conforming use. Then it was converted to an adult daycare as a non-conforming use. And what we're asking for is it to go from the adult daycare back to a children's daycare as a non-conforming use. Let me ask the staff if I might. Am I correct in assuming that this facility could not operate as a daycare until these additions have been made? Is that correct? They would have to fulfill all the conditions established by the board within the conditional use permit in order to operate. They'd have to prepare the play areas before they could open the facility. That's correct. Thank you. Great question. Anything else? No? Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLN 22-57 Schoonar Concrete and Construction LLC's request for an administrative appeal to change one non-conforming use adult daycare facility to another non-conforming use child care center in a single family R1D zone, a property located at 3600 Appian Way, based on staff's reasons for approval and subject to the five conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? We will entertain a vote. Motion has passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. I think we're done for the day. No, just joking. Who were missing? Oh, Harry. Your vote didn't record. Okay. So we will jump back to variance appeals. So this is PLN BOA 22-29, Ms. Heidi Frazier. Staff has recommended this approval, so we will hear from staff first. And then we do also have legal present that we will be able to hear from as well. Do I need the record to reflect that a board member of Gross is recruiting? Okay. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Crum. I can't do anything with Mr. Gross, so you just proceed, please. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on our agenda here is BOA 2229. And this is an early rehearing request, which is somewhat unusual. We don't see too awful many of these. But this is a request from Heidi Frazier, and she's requesting an early rehearing. Initially, this subject property, the applicant requested a variance at this location earlier this year in July. and was disapproved by the board and is seeking early rehearing. So the bylaws of the Board of Adjustment allow the applicant to come before you and ask for an early rehearing earlier than the one-year delay that is typically required if an application is disapproved. In this request, the applicant has to demonstrate that there's been new information that would substantially alter the character of their appeal that the board would need to reconsider. So this is, when you're acting on this item, you're not ruling on this item now, but simply determining whether or not there is new substantial information that would require, that would make another hearing of this item appropriate. So this was a request at the property located at 143 East Lowry Lane. And this was a variance in order to increase the height of fencing in the front yard from four feet to six feet. So just gonna go briefly go over the, kind of the location and the general character of the initial request. So here we have the subject property. It is a corner parcel located at the corner of Lowry here and Delwood. Nicholasville Road is close by the vicinity. Everything to the east of the subject property is a single-family residential neighborhood with some commercial development adjacent to the west. Moving in a little bit closer, you see the home itself. The home fronts on East Lowry. Its front door is located on East Lowry. A substantial amount of discussion of our initial hearing this item was dedicated to what is the front yard when you have a corner lot such as this, what sort of makes that appropriate, and how does the fencing regulate it in this area. In this instance, fencing which occurs in front of the home in that front yard area has a maximum height of four feet. There was fencing constructed by the applicant in the front yard area as shown on the site plan here that was at six feet. So the applicant came before you and asked for a variance in order to increase the height of the fencing. Staff recommended disapproval of that item, and then the board acted and disapproved it as well. That denial was based on a couple of findings. One, that the site didn't have any kind of special circumstances that lent itself to this variance, and that with the ability to construct four-foot tall fencing did not deprive the property owner reasonable use of their property. So as a part of that discussion, there was discussion on what constitutes the front yard area, the pedestrian impact of six-foot tall fencing along the property line, as well as kind of discussion of the history of the property. So the applicant has come before you with a couple of items that they will speak to after my presentation, but they really boil down to four sort of different items. One is a subdivision plat that was created before the house was constructed that shows it with a Delwood Drive address. Some letters of support that were not provided to the board at the time of the initial hearing. Previous case history with a different property as well as a police report from the area. So kind of just going through these line by line, the applicant has provided this plat that shows the property with an address not located on Lowry, but rather on Delwood. This was done in 1955, which was before the home was constructed. The applicant, before construction, kind of had the flexibility on whether the, not the applicant, but the original property owner, rather, had the flexibility when the property was splatted on whether they wanted to construct their home and orient it towards Lowry or if they wanted to construct it and orient it towards Delwood. That orientation and that decision that was made back in the 50s basically set and determined what the address was once the home was actually constructed. As noted in the staff report, this home has always operated with Lowry as the frontage with the front door on Lowry. So going back to the other items, there were some letters of support that were included with this application, including one that claims that there is another property or several properties within the larger neighborhood that have a similar configuration. However, the letter does not identify those properties. and overwhelmingly the characterization of this neighborhood is properties that either have fencing in the front yard that meets requirements or do not have that fencing at all. The third item cited by the applicant in their request for a rehearing is previous BOA case history. However, this applies to a different property with a different set of circumstances. And in this instance, the applicant in that request, which was BOA 1927, was able to demonstrate some more tangible hardship and special circumstances that are applied in that property that lent their variance there. And finally, the police report of trespassing or other illegal activity in the area. The police report did not specify or was not in relation to this property, but rather another property in the vicinity. So with all of that, staff is recommending disapproval of this request for an early rehearing. None of the application materials, new materials provided by the applicant, substantially altered kind of the character of the original appeal. Staff is still sticking to their original findings that lack the special circumstances and lack the hardship necessary in order to be granted a variance. And neither the subdivision plat, the letters of report, the other BOA case history on a different property provide any new information that would tangibly impact the board's original decision. So with that, staff would be happy to have any questions you have of staff at this time, and we are recommending disapproval. Do we have questions of staff? Thank you. Great job. we'll have the applicant thank you good afternoon I'm Jessica Winters here on behalf of Heidi Frazier and I do have a little PowerPoint presentation that I'd like to share with you before the meeting I handed out copies of that if you would like to follow along and then there's a letter of support that has some supporting documentation with that as well and I'd ask that those materials be made part of the record in this proceeding. So as you've heard from staff, this is a somewhat unusual request, a request for an early rehearing of a matter you decided in July, which was about six months ago, four or five, six months ago. So if you were to grant the new hearing now, I don't know, I guess it would maybe be heard on the December docket or perhaps January, depending on your lineup there. But essentially, you would be rehearing this matter a few months earlier than she would otherwise be entitled to file a new application. So in some regards, the reason we filed for a rehearing is because she hired a contractor named Tiger Fencing to construct her fence. And after reviewing the permit guide for walls and fences on the Division of Building Inspection, she was informed that all she needed to do was hire a contractor and that the contractor would go get the necessary permits. And she trusted her contractor to do that. That did not happen. And the contractor built the fence without the required permit. And then it was brought to the Division of Building Inspections attention. And she was directed to remove the fence or file an appeal with this body within 10 days. So it was a very short turnaround for her. She wasn't represented by counsel when you first heard this case, and she didn't have an opportunity to gather all the documentation to demonstrate that she had these special circumstances on her lot that would justify the variance. So when she came before you, the materials that we're sharing with you today had not been considered. And it would be a waste of resources. Because we filed the application for early rehearing, she has not been required to remove the fence that's already there yet. But if the early rehearing is denied, she'll have to tear down the fence and then apply for another hearing in July and then possibly rebuild. So we're doing this in an effort to sort of short circuit that process and avoid wasted resources in another turn in front of you in a few months. So this here, the first picture shows 143 East Lowry Lane. And this picture is important because, as you can see, the house is oriented toward Lowry Lane. It is a long lot, and much of her side and rear yard faces Delawood. And all of that portion of her property is not fenced. So that is a big section of open green space right there on the corner of Lowry and Delawood. that could be fenced if she wanted to fence it because a lot of that is her side yard and rear yard, but she has left it open, and that really fits with the character of the neighborhood and the flow of the eye down Lowry to have that green space there. And in fact, the area that she's wishing to extend, you can see the fence as it is constructed also in this picture, and I'll show you another good image of that. In fact, the fence where she would like to have the six-foot fencing encompasses just 195 of the total 245 linear feet along Lowry. And it's just on this area of her property, which, as you can see here in this picture, it joins. Well, the fence is partially constructed. And you can see in this photo that her property, the side yard of her property, backs up to these commercial uses that are directly adjacent. And right now there's a planet Fitness there, and there's a Smoothie King slated to go in directly behind her house there. So her property is unique in that it does abut on the side yard, these commercial properties to the side. Whereas the rest of the folks on Delawood, their rear yards butt up to those commercial uses, and so they are allowed to have the six-foot fences, and they all do down the line there, all the properties that front Delawood. So this is the brushy area that's right behind her fence along the utility easement that is between her property and the commercial uses. And this shows that directly across the street from her is a two-story apartment building. And those apartments have a kind of a direct view down into her side yard there, which is one of the reasons she was seeking to increase the height of her fence. This is a recent development that was not considered by the board in July. Since July, there have been a number of homeless or vagrant folks who have been camping behind her fence right here in the utility easement. And this picture here shows these water jugs that have been stored there. there's trash and other evidence that folks have been camping there or living there that is new since the board's consideration of this matter in July. And this is, I've included just a couple videos so you can get a sense of the streetscape here and how Ms. Frazier's property fits into it. So this is taken from her front yard, sort of showing the green space, the apartments, and then the area that she would like to see fenced. And the traffic along Lowry is quite substantial and is increasing as commercial development occurs in that shopping center that's directly adjacent to her property. This is a video that shows the encampment that is now located directly behind her fence. And the way her yard is sloped, it's a four-foot fence there would not provide very much privacy at all because where the fence is is on the edge of a down slope. and her yard then slopes up to the house. And this is just another video of the new encampment behind her fence there. Okay. And this is coming down so that you can see her house there with the large green space on the corner with Delwood and kind of puts it in perspective, the section that she wants to extend the fence height on, which is just a small portion of that Lowry Lane facing side of her yard. And then you can also see from this video how it abuts to the commercial uses there. And again, as planning staff said, we're not asking you to reconsider the merits of the case right now. We're just talking about new information that has come about since the board decided this matter in July. And one of the things is an anonymous caller, actually, an anonymous caller, not Ms. Frazier, contacted the police about trespassing. And I included a copy of the dispatch report. It's hard to see on the PowerPoint, but it's attached to the letter that I gave you earlier. And planning has indicated that this trespassing report was not involving Ms. Frazier's property. And this was after the board decided the matter in July. This happened in September. And this relates to that new encampment behind her fence that has arisen recently. And on the second page, it makes it clear that it is, in fact, her property. And police did come to her house and ask her about this, and they went together to look at the area where this encampment has developed. And it makes it clear that the call related to homeless subjects camping out in the backyard of the first home at the intersection with several items near Fence Line. And Ms. Frazier's home is in fact the first house at the intersection of Lowry and Delwood there. So this police report and the homeless encampment do in fact involve her property, not merely adjacent properties. and since this board's consideration of the matter in july we've learned of other similar cases heard by the board within the past couple years and one involved a case an application by mr condo where he had a very similarly shaped property to miss frazier's as you can see here i guess i could use this little try to use it oh there we go okay so this is the house that mr condo's property and he also had a long narrow lot where the large amount of road or the lot footage faced this road here and he wanted to extend just a part of his fence around this portion of his side yard to six feet very similar to what miss frazier is requesting here and it had all this green space that was unfenced here just as with miss frazier's property and there the board found it persuasive that because of the unique circumstances of the lot being shaped the way it was, it was appropriate to grant the variance. And key to the board's consideration of that matter was that there was a condition there that would limit the six-foot tall fencing to just that one small portion of the front yard. And also, key to the board's determination was that the majority of the green space on that road frontage in front of the house was left unfenced, just as with Ms. Frazier's property. So Ms. Frazier learned of this case that was similar to hers after the board considered her application in July. And these are, this is just a slide just discussing the board's consideration of that case, which I already just covered. Now, this is an interesting thing as well. So this is something that has arisen since the board's consideration of this matter back in July. it has been determined that there's new development in the area that will be happening within the next few months that we wanted to bring to the board's attention and you can see a bit from this plot just to orient you okay so this is Lowry here and this is Miss Razor's property and this is the rear of her property and just a portion of that is her front yard and the other portion is the backyard so we're dealing with this section here and the Planet fitness is over here. So this commercial use impacted Ms. Frazier, but not necessarily directly because it is a few houses back. But now there's the Smoothie King that's going to be built right here. And the drive-thru for the Smoothie King will come directly behind her property and wrap around the building. