It doesn't matter where you are, it doesn't matter where you go, it's a million miles away, or just a mile off the road, take it in, take it with you when you go. Who says you can't go home? Who says you can't go back? Been all around the world and as a matter of fact There's only one place left I wanna know Who says you can't go home? It's alright, it's alright, it's alright, it's alright Who says you can't go home? Who says you can't go home? Who says you can't go home? It's alright, it's alright, it's alright, it's alright, it's alright It's alright, it's alright Good afternoon everybody Today we've got the March 12, 2018 Board of Adjustment meeting. The first item we have is we are going to have some items we need to go into closed session about, so the chair will entertain a motion. I move pursuant to KRS 61.8101C to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing litigation against or on behalf of the Board of Adjustment. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do we have a second? A second. We have a second for Mr. Needham. Wait for the votes. Not working? Okay. Well, in that case, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None? Okay, we're going to go into a closed session. You guys sit tight. We're going to take a sidebar. Thank you. Thank you for your patience while we address some issues. So today, once again, we're at March 12, 2008 Board of Adjustment meetings. We had a couple issues with the notice letters that went out. We had two cases that listed 1.30 as the hearing time. Fortunately, we're close to that, and I'm hoping we will be there by the time we get to those cases. But what I'll do is I'll sound the agenda, and then as soon as I have a break close to 1.30, I will then sound the agenda for those two cases that got the improper notice time. So the first item is the approval of the minutes from our February 12th meeting. Has everyone had an opportunity to see those? And does anyone have any comments or revisions to those minutes? And if not, the chair will entertain a motion. I make a motion that we approve the minutes as is from the February 12th meeting. Second. I have a first from Ms. Carter, a second. For Mr. Clark. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none, let's see. Please register your votes. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. The next item is to sound the agenda. And so the first item we will have today will be a variance appeal. And what I will do is I will call the agenda, and then we will have uncontested cases heard first as we go through. It looks like the first several of those are not that case. and then we will then go back through and discuss the contested matters so the first item on the agenda is PLM BOA 18-21 Caballo crossings apartments is the applicant present thank you sir the staff has recommended disapproval so we will have a hearing on that one the next item is PLM BOA 18-22 Dan Davis is the applicant present thank you the staff has recommended disapproval so we will have a hearing on that item the next item is PLN BOA 18-3 Grantham LLC this was the one I was noticed for 1 30 but is the applicant present thank you sir I believe the staff has recommended disapproval and it will be changing that to postponement the next item on the agenda is PLM BOA 18-16 Porter Memorial Baptist Church is the applicant present thank you sir that was one that was erroneously set for 1 30 so I'll call that again once we get to there is there anyone here in opposition or want to speak on that matter today all right so I'll be the first uncontested item. The next item is PLN BOA 18 dash seven. Robert Crovo is the applicant present. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition to that today? All right. So we will have that one heard second. The next item is PLN BOA 18 dash 18 rude and riddle partners. Applicant present? Thank you, sir. Anyone here in opposition? Okay. The next item is PLNBOA 18-20, Inglésia Aventista del Septimodio. Did I get that right? All right. Is applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is anyone here on that case today? All right. We'll mark that as a non-contested matter. Then we're going to have administrative reviews. I think I've been informed that PLM BOA 18-7 Michael Booth has withdrawn. That is correct. The application was withdrawn this morning via email. The entire application? Yes. Okay. Well, the good news, you guys don't have to sit all day today. and the last item for a case today is administrative review PLM BOA 18-19 South Elkhorn Village Shopping Center at applicant presence thank you sir anyone here on that matter okay that is a non contested I will be recusing myself from that case. All right, so I'm going to go over a little bit of house cleaning since our order has been slightly disturbed from normal. The first thing is, if you have a cell phone, I would ask you to either turn it off or put it on silent for us. We're going to, if you plan, if you're an applicant or you're opposition or you plan on coming to the podium and giving any testimony today I would ask you to please stand so I could swear you in sir you'll stand up to so if you're an applicant and you're gonna come up you'll need a stand right now so if you please raise your right hand and repeat after me do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much usually our order is if the staff has recommended disapproval. We'll have the staff give their case first of why they recommended disapproval. If not, we'll go in the order of applicant, any opposition and the applicant will get a rebuttal time. And the only difference being is that the staff would come first if there's a disapproval recommendation and then they would also have time to make a rebuttal if they feel so need. We usually we don't have set time limits, but we do to keep everyone the process moving. We will potentially set time limits on cases if they we find them not to be overly complex. We'll discuss that with you. Generally speaking, most cases the applicant 15, 20, 30 minutes tops is what's needed for a case. And then everyone else get time that public usually is limited about three minutes in those instances, but we'll address those on a case by case basis. And lastly, do not approach or speak unless you are recognized by the chair If you have already had your opportunity to speak or there are a number of participants, we'll just line you up on the side and let each person come up so everyone in the audience has an opportunity to speak. Give me ten more seconds, and I'll call these two cases again, and then we can start moving forward. Okay, it's 1.30, so I'm going to call two cases. The conditional use appeals of PLM BOA 18-3, Grantham LLC. The applicant has shown that he is present today, and I want to know that case has now been officially called. The second item is PLM BOA 18-6 Porter Memorial Baptist Church. The applicant is also present in that case, has officially been called. And so what we'll do is actually that is the first uncontested case of the day. So I'd ask the applicant to come to the podium, please. And is there anyone here on that case in opposition who wanted to speak today? All right. Please put your name on the record for us. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is David Royce. I'm an attorney representing the applicant Porter Memorial Baptist Church. I have here with me Nick Sandifer, the pastor, Wayne Braswell, who is managing this project, as well as their architects from Sherman Carter Barnhart. This is a conditional use permit application. We have reviewed the staff report and the recommended conditions are agreeable to those conditions and commit to abide by them if approved. We're happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Does anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant or staff? Oh, we have one letter. Is that in favor or support? Okay. So we have one letter in support. Give us a couple seconds to pass that along. But in the meantime, does anyone have any questions? Okay. All right, having given everyone an opportunity to look over the letter in support, and there being no discussions from the board, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNBOA 1816 Porter Memorial Baptist Church requesting a conditional use permit to expand an existing church building and parking lot in a single-family residential zone at 4300 Nicholasville Road, based on the recommendation of the staff and subject to the three conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover seconds. Please register your votes. Motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thank you very much. You're welcome. The next uncontested matter today before us is PLN VOA 18-17 Robert Crovo. Come on up to the podium, please. Please state your name for the record. My name is Robert Crovo. Thank you, sir. The staff has recommended approval based upon five conditions. Have you seen the staff's report in those conditions? I have. And are you agreeable to abide by those conditions? I do agree. All right. Thank you, sir. Does anyone on the board have a question for the applicant? We have two letters. Okay. We have two letters. Are they in support or one of each? Okay, give us a second. Let's read these. Thank you. Mr. Crow, one of the issues with the letters we received is parking. How many participants would you expect at any given time? I would expect a maximum of five. I think this was a misunderstanding because I heard some of this going around the neighborhood. with the site plan I had put in there that I have parking for seven spaces in my driveway and I think some of my neighbors took that as meaning I was going to create a parking lot on my property to allow for this to happen all those spaces are already existing and like I said I'm not planning on having more than five people there at a time so I assume those would not even be taken okay so on the site plan the seven parking spaces is your parking your driveway currently can hold seven. Correct. And your intent is for all the participants to park in your driveway and on the street? In the past, they've done a little of both. I'm agreeable to whatever. If I need to put them in the driveway, that's fine by me. Well, I would recommend you tell them to park in the driveway to keep any complaints down from having to come back before. I haven't had a single complaint in the time that I've done this. I imagine my neighbors have no idea this was going on i'm just trying to make it completely legit does anyone have any questions for the applicant i'd like to ask a question mr crowboy the ages of the people who are you're serving could you give me a little idea about that sure so that's uh set by the recreational scuba training council they set all the standards for this and the ages the youngest that a participant can be is 10 years old with parent permission of course all the coursework is the same for the younger students and there is no age limit as long as you're in good physical condition and can pass the medical liability then you're welcome to take the course very good thank you any additional questions okay hearing none the um chair will entertain a motion mr chair i move we approve pln boa 18-17 robert robert crobo's request for a conditional use permit to establish a home-based business scuba instruction in a single family residential zone at 3279 roxburg drive for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions thank you mr. glower there are five conditions correct thank you mr. glover is there a second second we have a second any discussion hearing none please register your votes the application is approved good luck with your project thank you all the next item on our agenda is PLN BOA 18-18 Root and Riddle Partners thank you sir for coming up and put your name on the record yes good afternoon mr. chairman and board my name is Jeff Pearson with Pearson Peters architects we're the architects for Root and Riddle Partners thank you sir is there anyone here wants to discuss this application okay the staff has recommended approval based upon the report and make sure there are three conditions have you had your client have an opportunity to review those yes sir we have and will be abiding by those conditions yes okay thank you um any letters there are no letters um any inquiries from the board for the applicant all right hearing none the Chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA 18-18 Rood and Riddle Partners' requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 3,200-square-foot addition to an existing equine hospital building in an agricultural urban zone at 2150 Georgetown Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Needham seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none, then please register your vote. The application is approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, the next uncontested matter is PLM BOA 18-20 Iglesia Adventista del Septimato's application. please come forward and we have is that one letter of opposition okay how you doing thank you sir um is there anyone here to speak on this case okay we do have one letter of opposition so let's get a chance to review that but in the meantime the staff has recommended approval and they have recommended approval based upon three conditions have you seen those yes sir and are you agreeable to abide by those sir okay well then give us a minute to read read this and then the letter mentioned that the area does not have enough parking but it appears to me that all you're proposing is to add a 555 square foot addition is that correct you're not eliminating any parking spaces we are not it will cover an area where one of the entrances is but there will still be a space for additional entrance there would not be any parking spaces taken out of the skin. I'm assuming is this to expand the congregation or is this for... It is for baptismal purposes. We will be adding a baptismal pool and dressing rooms for when baptismals are performed at the church. There will not be added any seats or not for the congregation to expand or grow. So it'll just be for the current congregation to be able to baptize. Currently we're baptizing at