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, but cars will be entering here and then the drive-thru will come through this way. And so this is a new development. This is new information that was not considered by the board in July that could substantially alter the character of her application and so far as she might be able to establish special circumstances justifying the variance. And this is a slide here that shows you the trip numbers for this new development. And it's substantial with up to several hundred cars per day coming through the drive-through there. I included this trip report as an attachment to your letter as well. It's hard to read from the slide. And then also, since the board's consideration of the matter in July, she has received this plat that shows the original orientation of the property did face Delwood, which would make sense because of the shape of the lot. And if, in fact, the property had been oriented that way, her backyard would be all of this section along Lowry, and she would be able to have a six-foot fence there. And so this is a unique, whoever made the decision to orient the house toward Lowry made the backyard essentially nine feet wide from the back of her house to the next property next door. So this is new information that was not considered by the board in July. and this shows that you know that miss frazier is only wishing to increase the size of her fence and a very small portion of her front yard just this section here and then it drops back to the beyond the house line right next to the house and then all of this again is unfenced we did reference other similar fences in the neighborhood as a new information that was not considered by the board in july and staff is correct that we did not include the address of that other property in our letter so i wanted to provide that to you today it's 1988 heather way and i don't know if you can tell from the image but heather way is right here and this fraser's property is just two blocks away right here. So it's a very close property. It has a similar orientation and lot size and layout to Ms. Frazier's. I've got some pictures of it here for you. You can see here that as with Ms. Frazier's, the large portion of the front yard and side yard are green space that are open and really help the eye travel down the road. And it's just the small portion of her road front of this property's road frontage that has a six foot tall fence there. and that just helps the property owner be able to utilize their side yard as a backyard on these peculiar peculiar lots where the backyard is so shallow due to the construction of the home facing the long side of the property rather than the short side so that was also new information that wasn't considered by the board i've also attached the two letters of support to the letter that I provided to you earlier. One is from her, the only residential, single-family residential property owner that neighbors Ms. Frazier along Delwood. And she supports Ms. Frazier's application and notes the two-story apartment complex directly across the road and the slope of Ms. Frazier's yard as justifying a need for the increased height of the fence along the portion of the yard that she uses as her backyard. so that she can enjoy that yard fully. And then the second letter was written by a former president of the Zandale Neighborhood Association. And this letter has some interesting information. He is, Mr. McTee, is actually the person who shared with Ms. Frazier the plot information that she didn't have when she came in front of the board in July. And he did like a windshield survey of the neighborhood just driving around the various streets. And he has some information here. he noted that only three other lots in the neighborhood have houses with orientation like Ms. Frazier's house. And that one of these, which is the one at 1988 Heather Way, has a fence that's the same height in a similar location and layout to what Ms. Frazier is requesting. And so this letter of support is new since the board's consideration of the matter in July. And so it's our position that an early rehearing would avoid waste of resources by keeping the fence in place until the new information can be fully considered by the board. And that we have presented four new pieces of information that weren't presented to the board in July, involving the new homeless encampment and the police report relating to that, letters of support, increased intensity of use adjacent to the property with the Smoothie King, and other similar fences in the neighborhood. So thank you for your time. Just a moment before I open for questions from the board, just if we can get clarification from staff again because it is so unusual. What we're trying to determine or any questions that we would ask is just whether or not directly related to whether or not we want to rehear this case prior to the year time frame, which would have otherwise come into place. And then by the definition of new information, to me, I thought it would mean it was new existing, like it didn't exist before, but can we consider information that may have previously existed, but the client, the applicant just now had time to bring it? Do we consider that as new information as well? So quoting directly from the bylaws here, let's see here. So they can reconsider granting a rehearing if new facts or conditions which were not presented and considered previously and would substantially alter the character of the original appeal. So if the board did not consider it and it would substantially alter the appeal, you have the flexibility and the ability to rehear the request. Thank you. So at this point, do we have any questions for the applicant? I'd like to say I find just in general that there is enough new information. And I understand the staff's position, I think it's basically correct, but I see some reasons for considering some of the new information. Plus, it's not really new because I just kind of discovered this myself because I took time to go by the house and look at the existing fence and also look at the area on the side of the house where there is presumed to be trash and people living there. And I discovered it really is a mess. It is an absolute mess. And if I was living there, I sure would want a six-foot fence along that edge for sure. And so I think that there's enough there that I would certainly consider a re-hearing, based on this early application. I think there's reason for us to consider the needs of an applicant, a citizen that's in a particular position, whether we're making that decision now, which we're not, of course. But I think there's enough information that it deserves a rehearing because I really feel strongly that there's things that we really did not consider the last time. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. I certainly agree that there is fodder for a new hearing, that last time we had no documented photos of vagrant activity, number one. I don't think we really mentioned the Smoothie King. We mentioned the fitness center, but not the Smoothie King. And I don't think we talked about the 1955 plat, about the orientation of the house, and the neighborhood support. I don't think the letters were there to read either. So I think that in all fairness, we certainly should give this person a chance to up early and to have another hearing. Thank you. Anything additional? I would just add before we move forward and see if we have any additional from the staff. A little less than just this case, I guess, you know, I'm empathetic to the applicant and to the issues that you're saying, but it does appear that now she's in a position that maybe she has a stronger case. So then what type of precedent are we then setting? We make a decision and then the applicant can go back and then find additional information to support or not to support or refute our decision prior to the one-year deadline. So there's a couple of things that just concern me in that particular manner that they obviously should have an opportunity to appeal, but that is already set out for the timeline in which to appeal. And I just, I don't want to start the slippery slope of rehearing every case when they go back and pull more information. So I don't know how we get to determine what really is new information. Because prior to the conversation, it was a great presentation. My thought of new information was information that did not exist previously. Not that it existed. those houses were already there the fences were already there so that it did exist it just wasn't presented you know in in that fashion before so it's it makes me line align a little more with the staff because that is the that that's what has to be done before you present the case the first time i understand that i understand that and i i don't really disagree with you i think we do we do do need to follow the code and follow the law. But in this particular case, and we do this all the time, we look at a case and we say, is there something that really demands us to look further? And I think there's even literally a safety factor here with vagrancy that is obvious that I think we would be sorely mistaken to turn this down based on what we've seen and heard. And I don't know how it'll come out in the long run. But at the same time, the code gives us the opportunity to do this. And anybody who has the need to do it should be able to come before this body regardless of what priorities we are setting. We're not setting any priorities. It's already in the law. And so I think we'd be making a serious mistake, it's my opinion, of course, if we didn't at least give them an opportunity for rehearing. And maybe there's some modifications that could be made in order to make this less of a concession and difference in terms of what we would normally approve. And I should add to Ms. Frazier and Ms. Winters that most of the time what Madam Chair says, we don't like setting precedents like this because this is very dangerous because now anybody could come and say, well, you gave them, we have to have a special case here. And I think, but the point is we need to give the opportunity to rehear the case. And I think there's enough here to mandate that. I don't know if I'm able to just point out one small thing or if it's not my time to do that. But just along the lines of what's new, like new information that did not exist when you determine this matter in July, and that is the vagrancy. That was a newly developing thing that just developed over the fall. and the police report that I attached, that was from a call from a concerned neighbor. It was an unidentified caller, but it wasn't Mrs. Frazier, and that occurred in September. So that is something new that has happened since July. I'll give my thoughts quickly. You know, I think Ms. Frazier has a case here based on, you know, if we were to rehear it in a year from now, I mean, I'd be, I think this fence extending the way it does, I don't have a huge issue with it. It's a unique piece of property. We can make that. I think we could figure that out. But, you know, I don't think I'm, the only thing new to me is probably the development that's happening on the corner. And I guess I could see it that way with the Smoothie King. because, I mean, vagrancy and homelessness and, you know, I think anyone can argue that that's increased around the city and everyone that's going to want a higher fence because of it probably is not something that I would say is going to make me vote for this as new information. It would really just be the development for the Smoothie King. And if planning staff can clarify, the development for the Smoothie King was approved back in 2019 and I believe was covered in part of the discussion in the findings of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment with regards to the pedestrian that would be traveling from the neighborhood itself to these commercial entities. So while construction may be proceeding soon, this was approved back in 2019. So just as a point of clarification with that particular item. And a couple of things. So I agree with Mr. Clark that we should have an opportunity to re-hear. An applicant can always come back, but I think our question before is will we re-hear it before the standard amount of time where we usually have a re-hearing? So if you also feel so inclined that we should shorten that because they do have the opportunity to re-hear always. that's not something that we want to remove or take from our citizens. But if you feel that that should be expedited or shortened, staff has recommended disapproval, and we may need to take a short recess to speak with legal, to come up with some reasons or some findings that would actually support such a motion. I think we have findings within Ms. Winner's presentation. I think her reasons are adequate enough. If you do want to make such a motion, I'm sorry I turned it on and off, I do still think we should confirm with our legal and our staff that those findings would support such a decision against staff. I mean, to me, the difference, I think the consensus here is we want to hear it again, But whether to hear it in a month or two or hear it next July, and to us it doesn't make that much difference, but to the applicant the time difference would be not good for her. So that's why I would support to move it on up and hear it early. So we'll take a brief recess. That sounds good. Thank you. Yeah, I would agree with that. But I think from the applicant's standpoint, I think time is extremely valuable. So we do have legal here, right? Okay. I can't see. Okay, so we'll take a 10 minute, you think? Recess? Thank you. out of recess. And if there is a motion, we will, well, first let me just double check if we have any, do we need anything else from staff? Do we have any other questions you guys are comfortable? Okay. If there is a motion, I will entertain it at this time. I'll make that motion. Based on PLN BOA 22-22, 2, Heidi Frazier's request for an early rehearing of a variance request. I move to approve the request for a rehearing. The applicant has presented new information in the form of several points. A, photographs of a homeless encampment abutting the property. B, a police report documenting trespasses near the fence line on the property. C. A new development that will go in behind the property. And D. Letters of support from neighbors and surrounding properties. And this information substantially alters the character of the original appeal. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right. So the motion is actually for approval of an early rehearing. and so when we take a vote, a yay vote is for early rehearing and a nay vote is for not, correct? Okay, so we will open for vote at this time. Okay, your motion has passed. So we will, you will go back on the, is that a, do they refile an application? Yes, that's correct. They'll have to refile. Refile for January, okay. From what I understand, the deadline for the December is passed, and so it will be January. Thank you, and good luck with you. So our next case, conditional use appeal at PLN BOA 22-45, that's Independence Bank. It has been recommended for disapproval, so we will have the staff's presentation first. Hello, Megan Jennings with planning staff. Last month during the October Board of Adjustment meeting. We heard this case and the board voted to continue the discussion so that staff and the applicant can meet to talk about more of the technical issues with the proposed site plan and the development. So I will just briefly go over the kind of location of the property just as a refresher. We're looking here at 366, 370, and 376 East Main Street. These three different parcels total just under a half of an acre and are located at the intersection of Vine Street, East Main Street, and then Midland Avenue here. Due to this property's location, it is considered a gateway into downtown. Here, zooming in just a little closer, these three properties, again, are currently serving as kind of a gravel, informal gravel parking lot. The applicant is proposing a two-story bank building just over 10,000 square feet. Along with that building, they have a total of almost 23,000 square feet of paved and screened vehicular use area, providing a total of 37 parking spaces. Actually, those may not be the updated numbers to reflect this revised site plan. So this revised site plan here on the screen was sent in by the applicant after our staff reports were required to be published. So the staff report before you today and what are shared online were not able to be updated by staff. So just a heads up, that staff report is from October. So because the board asked us to meet with the applicant, we scheduled that meeting for the first week of November. Members of staff from planning, traffic engineering, and the town branch commons met with the applicant to review the site and the development proposed. at that meeting, the applicant provided a site plan that's very similar to this officially submitted revised site plan before you today. So we were able to actually review this plan kind of with them at that meeting and just kind of express our initial review and potential concerns with this site plan. So they did officially submit this as their revised site plan last week. so in general I guess I'll kind of jump into the review of the site plan before you today and actually let me zoom in a little closer so you can see the circulation. We were reviewed I'm sorry Megan, I don't mean to interrupt, but is that the same as this one that we've been provided? The biggest change from the previous site plan you reviewed last month is the closure of a Water Street access point. You can see here they have closed that Water Street access point and have provided sidewalk along Water Street and along their western property boundary. So those are kind of the three major changes between the original site plan and this revised plan. Thanks. So first off, staff just wants to be clear that we're not trying to argue that banks can or should operate without a drive-thru. We acknowledge that they are integral to the success of a banking facility and institution. We just are not in favor of a drive-thru on this property. We reviewed kind of a lot of our concerns before the board last month regarding internal site circulation and of course the safety of pedestrians in and around the site. We take all this into consideration with every single drive-through application that comes before the board. And this site in particular, we acknowledged last month, is very tricky to try to fit a drive-through on this site without causing a lot of pedestrian and vehicular conflict points. even though the applicant has submitted this revised site plan staff is still not in support of the conditional use for a drive-through on this site there are several issues with the proposed plan first off kind of our main concerns with the pedestrian conflict points specifically with the the easternmost access point along their frontage on Main Street, the proximity to the intersection at Vine Street, Midland, and East Main Street, as well as the Town Branch Commons Trail that runs along the side of their property. This improvement project of the Town Branch Commons Park, and as well as just how downtown has evolved over the past several years and just an increase of pedestrian activity specifically in this part of downtown. Staff has a lot of concerns about pedestrian safety in regards to this site. And that's our biggest consideration when reviewing the request for the drive-through. Also just want to point out this new site plan has some tricky circulation issues with the closure of the Water Street access point that was in the bottom left corner of the plan. Mostly I just want to point out if a car user is driving down East Main Street into downtown, they see the bank here and especially the parking lot, they may pull into this first access point but are not able to actually get to the drive-through. so in order to get back around and get access to the drive-through a user would have to if they pull into this parking lot either whoop sorry if they make it all the way through here to the corner see the drive-through this is going to be a one-way out so they're not going to be able to at least legally come down this way and access the drive-through they would have to exit onto Water Street and come all the way back out, I'll show here, to an access road and come all the way back around to Vine Street, turn left again onto East Main Street and then re-enter the site here in order to access the drive-through lane. We did communicate these with the applicant, by the way, when we were meeting with them two weeks ago. and traffic also expressed some concerns with these angled parking spots in the bottom corner in order to back out of the spot and access the the bypass lane here they'd have to back up probably two three spots in order to make that turn so traffic had a lot of concerns specifically about those spots without the access point here onto water street and of course planning staff and transportation staff were very concerned still about this access point onto Main Street. The bank and their representatives clarified that the desire to maintain that access point was to provide an egress onto Main Street from their site. So that is kind of why it is still on the plan, even though both planning staff and traffic engineering staff have voiced great concerns about the safety of that access point. After that meeting with the applicant, Stephen Parker with traffic engineering kind of was playing around with an alternate site plan and shared this with both planning staff and representatives with the applicant. I've pulled it here on the presentation, but I did want Mr. Parker to come forward and kind of address, or I guess review his considerations in putting together this alternate plan. so as megan has alluded to we met with the applicant i walked away from the previous meeting with this board and realized very quickly that we need to to reach a compromised plan and in trying to facilitate moving the discussions forward i took what the applicant had said about wanting access from main street full access their previous plan had a one-way access point and a full access point closer to the intersection So in doing so, sketched out this plan and I believe it would work. I've talked to Kevin Phillips, the design engineer, and we came up with some compromised items. One, and some of these are unprecedented before, our drive-through regulations require a five-car stack. and we have always stuck to five cars per lane. And in a compromised solution, we said, well, we will allow the bank to reduce their car stacking to five cars stacked total. Rather than five cars per lane, you can count two cars in one lane, three cars in the other. You've got car number zero in both lanes, so you don't count that first car in any situation. So that was one item that we compromised on. We allowed a reduced width of the drive-thru lanes. Our drive-thru lane requirements are 12 feet. We allowed the applicant to go down to 10 feet in order to reduce the space in the back, to allow more green space, the sidewalk along Water Street to be able to fit in, allow more space to compromise moving the building. We also listened to the applicant about the desire for access on Main Street. I've mentioned that before. This plan has a full access in and out on Main Street. It is a safer location. It is away from the intersection point. on Friday, and unfortunately Friday, some businesses, including the LFCCG, was closed. However, I set a traffic camera on that point, and it was alluded to most cars don't come in to that lane until they get down near Carson's or the Chamber of Commerce. I can tell you at least 10 cars per light cycle hit between that diversion and there's a pole, an existing pole that is past where their proposed location is, they pull into that lane. At a minimum, 10 cars per light cycle. It's mainly cars coming on inbound Main Street. However, there are some cars on the light from Midland that go into that lane. I'm sure that number would have been higher had the urban county government been in place. I come down Richmond Road myself. I go to High Street. I enter the parking garage from High Street. Most anyone that works in the Phoenix building enters from High Street. So traffic engineering has always promoted access management. and it is vital towards the safety of pedestrians, safety of vehicles, those movements. And we feel that moving the access point away from that intersection creates a safer environment for pedestrians using Main Street, for travelers coming on inbound Main Street. in our discussions with Ms. Preacher she indicated that although the ownership has changed the trail on Talmadge Trail on Water Street was not supposed to have an access point to Vine Street so when you came out on Water Street you were going to go straight out to Rose Street the owner, previous owner negotiated and insisted that they wanted access from Water Street to Vine Street. And so that was part of the discussions that took place with traffic engineering, Town Branch Commons, the design engineers for the trail. And we support that access point and being able to facilitate and allow traffic to access there. You still have another access point and it's straight out onto Rose Street as well. So we feel that this plan is a compromise that can attain the goals that were mentioned previously by the applicant and attain the goals of planning staff, traffic engineering staff, and town branch commons personnel. I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have any. I do have a quick question. So we're still leaving with three access points. Yes. And each of them are both ways. Yes. No longer any one way. But we are closing that major concern. Yes. At the first Main Street entrance. Because of the proximity to Main Street and the intersection there, I would anticipate some rear end collisions, not to mention cars pulling out. it's a busy intersection so at nighttime when carson's is is going to be used in this parking lot as mentioned by the applicant my fear is that there's a lot more pedestrians at nighttime that are going to be out there and that that intersection complicates more items going on closer to the intersection, the more complexity, the more decision-making and anticipation by the driver. And this may not be a question for you, but I remember in our original discussion, the building was turned the way it was, I thought, by request of staff to have the frontage, you know, as the coming in point. That has not been verified. I'm not sure. Okay. There may have been some confusion about that, but either way, they have illustrated their building can face that way and it will fit. This building orientation, I actually pulled up and I can show you. This is an existing aerial of a Independence Bank in Paducah, Kentucky on South Broadway in Paducah. And when I pulled up their plan and measured, scaled the building, it turned out to be almost the exact same dimensions of the plan that was in Paducah. And so initially when I talked to Kevin Phillips, a design engineer, he indicated that if they rotated the building, the drive-thru would have to change to a different side of the building. However, this plan shows this orientation with the drive-thru at the back of the building. The dimensions are the same and everything. So I think maybe the floor plan changes. I'm sure they can elaborate on their buildings and different floor plans, but this was an attempt to reach a compromise that seemed to be what this panel wanted from staff and the applicants. So I was trying to serve kind of as a mediator, and I fully support not having a drive-through here. But at the same time, if you all decided to allow a drive-through to be placed on this site, that maybe this was a pathway forward that could satisfy everyone. I have a few questions for Stephen. Okay, the first one is, I know that there are currently both these access points exist. Do they exist in these locations or are they being removed for the new development? Because I go out. There are four lots right now up through there, and I think their plan is to consolidate. It doesn't show it on this plan. but the consolidation of the lots and I think the orientation of the building they were eliminating some access points. I'm sorry along Main Street right there the two that are there currently today they're retaining in their plan. Yes okay and and what has changed is the that turn lane and the construction of the trail has altered that approach. At one time, previously there was a lane that came off of Vine Street that was exclusive to Vine Street. Wait, I'm talking about Main Street. Vine Street wrapped around. Yes. Now you make a left turn at a signal, so it is a 90-degree turn. That sweep lane is gone now. So we don't, I could have provided data, but I didn't think it was accurate. It's misleading at best to introduce data on a different geometrical layout. And there's not enough time right now to accurately say yay or nay. Thus, what I did respond, it was previously introduced that most cars do not enter that lane until they get to Carson's or the Chamber of Commerce. Observing the traffic camera and watching the cycles for an hour, that seemed to be a little bit different. I appreciate that, but can we throw up the plan as proposed by the applicant? I just want to make sure I'm understanding. Yeah, not that one. Can I just ask a quick question just to clarify what you said, Stephen? So if you're taking a left from Vine on to Main, you have to stop now. Does that, the lane you turn left in, is that two lanes then opens up to three, or does that stay two lanes? I don't know. It's two lanes. It opens up to three. You can see the little angle. oh yeah i see it now okay okay