a different church and holding those available somewhere else. So we would like to have it at. Okay. So you're not limiting parking spaces. You're not adding additional seats. So really, presumably, there won't be additional attendance with more parking issues. Okay. Thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, then the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 18-20, Inglésia Adventista del Septimodia, requesting a conditional use permit to expand an existing church in a single-family residential zone at 1718 and 1722 Bryan Station Road, based on a recommendation approval by the staff and subject to the three conditions listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? I have Mr. Glover come first as the second. Any discussions on the motion? Hearing none, please register your votes. The application is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you, Council. On the next uncontested matter is PLN BOA 18-19 South Elkhorn Village Shopping Center. I will hand the gavel over to Mr Glover while this case is being heard. Mr. Walburn. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair. How are you? I'm well. What say you on behalf of South Elkhorn? I say thank you for entertaining our application today. Jacob Walburn on behalf of Compass Capital LLC and South Elkhorn Village. Compass Capital is the owner. We have read the staff's report, are in agreement to abide by their conditions and would request your approval. Thank you. You made my job easier. Is anybody here in opposition to this application, PLN 18-19? Hearing none, do the members of the board have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Walburn, I have a quick question. thinking of the sign this may be a moot point but I'm since that's kind of my area I'm just interested to know how the sign will be placed will it be will be placed so that you're reading it from both sides whichever way you're coming on Harrodsburg Road or it will be facing Harrisburg Road or do you know my understanding based on the site plan we submitted is that it would be visible to traffic heading both directions on Harrodsberg Road. If you flipped it, it would be we think more visible to the neighborhood and less visible to the those that benefit from the information. Thank you. The staff report says a maximum height of 20 feet. Is that is that what you planned? Is that what your client is playing? We had previously pursued a variance with regard to height. I don't recollect off the top of my head whatever was approved, but certainly would abide by whatever the total height that the board had approved last time 20 feet sounds about right we may have asked for a little more I don't recall maybe staff has it handy it was an increase to 40 feet okay yes that would be more in line with what we were seeking here and as you may recall from the prior application this is in a center that sits below grade and and has some visibility issues. We would actually be entitled under the terms of the ordinance to a second sign. We're just simply seeking to consolidate those two into one. The other location, if you all are familiar with it, is a little less visible to the traveling public. Would you mind putting up the site plan on the board? I just want to make sure I orient it correctly. I'm not at all sure what I'm looking at. And where is Harrodsburg Road? It will be on the very bottom of the page. Okay. If you've been to the existing shopping center, there is a sign that sits there now that identifies the shopping center. That sign will be in the same, our proposed sign will be in the same location as the existing sign, if that helps. about as far away as we can get from the residential uses I think do you happen to know or does your client happen to know how what the what the vertical variation is between the height of the sign and the Harrisburg Road I want to say that it is right at about 20 feet if my recollection serves from previously I believe that's what I represented to the board I think that's accurate so this would sit up above if you drive by now I think you can see the very tip of that sign but you can't really read any text on it and not to give you the full history but we did pursue a zone change for this property to allow for a little different signage we're now in the neighborhood shopping center zone so the sign that would be erected will have the name of the shopping center on it which is South Elkhorn Village and it is permitted to have up to six tenant panels to identify specific businesses that are within the shopping center that so that's what we're looking to do here is the current sign this the pillar out front or where's the current sign it is at the same location where we're identifying it on the site plan here when that sign was erected we were in a different zoning category which is B1 that doesn't allow that tenant panel signage so we've been kind of going through a fairly extended process to get our signage updated but it is a it's a box shape right now that sits on top of it doesn't have tenant panels but it does identify the name of the shopping center in the current sign is how how tall 20 it's 20 feet at present You don't have an idea of what that's going to look like, do you? I have one in my mind. We've actually, I don't bring that documentation with me today. We submitted for the sign permit after our last hearing. Come to find out that there was a typographical error in the staff report that reflected the size of the sign. We had requested a 150-foot sign at that time, only to learn that we were constrained to 75 feet. So that's why we're pursuing this variance today. I can tell you that it's roughly going to be a rectangular shape. There are certain percentages assigned. I believe that 60% of the sign, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong on this, 60% of the sign must have the name of the shopping center, which is South Elkhorn Village. Up to 40% may contain up to six tenant panels. And I think going along with some branding that they're doing for the shopping center, the sign will have antlers on it representing the South Elkhorn Village Shopping Center. Mr. Glover, I know the area well enough. I think I can say safely that the elevation is approximately 20 feet difference in the elevation. That was my primary concern, and I agree with you. I think that's generally what I thought as well, but I wasn't sure. and it seems to me if that's the case if in other words if if if the uh uh elevation of the shopping center is 20 feet below the elevation of the road then stands to reason that an additional 20 feet wouldn't be out of the question as far as i'm concerned and i appreciate that and just for clarity i think i'm going to beat autumn to the punch here you already did approve that a couple of months ago the additional height this is surely for volume face size of the sign right okay but I'm glad to know you to prove it again yeah glad we're consistent about that is any other is anything else going to go on on this sign but besides your clients advertisement you said under the strict terms of