so so that that is the sidewalk portion and the bump out that was constructed um as part of the trail they they moved they moved us a crosswalk further down main street to align better with thoroughbred park and i guess our is the city going to eliminate then that parallel parking because it looks like to me it's going to right now there's no parallel parking and parallel parking does not begin until carson's no that's exactly but is that parallel parking going to stay because it seems to me that that would be more dangerous than yes moving traffic right okay so there will be a drop down but there's also still going to be a gap for the parallel parking beyond this site well essentially where the independence bank is i'm Sorry, and maybe, are you talking, there's no parallel parking on the lot that has just the parking lot. There is parallel parking closer to Carson's. Yes. Okay, so I'm sorry, I thought you meant. Yeah, no, no, no. So essentially, you're going to take the left. You're going to, you can then go from your two lane to your three lane. Yes. Then you got this entrance, and then you've got, I think, like four or five parallel parking spaces, and then you've got the second entrance. Okay. But those parallel parking spaces are going to stay? Yes, I would assume so. That was my question, because it seems to me like those spaces are more dangerous than people turning in. It's a site distance thing. And based on this plan, those parking stalls will be evaluated. But at this point, there's not been any discussions with Lex Park to eliminate them. A couple more questions. If they deleted the drive-through, the plan as proposed could be built. That's a planning question. What's that? That's a planning question. Oh, okay. I guess Megan. They would still have to go through the permitting and review approval process with all the related divisions for by-right development. Yes, but they could bring this plan in tomorrow and say we want to build this without the drive-thru. And all the other divisions would still have an opportunity to look at it and comment and suggest revisions. All right. And then one last question, Stephen. What is the amount of traffic generated by a bank drive-thru? I mean, we're talking in the peak hours. It seems to me the peak hours would be like in the morning and in the afternoon and then in between one car an hour. Right. It varies. Talking to the applicant, they estimate at 30 to 35 colors. All day or? All day. All day. Okay. And there are banks that we see more than that. There are banks, mainly credit unions, that we see less of that. But their model, most of their sites that I have seen, with the exception of some that are located inside of a high-rise or something, or a commercial building, have drive-throughs, including the one that you'll see here in just a second at the Paducah site. And then I said one more question, but I lied. I've got one more question. Now, these 30 to 35 throughout the day, would these be, and I know we didn't do a traffic impact study, and if you say you don't know the answer, that's fine with me, but would these be new trips or passerby trips, do you think? So are we looking at, of the 30, already 25 are going to be coming down this way anyways, and all they're doing is turning in? Are we looking at 30 new trips? I don't really don't know because I don't know who is a member of this bank. Yeah, that works for me. You can carry on. That's all the questions I had right now. Thank you, sir. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Parker or staff at this moment? Okay. You guys ready to hear from the applicant? So this shows the Pazuka site that I was discussing and shows the orientation of the building. The dimensions, exterior dimensions at least, are almost identical to what was shown on their plan. It shows the drive-through at the back. It is a four-lane, and I'm not real sure if it's three drive-through lanes and a bypass lane or maybe two in an ATM. But I just wanted to illustrate kind of similar what was considered for their site and how rotating it and orienting it towards Main Street was a possibility, given that myself or planning staff had not requested the building to be oriented towards Main and Vine. So, thank you. All right, so I just wanted to talk about specifically this access point just really quick. Yes, it is an existing access point. There has not been development on this site in a long time, and just because it's an existing access point doesn't mean it's compliance with our current regulations. So I just wanted to make that clear, even though it is existing, it doesn't mean it's compliant or should. I don't know. I also wanted to talk about just the importance of closing that access point again. The trail users on Town Branch Common won't just stay on the trail. They will come into downtown with a change in quality of life, the increase of restaurants in the area. there will be an increase of pedestrian and multimodal users directly along their main street frontage, along the trail itself, and just in and throughout the site. So I just wanted to kind of reinstate why staff is concerned specifically with this access point as proposed on their current site plan. I also just wanted the board to know that a representative of staff with Town Branch Commons is here. if you have any questions specifically for them. I'll hand it over to the applicant. Thank you all. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Independence Bank. For the record, I'm putting a copy of the PowerPoint presentation and also our proposed findings and conditions into the record. So Nick Nicholson and Sean Spaulding with Stalkenian here on behalf of Independence Bank. Phil Reine and Stacey Berg are here as well again on behalf of Independence Bank and Dennis Wilson with Axiom Architecture is here and hopefully we'll be able to answer any possible questions that you all may have. As this is a continuation, I'm not going to go back through all of the reasons that we talked about the kind of adverse impact, why we believe that there's a minimal impact for this proposed actual drive-thru, much less something that would rise to the effect of an adverse impact for an accessory bank drive-thru that would actually impact our neighbors. We heard the concerns that the board had had. This was actually the new plan. I do want to just kind of remind you all what the old plan did look like. We did kind of hear your all's concerns that I would say that the most kind of pressing were to kind of take a look at the access to this site, take a look at the pedestrian infrastructure, and see what else can be done in order to make sure that this is kind of a pedestrian-friendly site. And if you'll remember, we had the kind of four access points. Here's the one on access for the folks in the crowd. Here are the four kind of access points that were previously shown. There was a limited break in between the site and Water Street that was, you know, while it did have some landscaping, it was certainly minimal. There was no pedestrian infrastructure, and there was a concern for the folks that were parking along Water Street. how are they going to be able to kind of access the trail? And so with the kind of new plan that we brought in, we went ahead and eliminated the access point here in order to make sure that we are kind of funneling traffic towards the major vehicular corridor that our city has, which is Main Street. We also wanted to make sure that we are adding substantial landscaping to add additional screenage to make sure that this area was kind of fully blocked. You also, on the kind of overhead that Mr. Parker showed, you saw the canopy that comes off to kind of covers the drive-through that further screens any of the cars that are going to be there. We also added another about 200 square feet of landscaping right here on Main Street and removed parking, and so this is a more kind of shielded entranceway. Combined right here, we added 1,000 square feet of infrastructure in several trees in order to add more buffering, and that does not get into this area that we, pre-filing, had already talked with the trail that we were going to give them for enhanced screening and square footage that they needed to make that corridor truly a reality. The major change, I think, is adding pedestrian infrastructure on Water Street and going all the way along Carson's and Gus's. Previously, it only went about a third of the way to basically the Gus's back door that they used to kind of remove garbage. We now have pedestrian infrastructure going from Main Street to Water Street all the way along Water Street and connecting back into the trail. We also still have the pedestrian improvement right here from what we have kind of designated as trailhead parking in the off hours. This weekend, I went ahead and walked Water Street. I can confidently tell you that this will be the only site on this part of Water Street that has any pedestrian improvements whatsoever. I would argue that if we are allowed to build, this will become the safest pedestrian site from this area right here on Vine Street all the way to Rose on Water Street. Here are kind of the combined slides just very quickly to show you in one of the kind of major improvements that have been made. And to get at kind of this concept of rotating the building, we talked a lot about the site constraints, but I wanted to show you all kind of visually what we're actually up against and why this site has been very difficult to develop in the past, why in the past it has always had a drive-through associated with it, but also why we can't simply just turn the building. It is not that easy when we have a hard ban that this is where the utility easements are where we're not able to build on. This red or the pink little strip that is in the middle of the purple right here, that is the main kind of KU duct bank that is serving a third of downtown. We are not going to be able to build on top of the power plug for a third of downtown. This is the Town Branch culvert that is coming along, basically a water street where the water is kind of flowing underneath the site. And then we also wanted to go ahead and highlight again kind of all of the areas that we have been talking with the trail in order to make sure that this is just for the public use. These don't really serve the benefit for our customers, for our employees. We are proposing to dedicate kind of the sidewalk area and this area right here to the city. And then this triangle is where we have been talking with the trail folks in order to add improvements on our site that we are paying for that is for the public benefit. And lastly, I know we talked a lot about it. The plan is for this to be trailhead parking for those that want to access the trail that aren't fortunate enough to live within walking distance of the trail or bicycle distance. We want this to be a public site. Mr. Nicholson? Yes. So are you saying those front parking spaces will be open to the public? All banking hours, yes. We're working on basically plans to try to make sure that that can be trailhead parking. We also are cognizant of who our neighbors are and want to figure out a plan to make sure that that can be trailhead parking truly. And it isn't just kind of restaurant overflow. Because at the end of the day, we've been working on this plan with the administration and with the trail folks for a year. We've owned this property outright since last December. We have been anxiously awaiting construction. And we held off because we knew how important this trail was. We knew how important the staging and construction operation sites was. And so we are happy to do so. We are happy to continue to work with LFUCG to make sure that the surrounding of this site is not just good for our use, but becomes truly a community entity, a community gathering place, because that's what we, at the end of the day, want this to be. I've handed out the findings and conditions from last time. I did make one change to recognize the fact that we were adding pedestrian infrastructure on Water Street and then all the way up from Main to Water. I did want to quickly, since we kind of talked about it, here's the drawings from the Town Branch Trail. This shows that this access point was taken into consideration during the design phases. A drive-through was permitted in 2016 when they were going through this design phase for the trail itself. The concept of a drive-through was taken into effect, and this entrance specifically was taken into consideration. And that is why you see this perfect kind of shield right here protecting this entranceway. If we are basically limited to just having this one access point over here, I don't believe that that's actually addressing the concerns that have been raised with regards to we're worried that if people are looking one way, pedestrians are going to be the other. Well, all we've done is move the egress point to right where we know the existing congregation point is, right outside of Carson's. And so while we understand the desire to get it further away from the Vine Street intersection where it's always been planned to be, we also don't believe that that actually solves the primary concern that has been raised with regards to that specific pedestrian improvement. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know we spent a whole long time last time talking about the various different reasons why we believe that this is justified. I'm happy to get back into those if you all want. but I know that you all are on a short meeting as well. No, I'm ready. I figured. Go back one slide for me. Yeah, that's what I want to see too. Which one? There we go. I will say I like this current plan more than I liked your first plan. I've got two things I want to talk about. The first is how you're going to control who has the right of way between the bypass lane and the drive-thru lanes. And then also I want to talk to you about adding ADA access from the building sidewalk to the Water Street sidewalk. It looks like the sidewalk ends and then you get to landscaping without any connection between the building and Water Street. Basically in this area right here? Yeah, right there. uh we can certainly add either a uh you know a speed table some type of marking whatever we need to basically connect in through that um i don't think that that would be much of a problem in any way shape or yeah i'd want something like that yeah and then um what about the uh drive-through versus so this is one way only so like this is no at the connection point where there you go right there so only one-way traffic can come through here so if you're worried about people coming in there no i'm worried about people coming through the drive through and not being able to see people going through the bypass how are you going to control that conflict point um we could easily put signage there where you're basically either a yield or stop sign right there to make sure that the that is clear that either the drive-through has priority or bypass has priority all right well this gets approved yeah i'd like that to be resolved with traffic engineering and planning on those two items um you know like mr parker's playing better than your plan but you know, you on the property. He also can't build in an easement. Yeah, I understand. And as part of his plan, we would have to build in an easement. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Who will be responsible for maintenance for that parking area out there? That is us. That is still our property. We own this property. And so that 100% is us. We are just trying to give that basically for the benefit of Lexington. Thank you. Yes. I've got one more. where these two lanes drop down into the pass-through lane on main street yeah yeah is there i don't know is there um are you able to get um an encroachment permit or something or somehow you know designate with paint for people that are merging into that lane not to just gun it um does that make sense like somehow slow down i think that we could work with public works in in order to basically put the kind of yellow stripe right there where the kind of. Yeah. Right here. Yeah, and I don't see any reason why. Is there any proposed bike on the main street? Are they putting in a bike lane or is that on the right hand side? It is on the other side. Okay. This is just bike parking for the trail, which also we are adding a lot of those on our site as well. Like it seems to me having a bike lane, but I guess it doesn't make any sense because the parallel parking is right there. So, okay. These are the parallel parking spaces that Brandon was referring to. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you. I just had a good one. What is your thought to what Stephen Parker said? You can go back to the one we were just on, looking right down Main Street. Your thought of why that first entrance is such a kind of pressure point for them. Any time that there is an access point near a intersection, traffic engineering is going to want that further away. I don't think that that's breaking any news and I don't believe that that's speaking out of turn in any way. That's also an existing access point that if this conditional use permit is turned down, it's going to be there. It's always been planned for this site. It will continue to be planned for this site. It is a vital way for this site to basically work with that front parking area that we want to be kind of shared with the public. While the Paducah site was great, they let you ring a building with drive lanes. The staff has made very clear the last few times this plan has come through in 2009, 2011, and 2016, which have all been approved for drive-throughs, that they would absolutely not allow a drive lane to circle the building. And so while that plan is great, that plan cannot occur here because we don't want drive lanes going along Main Street. I very much understand that point, and that's why we brought the building as far up to Main Street as possible while still working with the easements. But in order for that site to function, that access point is vital. The staff brought up the idea that if a person coming down Main Street turns into that first exit entrance, how do they get to the drive-in? So the easiest answer is signage. We will be able to mark basically signage for where the drive-through entrance would be and where it would not be, and also experience. You do that one time, you're never going to do it again. And that's the beautiful part. Independence Bank has a very strong customer base, and they are repeat customers. And so once someone comes to this site the first time that does need to go through the drive-thru, because oftentimes we forget the fact that people need to go through the drive-thru, they're not going to make that mistake again. I'd actually like to go back, if possible, to Mr. Parker's plan. Sure. That's at least the overhead of it. To orientate you, yeah, there you go. There is your main street. Here's water and vine. Here's your main street. Here's water and vine. And the applicant has had an opportunity to discuss and review this particular plan And the main concern is where the building is located. This strip of the building could not be built due to the existing overhead and underground easements that are right there. Because from the eye, it looks like it is to the left of it. But I'm not measuring. You know, I don't know if it's to scale. So the utility easement basically comes down and cuts this side of the building. If you, on our plan, we have basically moved the veranda out, and just the veranda is what is basically touching on the easement area. Because this really is a good-looking plan. You know, I like the flow there. I like the flow this way. That's where the salesman puts you in the Camry before it puts you into the Corolla. So were there other concerns or issues regarding, I mean, being able to place a building. Do you guys agree with the flow and those types of things? I really get what they're accomplishing with that here, and I think it's still great for the customers. It gives us some good pass-through. It has good flow, like a floor plan. I also don't believe that this has any sidewalks on Water Street. Steve, correct me. Am I wrong? that there aren't sidewalks contemplated on Water Street on this plan? So I can rebut in a second, but Mr. Parker can definitely answer that question. Yes, this plan at the time, I didn't have their sidewalk plan, but in rotating the building, that was what I was trying to accomplish. It does have enough space. As far as the building, their proposed plan shows 18 feet of parking, 16-foot drive aisle, and 10 foot for a drive-thru lane. That's a total of 44 feet. The plan that we proposed was 18 feet plus a 22-foot drive aisle. That's only 40 feet. You have four feet of distance to the edge of the building. So the building could be rotated or oriented exactly the same way, and it will fit off of that easement by at least four feet or on top of it like they're right at the edge of it as their plan is facing by. So by rotating the building and providing two-way traffic, you could either have up to two feet or four feet more distance to fit based on their dimensions. So they have 18, 16, and 10. That's 44 feet. I'm with you. The plan that we're proposing is 18 and 22, which will only be 40. Or you can go with a regulation of 24-foot gravel, which would be 18 and 24, which would be 42 feet. You're still two feet short of the 44 that they're proposing. So it will fit between the building and, I mean, the building will fit and be off of that easement. it will fit with that lesser required lane. I'm sorry, one more thing, Mr. Parker. The requirement to lessen that lane, where would that fall? That would fall in traffic's ability to approve? Yes. Typically, we ask for 24 feet. If you put nine foot stalls, you can go down to 22. The narrower it gets, the wider the drive aisle because you've got to swing that front end of the car as you back out. So with a nine-foot stall, we would allow 22 feet. Thank you. So what I would point out is we don't have a square box building. And so rotating that does, in fact, get into the easement area. And as shown on there, you are essentially losing this entire area, which is shown on Steve's plan as buildable area. And so that is the issue there, is our building does not fit right there. Let me add this. This is a gateway to Lexington. Yes, sir. And the front of that building is important. Yes, sir. And to put it toward Main Street would be a serious mistake. So it has been expressed to us and it's where we have started from that we really are concerned about the Winchester Road corridor, the Richmond Road corridor, and coming around Vine Street. That is the three corridors that this site flanks get the kind of main face on this. We are also making sure that we are not ignoring Main Street in any way, shape, or form. We have built a true building front to Main Street at the same time. I agree with you, Mr. Clark. I think having that bell tower in the front, I think enhances the look coming into downtown. No other questions? I do believe there are members of the audience. Okay, we'll have the staff first. I just wanted to respond to a few different things with the site plans that were discussed. Thank you. Were there many people in the audience who wanted to speak to the case? I want to respect your time. Okay. I'll have him come up first. I apologize. Yeah, that's fair. My name is Blake Hall. I live at 36 Richmond Avenue. been lots of talk about how we can make a drive-through work, but the 2018 comp plan says in no uncertain terms that drive-throughs do not belong downtown. So much so, it says it in three different places. Sustainability policy number five, reduce slash discourage vehicular oriented developments such as drive-through businesses in the urban service boundary, especially in the urban core. Development criteria B-SU5-1, vehicular oriented development such as drive-through businesses should not locate in the downtown area. There is even a placemaking policy, number one, which is about implementing the Town Branch Common Strategic Master Plan, which specifically mentions drive-thrus as an inappropriate use. Anyone with a passing interest in urban design knows that this is because drive-thrus are a detriment to downtown. They introduce, they induce more car traffic, they offer poor experiences for drivers, but most importantly, they are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, the exact people you expect downtown. The safety issue is even more exacerbated by this poor location choice. The one-way streets encourage drivers to only focus on car traffic coming one direction and not people walking the other way. The proximity to a major intersection just adds to the variables that rob focus from drivers. You've already heard from traffic engineering about that. Perhaps the most insulting aspect of this application is that it's right next to the town branch commons. This is the city's largest single investment into safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure. I see it as nothing more than willful disdain of the city's stated goals and to propose a drive-through right next door. Allowing a drive-through here would be moving in the complete opposite direction the city has been working towards and even worse up in this major investment. Hence why the comp plan has a specific policy about the town branch commons and no drive-throughs. A bank does not need a drive-thru. They just mentioned that they have a lot of customers. Their existing building across their existing location across the street does not have a drive-thru. But if they are so insistent that they need a drive-thru, this is not the right location. The current plan only has 20% of the lot covered by building. This is a suburban bank trying to shoehorn into an urban context. Frankly, I'm disappointed that I had come down here in the first place because this can't be any more clear-cut than it already is. Three times in the comp plan specifically says no drive-throughs downtown. I ask that you follow the city's stated policy and respects the efforts and investment that went into the Town Branch Commons. Please deny this drive-through. Thank you. After me, because I have some things I'm sure you'll want to respond to. Okie dokie. So with this site plan, I know a lot of the conversation ended up centering on the rotation of the building. Would you be able to zoom in on the building? Yeah, and then to the left a little bit. Okay, so dimension-wise, the length of the building from Main Street as proposed on the plan is about 90 feet. I can do quick math. And then the width from the front of the bell tower to the back of the stairwell is just about 87 feet. So no matter how you rotate the building, it takes about the same space on the site. Okay. And then with Mr. Parker's plan, I just wanted to point out that he was careful in not locating the building where the utility lines are. It's a little hard to see with the green, but the utility lines do run here along the edge of the building. So Mr. Parker was definitely intentional with his proposal to take those utility lines into consideration. He was also pointing out earlier at the mic that this distance here that he has proposed, this is an 18-foot deep parking spot and a 22-foot wide two-way drive lane. that totals 40 feet and on the applicant's site plan it is I think 44 is 18 feet deep parking spot a 16 foot wide single way drive through I'm sorry lane through and then they also have dimensioned a 10 foot lane reserved for probably drive-through stacking. So in regards to the dimensions of this site as proposed by the applicant and the site proposed here by Mr. Parker. There's a little bit more. wiggle room along the west side of this site since they are at 40 feet to the edge of this green line here. If there is a conflict with the utilities, I'm sure they would be able to scoot the building over. But as I mentioned earlier, the building's about the same size no matter which way you rotate it. Mr. Parker did cover this. On his plan, he did not include the sidewalk along the Water Street frontage, but there's definitely room to accommodate that on his plan. He definitely would prefer to see sidewalk. I'm sure it was just an oversight to not include that on the plan. In response to Stephen Parker's plan, I guess I'll kind of just briefly review some of the concerns that planning had that he addressed with this plan. We're definitely concerned about minimizing the vehicle and pedestrian conflict points, which he addressed here by closing that far right, East Main Street access. And then, of course, the provision of the pedestrian facilities along Water Street and the Western Property Edge. And then also, I believe that this rotation kind of activates Main Street a little bit better than the applicants provided site plan here. That's, a design thing, but I do believe that the plan as proposed by Mr. Parker kind of provides an opportunity for almost a public plaza along Main Street. Now in regards to being able to see the Bell Tower as you're driving down Main Street, I think it'll be tall enough. You can see it no matter which way the building is oriented. And I did want to point out the park plan for the town branch commons here does have significant trees and landscaping and so drivers along Main Street will not really even be able to see the ground level if not even the second floor of the front of the building as they're driving down Main Street. So as they come down Main Street past the site they wouldn't even be able to see the ground floor of the building until they get through the intersection just due to the landscaping and screening that will be occurring with the town branch park here on the corner. Um, I will also address this, um, egress point that Mr. Parker's proposing here. Um, due to the proximity of Carson's just right here and kind of the congestion of pedestrians in this area. We believe that traffic exiting the site will be forced to slow down and exit the site at a slower pace and be more aware of the pedestrians in the area in comparison to the access point here where there's not a building just kind of coming up to the street frontage and it's open here to the intersection kind of visually as you're in the vehicle exiting the site. So we believe that the access point that Mr. Parker proposes will, yes, still conflict with the pedestrians, but the vehicle users exiting the site will be forced to slow down just due to the proximity to the neighboring restaurant there. And earlier, Mr. Nicholson stated that traffic engineering is concerned about the distance between an access point and the intersection and they're concerned about standard safe distances for all access points from all intersections. So it's not just with this site, it is what they take into consideration in reviewing all development. So just wanted to be clear about that as well. I believe those are the specific things that I wanted to cover. If the board has any questions for staff or again for Mr. Parker, we'd be happy to answer any. Yes. If for some reason the bank does not want to function as a bank anymore and they already have the drive-thru arrangement, the next occupant, will they automatically have a trail for a drive-thru? The board has the option of adding a sunset clause to their conditions of approval that the approval for the drive-thru would not transfer to any future users or future redevelopment of the site. Or we could limit it to bank drive-thrus only. So in case this bank sold to, you know how banks are, sold to another bank as long as it was used as a bank drive-thru. I think that's a good idea to limit it. I would like to see that happen if this moves forward. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Thank you all. The applicant does not have any problem whatsoever with adding that condition, and we certainly will support that. With regards to Mr. Hall's points, I didn't address those today because we addressed them at length kind of at the last meeting, And so I did not want it to make it seem that I didn't understand that concern and that that wasn't fully addressed. I believe what we kind of focused on at that point was that a bank was not a true drive-through business. That is an accessory aspect to the business. This is not a Starbucks or Chick-fil-A. But I will say the only thing, kind of the last point, and this probably doesn't need to be said, but I can't help myself. The egress traffic on our plan will have much better site distance being able to see unobstructed up Main Street for pedestrian safety. If we move it closer to Carson's, closer to the existing pedestrian infrastructure or congregation point and the existing building, I feel that limits your site vision up there. And so I found that very interesting that that egress point that we are proposing has much better kind of site distance vision for when you are coming up to there. And no matter what, it's going to be a stop condition. It's not going to be a free flow that you get to just go off to the site onto Main Street itself. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I think everything has been as kind of well-tread as possible. Does the board agree, or do they have any further questions for the applicant? Meaning agree that it would hurt everything. Okay. Well, if there's no further discussion, we can entertain a motion. This staff has currently recommended disapproval. So if there is interest in approval, if you need time to review the findings that the applicant has provided or to run those by legal, we can do that. If someone's ready to proceed in agreement with staff, we can do that as well. I'm not sure where everyone is at this moment. I would vote in favor of this application. Approval. But I don't want to do the work to do the findings. Mr. Nicholson has done a lot of work for you here. I think it's your turn. All right, we'll take a recess. A recess. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. All righty. We are back in session. and I will entertain a motion if there is one to present. Yes, I plan on moving for approval on PLN BOA 22-45's request for a conditional use to establish a drive-through facilities for a proposed bank within the defined infill and redevelopment area in downtown business zone on property located at 366-370-376 East Main Street. based upon the following finding of facts. A drive-through facility for a bank should not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties. The access points on Main Street and Water Street have been designed to minimize conflict with pedestrians. Two, the proposed plan includes adequate vehicular stacking along Water Street frontage and additional screening from the Water Street frontage, which will lessen visual impact on downtown environment. Three, all necessary public facilities and services are adequate to serve the increased needs of the drive-thru facility, and I am proposing the following conditions. The drive-thru facility shall be designed and developed in accordance with submitted application materials in-site plan with any modifications requested by the Division of Engineering, Division of Traffic Engineering, and Building Inspection. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the divisions of planning and building inspection prior to construction. 3. The parking lot and associated traffic aisle shall be paved with spaces delineated in accordance with Article 16 of the zoning ordinance. 4. The proposed plan shall meet all landscaping and screening requirements listed in Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. 5. This drive-through facility shall be permitted only for the purposes of operating a bank. 6. The proposed plan shall comply with the Town Branch Commons Master Plan and Design Standards. So moved. Anyone want me to repeat any of those? A second. All right. We have a first and a second. Do we have any additional discussion? All right, well, let's take a vote. All right, the motion is passed and good luck with your project. Thank you. Our next case is PLN BOA 2247. Kim Bragg, applicant. You can come forward please. And please state your name for the record. Kim Bragg. And the staff has recommended approval. I forgot what we're hearing. Do we have someone to speak? Okay. All righty. Should I allow opposition to speak first or did you want to tell us a little bit about your project? The client is going to expand and improve the property, building out the back and to the side, and is also trying to orchestrate the traffic better with parking spaces and closing up the entry point closest to the light at Parker's Mill, and introducing a drive-through for the purposes of not for the restaurant before the alcohol and cigarette sales primarily to go around the building. And we're also clearing out the edge of the property next to duplicator sales and trying to improve that intersection a little bit. Does the board have opportunity to review that? Do they have any questions of the applicant before we let the public speak? Real quick question. I'm going to make sure this is not for the restaurant itself. This is just for the convenience store. It's for the convenience store because we do not have a menu board at the beginning of the drive-through process so no one can order from the restaurant. So the order would be at the window where they receive the materials? Yes. Okay, thank you. We had to locate it where we did in order to get the stacking. All righty, if you could sit for just a moment, and who is it in the public that wanted to speak? Please come forward. Hi, I'm Paula Singer. I live at 110 Hamilton Park off Buscelles Road. This property sits within the boundaries of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, of which I was a steering committee member. And the purpose of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan was to address the needs of the neighborhood and to make safety of pedestrians and bicyclists a priority. It was also intended to improve the flow of traffic and to make transit opportunities, public transit opportunities for this neighborhood residence more available. This is also a very congested area regarding vehicular traffic. And it's a very dangerously congested area. For example, cars going outbound on Versailles Road at this intersection must get into the middle turn lane to make a left turn onto Parker's Mill Road. constantly there are vehicles that get into the middle turn lane in order to make a left turn an illegal left turn over a double yellow line into this subject property this impedes those wishing to make a legal left turn onto Parker's Mill Road. Additionally, those coming inbound on Versailles Road get into this middle turn lane too early in order to make a left turn into the fast food restaurants on the outbound side of Versailles Road. So this is a very dangerous middle lane spot for people wishing to make a legal left turn onto Parker's Mill Road. In addition, there is a drive-through Starbucks directly across Parker's Mill from this property. Vehicles exiting Starbucks after using the drive-thru make an illegal left turn onto Parker's Mill in order to get back onto Versailles Road and continue their journey downtown. In addition to that, people heading north on Parker's Mill from the nearby apartments and residential neighborhood make an illegal left turn into the Starbucks in order to access the drive-thru. So we have a very congested, very dangerous intersection that will not be aided by having another drive-through in this area that will encourage people to make illegal left turns from Versailles Road onto the property. Another item is that the city just spent millions of dollars to implement part of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, which is the Versailles Road Improvement Plan. That plan enhanced sidewalks and enhanced the pedestrian experience along Versailles Road by widening the sidewalks and putting in crosswalks for pedestrians across Versailles Road and across Parker's Mill. So, pedestrians wishing to access these crosswalks put their lives in danger because of the many illegal left turns and exits out of this and adjacent properties. So what we would like to see is the improvements that the property owner wishes to make, but not the drive-through, which will only add to the vehicular confusion that is already in this area. we feel that any changes to properties in this area should be in support of the recommendations of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, as well as the money already spent by the city to widen sidewalks and enhance public safety in this area. Also, we would suggest that a sidewalk be built from Versailles Road to the convenience store so that the pedestrians, many wheelchair-bound people who live in this neighborhood and are, in fact, encouraged to live in this neighborhood by the city's planning division that recommends affordable housing for these people. So the city puts these people in our neighborhood, but doesn't support them, indeed, with the access that they require to live their lives and support the neighborhood business. which is another aspect of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, which is to encourage businesses that will serve those who live within the community and not those passing through a community, which is more of what a drive-through will do. I think that may be all that I have to say right now, but I do feel that decisions made should support a great deal of money already spent by the city to conform to the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan and to support community plans that community members spend a great deal of their time giving input to and attending meetings and being hopeful that the plans that the city approves and puts in the comprehensive plan will be met by those in planning to support the recommendations of those plans. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Peter Brown. I live at 149 Hamilton Park. I am a former Board of Adjustment member, and I want to thank you all for your service because I've sat where you're sitting, and these can be long afternoons. The previous case, the Independence Bank case, gave me PTSD because when I was on the board, they were trying to develop that same parcel for a CVS pharmacy. So we spent many hours listening to their presentation. I am here because I am the property owner. Let's see if I can do this. I think you hit the left arrow. Left arrow? That's the right arrow. Okay. Okay, so there's the property. My property is on the bottom here. So my property is right here and the door entrance to my property is right here. The concern I have with the with this plan is I'll echo what Ms. Singer says, but I won't be as kind. This intersection here is just chaos right now without increasing the intensity of the use. There's people going every which way to get into Starbucks, which is right here, and to get in these entrances and these entrances to get in here. and you can see this is a food truck. This is kind of an abandoned semi-trailer. There's the dumpster there, and this is, I don't know, another trailer of some sort. But it's just absolute chaos now. I come from Versailles Road, turn left, come up here to try to access my property. The traffic stacks currently back beyond the entrance to my property, which is right here. So I have to wait for traffic to clear to get in. And this is currently without increasing the intensity of the use. So that's my, I guess my biggest concern is just increasing the intensity. I have a question for staff. I've just received notice that the adjacent property here is going to be, there's a hearing tomorrow for building a coffee shop with a double drive-through. And so I'm wondering if staff was aware of that when they gave a recommendation of approval. because that's another thing that's going to dramatically increase the use of that area. And here's the information on that, if that would be helpful to you. Yeah, we know about this. Okay. But we'll keep this as an exhibit. Okay. I'm going to print on that, so let me. Oh, sorry. So that concerns me is because that's another, this has a single, the Starbucks here has a single drive-through and obviously it adds to the traffic here so a double drive-through I presume would double the amount of traffic coming through there. Let's see the plan I don't know if we can go to the the plan shows the dumpster currently or the plan would be the dumpster would be right here I think okay that is pretty much right out my front door and if the board is inclined to grant the applicants requests my request is that this dumpster not be that'd be relocated to somewhere over here somewhere over here so that the only thing I see when I come out my door is not their dumpster. I don't think we have a frontal view but my property is elevated five or six feet above their property and so I would be looking right down this dumpster every time I came out my door. Also I'd like if the board is inclined to grant the approval I'd ask that there be some screening along here so I don't have to look at the back of here and the cars idling there I personally have support the the ability of landowners to use their land obviously I'm a landowner but I am opposed to when they're going to what they're going to do on their property is going to decrease my property or the value of my property or make it less enjoyable for me to use So having the dumpster located there by the front door with the smells associated with the dumpster and with the critters crawling in and out of the dumpster, and then having cars idling there adjacent to my property while they're waiting to get their beer and cigarettes, that's definitely going to adversely affect the enjoyment of my property. I want to echo what Ms. Singer said. I bought this property while the Versailles Road enhancements were being put in place, thinking that the city is finally viewing the Versailles Road corridor as an asset, and they're working to improve it. This use and the use of the other property for the double drive-thru coffee shop is contrary to the local use and making it more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. This is only going to increase the intensity of the use, and when I served on the board, that was always a red flag. I just ask that you consider not approving this request based on what my concerns, Ms. Singer's concerns, and if you do see fit to approve it, that you ask the applicant to relocate the dumpster so it's a less conspicuous place and also to screen between our two properties. Thank you much. I appreciate your attention and patience this afternoon. I first just wanted to ask the two members of the public who spoke if they were able to be sworn in at the beginning of the meeting. I was, yes. You were? Were you able to be sworn in? Okay. Do you want to administer that really quick? Okay. We just have a typical... Stand, please. Yeah. I'm sorry, Ms., will you stand? Yeah. Just right hand. You promised you just told the whole truth. Anything else you say will be true. Thank you. Thank you. It's okay. All right. So I'm actually going to go back to the start a little bit. This application first came before the board, or it was on the agenda last month in October, but was postponed so that the applicant could revise their site plan design in order