the zoning ordinance you're not allowed to advertise anything that's off-premise so this will only consist of tenant panels of those that are actively in business in the shopping center okay so my question was are our other I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear our other tenants of the shopping center gonna be on this side as well yeah up to six of them yes sir okay thank you any other questions for the applicant if not chair will entertain a motion I move we approve PLN BOA 18-19 South Elkhorn Village shopping centers request for an administrative review to transfer 75 square feet of unused allowable signage to allow a 150 square foot freestanding sign in a plan shopping center b6 p zone at 4379 Old Harrodsburg Road based on the reasons outlined by staff and subject to the two conditions. Thank you Mr. Needham. Is there a second? Thank you. Ms. Carter, all those in favor please register your vote. We're experiencing some technical difficulties. You know, you're not seeing what we're seeing on our screen. So stand by just a second. See if we can get this working. There we go. All right. You've received all but the recusal vote in favor, so congratulations. Good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Don't go anywhere. You got it. Okay. We have a case. This is going to be a touch out of order, but I just wanted to check on the PLM BOA 18-3 Grantham LLC. The staff has recommended postponement. Will you guys be opposing that recommendation? For the record, I would state that we would prefer this application be heard today. We tried to, as soon as receiving staff's report, provide clarifying information to them, and any further delay obviously harms the business. That said, we understand that postponements are within the province of the board to grant and would defer to you on that request. Is there anyone here in the audience on PLN BOA 18-3, Grantham LLC's application? at 103 Woods Avenue oh we do have somebody okay we were discussing whether or not the staff has recommended has changed the recommendation from disapproval to postponement have you seen these mr. Walburn it was just hand okay yes based upon several items will you guys oppose this being postponed to next month okay all right so the staff has recommend change the recommendation to postponement for one month so we'll have this case heard would have this case heard if we were to so move on April 9 2018 is there any discussion amongst the board on the recommendation Well, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we postpone PLNBOA 18-3 for 30 days to be heard at the Board of Adjustment meeting on April 9, 2018, for several reasons. Would you like to hear them on the record? We can put them on the board. I think overhead should take care of it. Right, Ms. Jones? Yeah. There. There. For the reasons shown on the board, it's going to be hard to read, but mr. vice chair if it's easier we'd stipulate that you're doing it for the reasons put in the record by staff all right fair enough so so so I move thank you mr. Glover do I have a second second I have a second for mr. Clark all those in favor please register your vote Okay, well, I hope you and staff and legal can work something out for the next 30 days. For the people in the audience, I would recommend you get with staff to get updates on what's going on. We will have this item probably heard right now on April 9th at same one 1pm next Monday next month. Thank you very much. Mr. Walburn, is that all your matters today? That concludes my business. Thank you. Okay, we have a fence case. You want to take it? I learned my lesson on that okay so that brings us to PLM BOA 18-21 Caballo crossings apartments request for a variance in the applicant present thank you sir please come up and just state your name on the record yeah my name is Brett Grigsby I'm the vice president operations with Denton Floyd real estate group the owner of Cabala Crossing LLC okay and I'm Sylvia Garten I'm the property manager there at Cabala Crossing okay well thank you for coming out today the staff has recommend disapproval so I will let them speak first if you guys want to have a seat in the first row the staff will give us a short presentation and then you'll have an opportunity to come up and give your side of the case, the board will then decide what to do. Thanks. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This case is similar to a couple that we heard last month. It is a variance to increase the allowable height of a front yard fence from four to six feet in a residential zone and R3 zone. In this case, again, we are recommending disapproval as there are no compelling special circumstances to justify the variance. A four-foot tall fence is allowed by Wright in the residential zone, and we believe would offer a similar level of security. We also did a little bit of research into the secure by design principles. Secure by design is a set of initiatives in the United Kingdom based upon design for safety and focusing on open views and natural surveillance, which they have found to be very successful in limiting crime. They actually recommend a fence of no higher than one meter, so our four-foot height is actually a little bit taller than their recommendation to begin with. This type of fence is not typical of the vicinity. The area is residential in nature. There are several other apartment complexes with either no fence or a four-foot fence. the subject property has had a four-foot tall wooden fence for a number of years, which they are looking to replace for aesthetic reasons. And we believe that the four-foot tall fence should continue at that height. Do you have any other questions? I do have a quick question. Is there, are they limited to the type of fence? Is it just the height that's the issue? The height is the issue, yes. Okay, so it is allowable to move to the metal fence. Yes, yes, yes. I was asking about the material of the fence. They currently have a wood fence, and their new fence they're requesting is metal, and I was wondering if there was any stipulation to what type of material. I'd like to ask this question. I'm wondering if there's access to the apartment buildings other than climbing over the fence, for instance. In other words, are there just normal entrances that anybody can walk through? I believe the site plan does show gates at all of the entryways, so there would be gates along the drive entrances. I'm unaware of any other entry points. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, ma'am. The applicant wants to come back up to the podium and give your presentation. um i just so denton floyd what we kind of do and we've got a number of properties in lexington we're based out of louisville and we have some in southern indiana as well but we go into distressed assets that have had a lot of deferred maintenance poor property management other issues and we'll go in invest a lot of money in those to bring them back up to the standards we usually take kind of the worst ones in the area and try and make them the best in the area cabala crossing is no different we've had ownership of it just over a year we closed on it last christmas of 16 a few days after and in the time it has improved but there are a number of issues with trespassing, people cutting through from the New Circle Road area over to the Hollow Creek in that corridor. And I have to respectfully disagree that a four-foot fence provides the same amount of security as a six-foot fence as far as people walking by trying to enter into the property. If you look at the site plan it has, we're planning to do two driving gates that would be remotely accessed by the residents and any authorities that need access, as well as one manual gate down at the far end that would be an additional access point for the fire department or any authorities needing to gain access. We would also have three pedestrian gates that would have a key fob access that's granted to our residents. And then, you know, if they needed to let guests in, they would have call boxes at the main driving gates for their entrance. Right now, I mean, we've got bus stop right outside of one of the entrances. And the back fence that kind of goes back to behind Aldi and Walmart, it's got constant traffic, foot traffic from non-residents. A number of homeless people live back there and they like to get onto our property, cause damage, breaking and entering into empty apartments, stealing of maintenance and construction supplies, things like that. The fence that we're proposing, I have specifications for it. It's just a metal rod iron six-foot fence. And I also have pictures of at least two other properties in probably a five to ten mile vicinity that have the exact same fences along the front street. First one that comes to mind is the 300 at Circle, which is off of Cottle Drive next to near Richmond Road and New Circle Road. They have the same design except for they have brick columns in between each section. We would just have the full wrought iron fence along the front. And then there's another smaller complex down around Palumbo and Caudill Drive that also has the same six-foot wrought iron fence in front of it. So it won't obstruct any views to the inside of the property, but it will help tremendously on securing our property from trespassers and other issues that we have there currently. The only thing that I want to add to that is that we're having a lot of people that don't belong there. I don't know where they're coming from, but they'll do their drug deals since our property is open. they'll come into the property and do their drug deals there on site we have random off and also called the police we've got the homeless that live behind as Brett was stating and it's not just a few homeless you know you're looking at 20 to maybe 30 I mean they have their tents back there and everything and and they're constantly crossing over to the property some of our buildings have hallways and they'll come into the hallways and they'll break into the units especially when it's cold and it's just they're just causing a lot of damage so that's why we feel that the six-foot fence is a whole lot better for us versus the four foot are they are they breaking in though on the front of hollow creek or is it more on the back towards the more in the back in the ravine i don't think we yeah i think you can have a six-foot fence back there that's correct right we're just making the decision on the just on the front the front section and well and I agree I think that having a six foot wrought iron fence surrounding this entire property at least on the three sides two sides in the rear makes perfect sense I think the front you know because it's a wrought iron obviously I'm not as opposed to that as if it was just a solid plank fence. I think there's, you know, we've studied fences a lot and if you can see through a fence, it's sometimes a little safer than when you can. And I can show you the pictures and the specifications if you want to see those. Yeah, go ahead and put those up on the board. On the site plan, it had just a small. Him, the staff, DOLA. And on the site plan, it says seven foot along the sides in the back his is seven is seven foot allowed along the sides in the back that's that that's not that's not before us but so it's just the front the four foot the variance is just for the front yes what does the ordinance say about about the back and sides does it allow for a seven foot fence autumn let me double check that really fast so the just so I understand you want to you want to put a fence pretty much in the entire you you're gonna gate as well so those fences would run into gates on the front of these properties that great and the gates would be same style cantilever style gate you have you have two entrances or is that two entrances to this property or just one on Hollow Creek? Looks like three. Is it that big? I'd assume. I mean. How many entrances from the Hollow Creek side do you have? Like how many gates will there be? We're just going to have two. Yeah, just two. And it'll have the 40-foot setback that's in accordance with the fire marshal. On the plan it looks like two driving and then the manual gate. Is that correct? Looks like two pathway, two driveway entrances and then the manual gate. Is that walking? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so pedestrians. You want to put it up? The side and rear yards are permitted to be eight feet. Thank you. Has there... So where you see the arrows there on the top, those would be the driving gates. There would be a pedestrian on one side of either of those. And then the third pedestrian gate would be down there on the southeast corner. They're at the bottom left. And that would provide access for our residents if they were walking to the shops and the retail there off of New Circle Road, access in and out. And it would be controlled with an electronic key fob access for our residents. Do you know if this property has ever been gated in the past? I mean, I'm sorry, has ever been fenced in the past? What was that now? Has there ever been a fence around this property in the past? um there's there's a chain link fence there now they've kind of just cut open holes in it and get through it so our sides and back are actually proposed to be like a industrial grade steel so a little stronger than just the aluminum to help kind of prevent any of that and there's also the wood fence right now in the front right it's a wood fence in the front right now yeah so there is a fence now it's just wooden off forfeit it's a plank fence okay real quick autumn is and I can't recall we had a lot of these fence cases last month if the fence was back further from the road would they be able to go higher no since it's a front yard fence it is limited to four feet okay How tall is that existing plank fence? Do you all know? It looks like it's four feet. It's four feet. Four feet, okay. You know, I feel like the three sides, the seven-foot fence, that's great. I think that will vastly help. I don't think it's really necessary to put six feet in the front. However, because it's wrought iron, I think it would probably look