to address some of staff's concerns. So we are moving forward with approval of their revised site plan. and they did address our concerns, and we were comfortable recommending approval of their request for the drive-through facilities. Because this is the first time you're seeing the case, I'll just briefly kind of go over the location. Here is Versailles Road as it kind of cuts through the site, and Parker's Mill runs here to the west of the subject property. Mr. Brown's property is just to the south here. You can see it a little better on this aerial. And zooming in here to the site, well, actually, I'll go back one more time. Mr. Brown referenced a zone change application that was just filed, and so that is why he received a letter in the mail. Since it was just filed, staff, it's making its way through the development planning process, so it has yet to even go before tech committee or any committee of the planning commission. So staff hasn't been able to officially make any sort of report or recommendation, but it was filed after this application was filed, so just a timing thing there. Here, zooming into the subject property as it exists today, As you can see, there is a lot of kind of accessory uses that are kind of stored on site. There are four existing access points, two along their Parker's Mill frontage and two along their Versailles Road frontage. With their new plan, the applicant is proposing to kind of clean up the site, consolidate these accessory things going on in the back of the site into one larger building and they are requesting a drive-thru to be added in to the site. So this is the revised site plan that we have received and staff is recommending approval of. Our concerns last month were in regards to the drive-thru itself and making sure that its stacking was designed in a way that would address any congestion issues or impact the congestion issues that already exist at this intersection. Staff talked with the applicant about providing a physically delineated drive-thru lane. And as you can see here, they have a six-foot curb at the start, and then it kind of progresses into an actual landscaped barrier between the drive-thru lane and the rest of the site. staff asked that the applicant consider this because we were concerned about informal stacking coming in from Parker's Mill Road here. And in order to meet their stacking requirements, they had to wrap around the building here. And so that is why we asked for that drive-through lane to be physically delineated so that stacking could not informally stack in front of the dumpster here or the parking provided here even out onto Parker's Mill Road. So as the site is designed currently, in order to access the drive-thru lane, you'll have to come in through Versailles Road and enter the drive-thru here, make your way around the building and come back out. Now from here, you will be able to exit either out onto Versailles Road or kind of wiggle your way back through the site in order to access through one of the other points. I do also want to point out the applicant is closing one of the existing access points here along Parker's Mill Road, but in order for their fuel trucks to access and kind of navigate the site, they need all three of these access points in order to get those big trucks through the site. The refueling connections are kind of located here just west of the drive-through lane, And the applicant did clarify that physically delineating the drive-through lane will not interfere with the fuel truck's access to those refueling connections, which is another reason why staff was okay to move forward with approval. The applicant has also been very diligent in addressing the landscaping and screening requirements on all sides of their property. They've been working with the Division of Environmental Services to meet all of the landscaping and screening requirements, making sure that they are in compliance. So they've been pretty diligent in trying to get their site into compliance with current regulations. I also wanted to point out, let me see, this is from Parker's Mill Road in that kind of bottom left access point looking into the site. This is a photo that the applicant submitted. All of the red Xs show what will be removed from the site and the kind of improving and redevelopment of the site as they're proposing. And I wanted to point out here, too, there is significant grade change, about five feet from the property to the south and the subject property. And so that's just something to consider in their limited design and in your review and approval or potential approval of their request for the drive-through. Let me see. okay also in regards to the i guess i bring that up mostly in regards to where the proposed dumpster is it'll be about in this general area on the site and i believe with the elevation change here and the landscaping and screening that are proposed on the site it'll mitigate a lot of the impacts of the dumpster located in that location on the plan. Let me see. So I wanted to show the board this as well. In regards to cleaning up the site, this is another view. This is from the top right access point along Versailles Road. They'll be removing all the items here with the red X, including the food truck that's on site and some other storage containers as well. And then this is just a little closer to the Parker's Mill Road, Versailles intersection, but just some further cleaning up of the site here marked with the red X's. So staff is comfortable recommending approval or we are recommending approval of the site. We believe that this property is fairly auto-centric and that it is located on a heavy corridor and that the physical delineation of the drive-thru addresses a lot of our concerns with stacking and increasing the congestion in that Parker's Mail v. Sales Road. intersection. We do not believe that it will adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties because of these things. And we're thankful that the applicant clarified that physically delineating the drive-thru lane will not interfere with access to the refueling connections and that they have been working diligently to meet all of the screening and landscaping requirements and working with the Division of Environmental Services to do so. Our conditions of approval are pretty standard. They will continue to work with the Division of Traffic Engineering, Building Inspection, and Planning to get all of the necessary permits and approvals and just to make sure that the rest of their site is developed in accordance with regulations. I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have at this time. Was there any talk about that sidewalk continuing up Parker's Mill? I don't believe that staff had talked about that. There aren't sidewalks existing along Parker's Mill here. Most of the sidewalk is just here along the Versailles Road. Any other questions of staff? Thank you all. Can the applicant please? Do we have any additional questions for the applicant or would you like to respond to any of the public comment? Thank you. I had a quick question. The drive-thru facility itself, it's not going to have any amplification or anything like that. There's not going to be a speaker box out there. It's just a drive-thru. Just a drive-thru. Thanks. it's not changing ownership same ownership is that correct the it's the same property owner but the client was actually previous to here recently a sub leaser and now has become a direct leaser. And so he now has control of being able to clean up the property the way he wants. Yeah, I mean, I think all your red X's are going to help clean this property up significantly. And then losing an entryway off of Parker's Mill I think is a good thing. I don't have an issue with it. We do have columnar ginkgos planned for behind the dumpster as well to screen them from the adjacent property. Yeah, I think that would be neighborly if you could help with that screening. You're probably going to have to have a fence around three sides of it at least. Yes. All right. If there's nothing further, Mr. Clark? Let me just say I agree 100% with Paula and her description of this intersection. It is pretty bad. I wonder if indeed opening this drive-in is really going to affect that, I think that's my problem with it. But I will say she's absolutely accurate on that in everything she said about that intersection. But at the same time, I'm not sure that's going to be opening a drive in there. I don't think it's going to impact that. I don't think it's going to make it any worse. All right, if there's a motion, I'll entertain one. Yep, Madam Chair. I move to approve PLNBOA 22-47 Kim Bragg's request for a conditional use to establish a drive-thru facility accessory to a gas station in a neighborhood B1 zone on property located at 2312 Versailles Road, based on staff's recommendations and subject to the four conditions outline. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. And we'll put it to vote. Okay, looks like the motion has passed. Good luck with the project. And I think we have one more. Yes, that's PLNBOA 2254. That's John DeHart. and I think we have representation as well. The applicant would come, please. Now, let me ask staff, we're just hearing the approval, where we're already recommending approval, so I should let them speak first. Correct. Okay. You might state your name again for the record because we forgot it's been hours. That's okay. Again, Madam Chairman, my name is Chris Clendon and I'm with Murphy and Clendon and I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. DeHart. Okay, thank you. And I did remember, sir. If you'd like to tell us a little bit about the project. Well, this project again, there's two requests here on the agenda, one of which was for a drive-through for a conditional use permit. And as we mentioned earlier this afternoon, we're requesting a two-month postponement on that request. And we still, hours later, are still asking for the postponement. Then there's also on the agenda is a request, an application for a variance. Now, normally variance, a setback, variance, people are asking to reduce the setback. In our case, we're asking to increase it. Is there a... Yes, if you go forward three times. Do I go one, two, three? Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, let me go back one here. You can... Okay. So all of you are familiar with Southland, I'm assuming, correct? And the strip mall and Winchell's is there, and there's other things in there. and if you're going down towards where the Marathon Station is and the medical complex on the left, going towards Rosemont, this property is on the left. It's a vacant property. If you see where the sidewalk is, let me, right there, okay? This property is subject to a 20-foot building line setback, but beyond the 20-foot building line setback from the street, there is a 76-foot reciprocal parking easement that encompasses this entire property. So it's 20 feet and then 76 feet. So what we're asking for is a setback variance beyond the 76 feet so that we can build basically back up in here. So we're asking you to increase the building setback variance beyond the access easement. And we need this whether we have a drive-through or not, because otherwise we can't build anywhere. Because if we are forced to build within the 20-foot building line within 10 feet, we'd be building in the easement, and we can't build in the easement. So we're asking for the setback variance request beyond the parking easement so that we may build the property up in here. That's pretty simple and straightforward. And I'm willing to entertain any questions. I have the applicant and the architect here if you have any questions for her or them as well. Do we have any questions? Yeah, I didn't see an end user in the report. What's the proposed use? At this time, we don't know. The proposed, we're building the thing. We have some inquiries from prospective tenants. We haven't settled on anybody yet, which is why we want to, in part, postpone the request for the drive-thru. Let me just say that I know this area pretty well and I understand the problem. If you're going to build on that site, you've got to build somewhere that's in line with the rest of the buildings. Correct. And this, by giving us the variance, this would put us in line with the rest of the buildings up and down that strip mall. I'm comfortable with approving both requests, personally. Yeah, I would say the same. I think pushing the building in line with the rest of the others makes total sense. I don't think you'd want to build it any differently of where it's proposed. And I think it's smart of you to postpone the drive-thru issue, because we probably wouldn't, not knowing what's going in, be able to vote on that. But we believe that we will have a better idea of what's going in within two months. And we have had discussions with staff and we've heard their concerns. And we think once we have some concrete perspective tenants that we can discuss with staff, that we can try to work through their concerns and that we'd like to come back and ask for that request at that time. So basically we need two motions, do we not? One for postponement or? I think we would, but I think there's also some, maybe some public commentary in the crowd. Is there anyone here to speak? Yeah, so we've got a couple here that won't speak. But yeah, I think procedurally I think we would do two motions. All right, thank you. Yeah, just sit for a moment, please. Good afternoon. I have not been sworn in. Okay, let's raise your right hand. Do you promise to tell the truth and the whole truth? I do. Okay, fantastic. And state your name. My name is Mark Little. I'm with Lexington Habitat for Humanity, where I serve as the restore director. Our property is mostly across the street on Southland Drive, where we have our restore. Our primary concern is the lack of detail around the project primarily in regards to parking. There is a significant parking problem in our complex with Good Foods and Health First and ourselves. Without knowing the size of the building, the use of the building, and the number of planned parking spaces and how they plan to accommodate those, the overflows are going to end up somewhere. So this is a laundromat and it's three people, no big deal. If it's a coffee shop with 10, 12, 14, 15 people that need to find a parking space somewhere, that plot is not very big. My understanding is about 10,000 square feet. So if 5,000 of it takes up a building, you'll need 15 to 20 parking spaces somewhere if it's traditional retail. That overflow is likely to have a significant negative impact on my business. Now, with more clarity around the use of the space, we may very well support development on Southland Drive. I love development on Southland Drive. But without knowing the use of the space, the impact on us could be pretty harsh, which impedes our ability to serve families in need of affordable housing. Any questions for me? I'm not sure I understand how that impacts on your parking across the street. So let's pretend they don't have enough parking spaces for the volume of customers they serve, which we don't know because we don't know the type of business yet. Pretend it's a coffee shop. They have five parking spaces. 