better. Well, I don't want to say look better. I think it wouldn't look bad. However, I don't know if it's necessary, and I don't really want to set any type of precedence because we normally don't allow more than four feet in the front. but a four-foot metal picket fence is not easy to get over. I mean, the fence you currently have is quite easy to get over, but then the gates are going to come up. It is odd, though. You're going to have a six-foot fence or a four-foot fence, and then you come up to a six-foot gate. Is that the thought there, six-foot entrance gate? Or would that have to be four feet as well? I think we could discuss whether or not the gate could be six feet back that might be possible I don't know if that would I don't know what that's necessary if the gate in the front is four feet And then the fence is four feet, but you have a six-foot gate and you have a four-foot fence I think you just hop over the fence if that's what you're trying to permit here. So I'm probably okay with it, as long as it's metal picket. I would probably vote for this, even though this is odd, because normally I would not. But the way you enter this property, I think coming down Hollow Creek, it's not going to look too, for me, it's not going to look like a wooden picket fence, and I don't think it's going to feel safe inside, I think. And I think your tenants would probably enjoy that. I'm more concerned. I'm sorry. I'm more concerned about the precedential value of allowing a six-foot fence, even if a six-foot fence would connect more aesthetically with a seven-foot fence around the other three sides. I'm a little concerned about setting a precedent for this property when the ordinance says that four feet is the maximum height. And if we grant this, we're going to have other applicants seeking six-foot fences. We denied two last month that were, in my opinion, substantially the same kind of request and for the same reasons as you're proposing here. So even though I'm not particularly opposed to the idea of a six-foot fence in the fashion that you've created it, I think the community through the ordinances have determined that four feet is the maximum height, and I don't see any compelling circumstances other than what we heard last month, for example, about increasing the height of fences higher than the ordinance permits. I'd agree with that statement, Mr. Lever. I would too, and I would just like to say in keeping with what we discussed on the other portions of the fence, even though we think it might be aesthetically pleasing, it does not fit in the other fences that are there, although they do need to be updated and they are in disrepair. I mean, they are shorter wooden fences, and the neighborhood houses are smaller over there. And I just think it's not when we use the same criteria we've used for other neighborhoods. It does not fit into the aesthetic of the neighborhood. It doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to do so that's different from any of the other reasons that we've heard before. So I'd actually agree with staff on this one to stay consistent. Mr. Chair, I'm really torn with this, and I am very concerned about the precedent set. And at the same time, I do understand the security nature of this complex. The applicant probably doesn't know. You can't know the discussions we've had the last time, and we simply disapproved basically the same thing. It's really hard for us. It's hard for me to change, well, okay, now this is entirely different when it's really not. I think we would have to say this particular area that you're talking about is more susceptible to damage and misuse than the other places. And I don't think, sociologically speaking, we can make that decision. So it looks like to me that I'm going to have to say I'm going to have to vote with the staff, and yet I feel sincerely your concerns. But there is a precedent set. There is an ordinance that we are pretty well mandated to follow, even though we certainly understand your concerns. Any additional comments or questions? Any comments you want to make last? Yeah, I had just one more thing. We're looking further into the future with this property. And we've started on construction there. And we've put a pretty big dent on some of the interior aspects of the property. But we've got a lot of plans in the future for the outside of it. And one of the other concerns we have, I know there's plans in the near future to kind of open up Citation Boulevard all the way over, I think, through Russell Cave. And that's just going to be kind of a main thoroughfare right through our property's area and making it even more susceptible to drugs coming through. We're looking out for the safety of our residents. We've had shootings on the property. We've had robberies. We've had break-ins. We've had drug deals. We're trying to clean that up, and we need something that's more of a deterrent than a security guard that's there and a four-foot fence. I mean, I'm out of shape. I'm getting older. I could hop a four-foot fence with ease. Six-foot, I wouldn't even try. I know I'd end up in the hospital. And I'm sympathetic to your That's why we're having Really this discussion and our comments I'm sympathetic to your To your concerns And so we have to make a decision About whether or not Our sympathetic Concerns are outweighed By the precedential value Of granting the application So It's not an easy decision Especially given where where this property is located but at the same time that's a the the the neighborhood whether or not the neighborhood is safe and and using the I guess the dangerous nature of the neighborhood as a justification for increasing the height of the fence it's such an image it's such a factor that you can't measure that I'm not sure how we would defend this a similar application in in a different neighborhood on any kind of measurable ground so I'm like I say I'm sympathetic to your concerns because of where this is but but I'm I think I'm more inclined to be persuaded by the staff's recommendation and the presidential value of the ordinance any additional comments all right thank you very much does this anyone on the board have any questions or anything else if not I'll entertain a motion mr. chair I'll move that we disapprove PLN BOA 18-21 Caballo crossing apartments request for variance to increase the allowable height of a fence front fence yard from four feet to six feet in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 500 510 and 522 Hollow Creek Road based on the staff's recommendations thank you miss Carter do I have a second I'll second mr. Glover seconds any discussion on the motion hearing none then please register your votes okay the application is denied sorry about that so the brings us to our last item on the docket which is PLM BOA 18-22 Dan Davis is the applicant present is there anyone here in opposition all right please come up put your name on the record for us my name is Daniel Davis the sir Diane Davis hello if you would just have a seat real quick the staff since they have recommended disapproval they'll give us a quick report it looks like we have some letters in opposition or an approval staff are those an opposition or Okay, do we have any in opposition? Okay, thank you. All right, while you are giving your presentation, we'll look at these letters, or letter. This application is for the expansion of a driveway to allow for additional parking. It's pretty similar to some that we saw last year. Again, a similar situation where the paving was done without a permit being secured ahead of time and has been completed not in compliance with the ordinance. They did secure a permit, but there was, I think, some confusion as to what the work being done was, and it was not in accordance with the permit. I have a bit of a timeline for that if we need to go into that. So a driveway is defined by the required parking. So in a situation where we have a single vehicle garage, we can have a single length width driveway. So anything beyond that is considered additional parking and has to be set back six feet from the front property line. So what we have seen in the past is sort of that triangle cut back to allow for that six foot setback. So in this situation, we believe that the applicant could keep a large portion of what has been paved and remove the area at the curb, the curb cut where it was expanded and the sort of that six foot triangle and still have sufficient space to park additional vehicles. the portion at the top by the garage is additional paving that was not there previously and that is completely within the ordinance so that part would be able to stay it would just be a matter of removing the portion towards the street and we believe that that would satisfy their needs for parking while maintaining the ordinance and that's how historically we have sort of looked at these do any other questions for me I think that so what would you keep I mean could you show us on the diagram what you would keep that could remain so as long as this dimension here is six feet I don't know if I maybe we went from from here back six feet I don't think the drawing is exactly to scale is there just to the right of the garage is is there is there a paved area yes that is all paved would you keep that yes that that's fine it's the only the variances for the six-foot setback from the front lot line and that is what we are recommending disapproval of because the remaining pavement could stay and be compliant and we believe would serve the applicants needs thank you so how far past the sidewalk can that triangle start six feet six feet but it's starting it can start at the at the sidewalk but the dimension the the long part of the triangle I guess has to be six feet okay I got you thank you any additional questions for autumn okay we may ask you some more thank you all right mr. and mrs. Davis you want to come up Before we start, who lives in this house? Our daughters. Okay, how many daughters are there? Two daughters and friends. How many occupants? Zoning, we're good to go. We've talked to Jan about it before all this was done in zoning, and it's five. They're all family friends. They've been friends for years. Parents, all of the parents are friends. Good group of girls. Of course, I'm biased, but. Okay. All right. First of all, we'd like to apologize for the confusion on our part for the permit. We had submitted the permit prior to the work being done. The next day, I think it was like on step three of whatever, when we looked, the contractor showed up, called us in the morning at like 7 or 7.30, said we've got the equipment, I've got the guys, we're going to do the job. I went into panic mode and I'm like, no, I don't have it approved. And he said, no, you don't need it. And we were pretty sure we did, and we kind of went back and forth a little bit. He said, no, no, you're good to go. So foolishly, we now take full responsibility that it was not okay. We did need permission for that one, you know, triangular area. So we take full responsibility for having done that. It was not intentional. Our main concern is with safety. Our daughter is backing in out of the driveway, having near close calls of being hit. When they do park on the street, my daughter as well as others have had the rearview mirror knocked off. Cheslin's a terrible corridor between Nuclesville and Albany. It's very heavy traffic. We've actually also been talking to traffic engineering as well as the commander for the East Sector, Commander Alliance, and Officer Tim Ball. We've talked to him quite a bit, too. He actually had planned on trying to be here today. they've all been very supportive of us trying to make improvements with the traffic and trying to address the issues. It's frightening to park on that street and so I know one of my daughter's boyfriends when he comes over his work van has been hit three times. My daughter's rear view mirror has been taken off so this doesn't really buy us a lot of space. It really only buys one additional parking space but it's not even really just that as much as it is the ability for them to be able to back more safely into the road instead of having to pull one or two vehicles out to get into that single driveway area. You know what I mean? And into the street. I feel like it's less disruptive to the traffic flow and safer for the kids pulling out of the driveway. And the other thing is that little the little wedge part that if we do have to remove if that's gonna have to be taken out. It's just a mud hole all the time. I mean, it's it's the you know the tires catch on it when they're pulling out and it's a mud hole so we did do we got a we went around this weekend to neighbors we did the whole hundred block just to talk to neighbors to see how they felt about it we have 21 people that absolutely no problem approved it signed it said they were fine with it a lot of very positive comments how much better they thought it looked we there were five houses that we couldn't get anybody to answer the door We probably went four or five, six times to those. We couldn't reach them. And there was one elderly lady who couldn't come to the door. She had a caregiver. We couldn't have a caregiver sign. So that's kind of where we are. You know, we apologize for the work having been done before we had approval. That was not our intention. There are a number of homes on Jeslen and Albany that have double driveways for single garages, too. I've got some pictures of those if you'd like to see those. Can we show you the pictures and the before and afters, too? And we have, for the past 15 months, it's Dan's parents' house, and his mom just went into a nursing home, and she doesn't want to sell it. She wanted her granddaughters to live there. We have worked so hard for the past 15 months doing the inside of the house. We have increased the value tremendously, and now we're starting to work on the outside. There was an old woodshed in the front, and we took the woodshed out, and that's now paved. and then right where the bottom cuts off is where the bottom right is where it cuts in for six feet that's typically grass and just you know came into a single