30 people come at lunchtime. Those 30 people have to go somewhere. They'll go across the street to park. That has happened in other businesses along that strip. Our lack of parking spaces right now, we have people drive up to shop with us, and they drive off because we don't have adequate parking now. This could exacerbate that situation. Right. I understand that, and I understand what your problem is where you are, And I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I don't see people, whatever that business is, because we're not deciding what that business is at this point. We're just trying to decide whether we can approve that building line. So I'm not sure that somebody that's going to that business, whatever it is, is going to go all the way across Southland Drive to park in your area. I feel it hard, quite difficult to believe. I've seen it happen a number of times, the reverse, where people park across the street over there because we don't have enough parking. So it stands to reason people could park over with my space to walk across the street there. It is luckily a very pedestrian-friendly corridor. It certainly is, and I was there this morning, as a matter of fact, and there are all kinds of parking places right in that very area. Part of that's because we're closed on Monday. We're open Wednesday through Saturday, so on a realistic day when we're open, we see about 42 to 60 car parked in our spaces per hour, give or take. For your particular business? Yes, sir. Thank you. Mm-hm. Thank you. No, I'm sorry, we have another. We'll take turns and just in the interest of time, bring up any topic you like as long as they haven't already brought it up. What about that? Yes, so I'm Dan Becker, I'm the Chief Financial Officer with Health First Bluegrass Community Health Center. I'm right next to that facility with that parking lot where my handicap and my prime parking is for my patients. I have about and I will share the driveway for access to that business. My concerns, I don't have any concerns with the offsets, but I have concerns with what type of business might come in there and may cause barriers to care because this is a community health scenario for medical, behavioral health and dental services. My patients have barriers to care and I serve about 7,000 lives in Lexington that are under 200% of the federal poverty level to give away up to free health care to make sure that they're served and they're supported. We're supported by a federal grant. So I have no concerns with the land selling development, but I do have concerns with creating a barrier to patients who have behavioral health concerns of anxiety avoidance issues or patients who have transportation issues and will avoid that area because that will drive people away from getting the care that I've been mandated by the HRSA to do. So I just wanted to express that. I don't have a solution or a recommendation, but I want it to be considered when we're developing this that we don't create challenges to the patient population of the community that I'm serving. That's all I have to say. That's great. Thank you. We appreciate that input. One more, sir. One more. One more. Apologies. Okay. Hi, I'm Sandy Levy. I'm a property owner on Southland. Quick background. When Health First, I assume, had decided to take that property, the owner at the time separated this parcel, my assumption being that it wasn't needed based upon the plan. It's a small parcel, and simply put, that parcel should be self-sustaining. If indeed the user, whatever that user may be, ends up taking space, and I'm talking valuable parking space, from its adjacent neighbors, not only Health First Clinic, but also that little strip along Southland Drive called a service road. You have parking in front of the stores and on the other side. Each of those independent businesses depend on those spaces for their staff and their customers. And forgetting my property, which is across the street, forgetting the intersection, where we once tried to get a traffic signal, and traffic engineering said, gee whiz, I'm really sorry, but you have a traffic signal at Rosemont. You have two more traffic signals down the road. And we did end up with crosswalks. Now I've watched the crosswalks, and believe me, very few cars actually yield. So what happens if you've got anything stacking cars and causing more and more road rage? Simply put, it has to be self-sustaining. It needs to be a use that will justify, again, the property owner's investment. But beyond that, I would say a drive-through seems impractical at best. They ought to have parking on the premises that will sustain their staff and their customers. And I hope that the committee will realize that because Southland Drive already has a dramatic parking issue. It's going to be one that you're going to learn about down the road, which is sad. But again, because of errors, and what I've heard today, by the way, is if the staff makes an error, gee whiz, I'm sorry, there's no way to correct it. If you make an error, evidently it's very difficult to correct it. And speaking as a human being, I continue to make errors all the time. I try to correct them, and I generally pay the price. Please. Let Southland Drive remain a thriving little area. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. Did the board have any further questions? It sounded like we might have been moving to a motion. Yeah. Do we want to let the applicant respond? Do you need more information? I don't need more information. Let's roll. Good. But he has jumped up four times, so I figured he has something to say. I thought I was pointing at him every time. Right. Okay. Well, I respect everyone's opinion that, you know, in opposition to this, I would only say that at this point, it's all premature. All we're asking for today is postponement of the drive-through. We're not here to talk about that today other than we'd like the opportunity to come back. and then I hope these gentlemen would have the opportunity to come back and oppose it if they still do. In that interim time, I will pledge to the board that we'll try to reach out and meet with them to discuss their concerns while we also are meeting with staff and see if we can alleviate some of those issues or concerns that they've addressed today. Aside from that, all we're asking for is the opportunity to build something beyond the parking easement. Our property owner, you know, has the same right to the access of the reciprocal parking easement of all the other tenants or property owners along Southland. They just want the opportunity to build something, and they have to have this relief in order to do it because they can't build in the easement. So we're asking for you to increase the building line setback. That's what the variance is for, and that's really all we're asking today. Thank you. Thank you. I got a quick question for staff. Normally, when we would be approving a variance, we would be approving one based upon the site plan. But this one, the site plan has a drive-through. And I'm assuming if there's no drive-through, then there may be more parking, or should we just postpone everything for two months? Or just from, because like right now, I mean, I'm asking, I'd be asking to, the variance to me isn't an issue in this circumstance. I'm going to have great concerns when the drive-through portion comes through. But what's the staff's position on approving this plan based upon what you've given us? So our recommendation of approval of the variance in our staff report includes a condition of approval that states construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and a revised site plan without drive-through facilities. And you're comfortable with that? Yes, we proposed that, so we're comfortable with it. Okay, just want to make sure you still work. All right, well in that case now I can make some motions. Okay, the first motion is for PLNBOA 22-54, John DeHart. Request for a conditional use permit for accessory drive-through facilities related to neighborhood business zone at 490 Southland Drive be postponed for two months. which we don't have the date set yet. So we haven't adopted the calendar. So it'll be our January hearing, best I can give you Mr. Clinton at this point. And then I am going to, with that I wanna say that you better break your egg game because I think this is gonna be difficult for you to have drive through there. So yes. And then my, yes. I think going back to what you were initially saying, we may have a bit of conflict with approving one and not the other. In our staff recommendation, we were recommending approval of the variance and disapproval of the drive-thru. So that condition sort of assumes that the drive-thru is not part of the application. If they do come back with the drive-thru and you all were to approve that, then that would be in conflict with the approved condition for the variance. So I was right. So you would have to reevaluate the variance at that time as well. So it might be better procedurally to hear them both at the same time. That's what I think. Mr. Clinton, come up here and give us your thoughts on that. Yeah. What's that? I like your first suggestion. I like your first suggestion. Which one? doing it all together. Oh, yeah. I think that makes more sense. Which is why I wanted this earlier kick it all to one discussion. Yeah. It's too disarticulated. Thank you. What is this time? So you know we're going to have to tell you what's happening. It's just really incredible. It's really incredible. Can I have something to do with that? Can I continue something, but not the next one? It's just possible. All of a sudden, the first set, then they're like, carry on carrying. Yeah, I'm just gonna show that. Yes. Yes, sir. Yeah. I would like to continue the discussion on the variance until January and continue the whole case until January. I just think given the fact that I'm looking at a site plan that's proposed for a drive-through, if the drive-through is not approved, the site plan is going to look different. And so I'd like to just postpone it for two weeks. Okay, we'll agree to the postponement for both for two months, if that's acceptable. Perfect. Yes, it is. Awesome. Then I'd like to amend my motion. Actually, I'm going to withdraw that motion. I think it'll be cleaner. Yes. And I will move to postpone PLM VOA 2254, John DeHart's case regarding 490 Southland Drive. postponed both the request for a variance and the conditional use permit to our January hearing, which date we will be setting later today. But they can give you what we think we're going to have it. I understand. All right. Thanks, guys. We'll see you in January. Oh, wait. We have to vote. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Can we have a second? Can we have a second? Can we amend that motion a bit to say January or later? Because they may not be ready in January. Well, I think we'd rather them have a set date to come back, and if they need more time, give it to them then. Yeah, we don't like indefinite postponement, so I would say, yeah, do it for January. That's fine. So moved. And do we have a second? I'll second. All right. And if it's okay with Mr. Gross, we'll take a vote? Okay, let's go. Mr. Clendenin's got me, like, antsy to get out. He's waiting it on me. Yeah, exactly. That's fine. All right, now the motion's passed. We'll see you in January. So we have a couple of board items to discuss. the schedule, the 2023 schedule. Are we ready? Are we ready for a motion? Motion to... Yes, the new filing and meeting schedule was emailed out to all of the members and with the application or agenda. It is essentially a replicate of this year's schedule, which is different days. Yes. Okay, I'm fine with that schedule. I move for approval of the dates as listed. I'll second that. Okay, in discussion? Let's take a vote. That was Mr. Gross that seconded. All right, we have a standing date for next year. And then the staff actually would like to speak briefly on the parking Zota announcement. All right, so what staff has handed out to the board members is just kind of a one-pager summarizing recent changes to the parking zoning regulations. Excuse me. On October 27th, the council adopted new regulations for parking requirements. To boil it all down, parking minimums have been removed. And in turn, we are requiring more and better landscaping within vehicular use areas. and better in a sense that the design of the landscaping and screening areas allows for long-term success of plantings and landscaping. So giving them a little bit more wiggle room so that the trees in the parking area or other landscaping can survive long-term. That is a very boiled down summary of the changes to the parking regs. And that kind of will apply to you. You may not see as many parking variance applications or requests. But you, the Board of Adjustments, still has the authority when reviewing site plans to require a certain amount of parking. So you still maintain that authority to require parking, even though it may not be required in the ordinance. And then also I could, yes, well, that's all I'll say. If you have questions, of course, contact staff. We're still learning the new regs ourselves, so we'll learn along with you. And that one pager is definitely a helpful resource for everyone. And it's online and available to the public as well. So no longer any parking is required? Believe that's true. Yes. No minimum requirements? No minimums. Autumn was a part of drafting the new thing so she can answer. I will say that parking that is on an existing approved plan is still required. So if the board has approved, say, a conditional use with a certain number of parking spaces or something like that, and that operator wanted to remove some of those parking spaces, they would come back to you all to make that modification to their site plan. Same thing goes for development plans that the planning commission approves. But going forward, there are no parking minimum requirements. For the bank, we just, you know, on the corner here of Main and Vine, they would not need to provide parking for that development? Currently, they don't need to. So they filed prior to the adoption of these regulations. So they are subject to the original requirements. But since they're in the downtown business zone, that zone already did not require parking. Wow. That's big. Great. Good job. Will that also show itself? I know something we hear commonly has to do with the driveways and the cut of the driveways. How does that? There were some changes for single family residential driveways to hopefully alleviate some of that. so you're used to seeing the driveway width be determined by the size of the garage typically or the size of the off-street parking area. The modifications to the regulations for that were that the driveway width be based on the amount of frontage that the lot has instead of the width of the parking area that is allowed or is being provided to hopefully tie that to the size of the lot and the street frontage in order to create a more equitable distribution of driveways. So hopefully that will help. There are some other changes to single-family residential parking related to paving in the front yard and limiting that further than it has been. So yes, hopefully that change will help with that kind of jog that we kept seeing for a while. So buy a bike, Raquel. I just won't get very far. Questions? Thank you. I feel educated. Do we get five minutes towards our education credits for that presentation? I need them, actually. I need all of them. I'm going to say there are quite a few members who still need some training before the end of the year. So if you need any ideas or any help, let me know. Yeah, I do. Yeah. Okay. All righty. So our next meeting will actually be December 12th, 1.30, same place. Hopefully better parking. It'll be worse because there's no parking minimum, so people will just be aware of it. No, just joking. Yeah, just so everyone knows, the reason we were late today is because the Main Street entrance to the County Clerk's parking garage was closed. Well, to get back to high in MLK, you essentially have to drive almost around the entire downtown. to get back to, you know, to get back where we need to go. So that's why we're all late today. All righty. Well, if nothing else, we'll adjourn this meeting.