driveway and that's where we filled in. So originally had the extra pad for the extra width of cars that's before the work was done and we had taken out that old shed my father had that for storing firewood they burned firewood. My parents have lived in the house since 63 so unfortunately my mother's in a nursing home and I'm PLA for now and as dine had said We had increased the value of home We went from three-bedroom to a five-bedroom and from a one bath a three and a half bath So we've done quite a bit of work with the house and we're gonna do a lot more in the front, too I mean, it's not just the driveway We're gonna do a lot plan to get seed in to the front yard The spring once we determine what we're gonna do with the sidewalk or the driveway I mean you've seen the plan already with the section and it isn't to scale you're right on them Here's pictures of it. You've seen that as well after it was done. Here are a couple houses on Jeslyn, both with double-wide driveways with single. And then there are a couple also from the first block of Albany that had the same situation. How wide is your existing driveway now? We didn't increase the width at all. We just made it the same width all the way down. We didn't increase the width of it at all. I think traffic can answer that. How wide is it currently? Currently it's about 18 to 20 feet. So it's within, I think the existing single lane was approximately 10 feet, and they were opposing 6 feet. So I think they were about 10 or 11 feet existing. They've gone to about 18, 19 feet. So on paper, it looked a lot worse than when we went out there and investigated in the field. It was less, you know, it was more easy to take seeing in the field. On paper, it looked a little bit more disturbing to us. But once we were in the field and observed it and saw some of the surrounding residents, not necessarily adjacent to this property, but in fact what they have brought up on Jeslin and Albany and other areas, there are other double car driveways in the area. I will address some comments that they mentioned about the police being involved. We are currently looking at Jeslin Drive. we have in fact had a number of complaints about not necessarily accidents it's more of side swipes taken off mirrors Jeslin is a narrower road we're looking in fact at putting restricting parking possibly so the fact that they're providing parking in their driveway if we do choose to restrict parking would be less of an impact to the neighbors many times people don't think long term when they they want no parking until they have no parking in front of their house and then you've got a neighbor parking in front of your house so we have to address those many times. So had the applicants come to us, we would have field investigated it in a little bit more thorough manner and looked at it and possibly approved it. But looking at it on paper, it was a little bit more uncomfortable than seeing it in the field and built. It's a little more palatable very similar to the Holiday Road property that this board looked at very similar circumstances and we both we both approved and denied similar applications so what's the standard width of a two-car driveway typically 17 18 feet this would fall within that would you would normally Yes. Okay. Yes. I think it was 14 feet, 6 inches yesterday. I think that's what we measured. Yeah, we'd added 6 feet, and then at the very end of the apron, it's 8 feet, where it extends out a little further. It's not a full double driveway. It's just the same width that it was originally, and we filled it in. We didn't expand the width. Basically kept the same parallel of the original pad that was there, the extension of the double width. Can you show the other pictures? Is there one more? I think this is it. Okay. And then, of course, we have the other neighbors that were. And we did get a petition from Traffic Engineering on Friday to look at a traffic study, and we took that out with our petition this weekend, and we have, gosh, probably about 90% of the neighbors that are interested in a traffic study and looking at possibly one-side parking, so we've got that to turn in. And these are the signatures for the neighbors that do approve of the driveway the way it is currently. It's 21 of 26 with five that we couldn't get an answer from. And again, our apologies. We really just want to do the right thing. Can somebody tell me how many driveways along Jessalyn are double currently? Any estimate? I didn't take a full count. I can think of three right offhand within a block or minus a block each way. All right. Thank you. I drove two or three streets around there. didn't have that many applications for the number of driveways didn't match the number of applications we had. Many of the neighbors have garages that are in the back of the home, so they have a nice long driveway. Of course, they also park in their yard occasionally if they have a lot of cars, but we would obviously not need to do that if we had the driveway the way it is now. Could you put the front of the house back up again for me? Sure. I have pictures. Picture pictures if you want to see. well I agree with traffic's response comments about it looked worse on paper than when I went and visited the driveway you know it looked much wider on the drawing than it did when I actually went to see it but you know you know it's a single family I mean it's a single garage that you know you're trying to park five cars in there and and and that's what I see as part of the problem is you know you're kind of you don't have the space to accommodate that many cars even if you do have the wider driveway there's very seldom all of those cars there at the same time most of the like yeah most of the people several of the girls really are there in a dress only they're not there very often so it's kind of really coming and going there's a picture on the right is typical of what the driveway is in the evenings when the kids are are home for the day, then it's pretty well filled. But during the day, it's different. None of the neighbors have had an issue except for one with the traffic, and he actually signed the petition. We've only had one neighbor that has been vocal about it, but we've talked to him several times, talked to him again yesterday. He signed both of the petitions for the traffic study and for the driveway, and none of the other neighbors on each side, none of them that we've talked to, they said they don't even know the girls are there. So I think issues that have been raised about the traffic really was created by one person more so than anyone else. That person was Sam Sharpen. I believe he may have been the person that gave you the letter as well. So he approved of it. And I think he ended up approving. Right. Yeah. Because he doesn't want any. You know, he realizes it's not. It's a scary street to park on. Did you give staff copies of these? Or is this the only set? No, but you can have them. Okay. I just want to make sure sure we give these to staff once we go through them yeah I read it out we just want to put them in the record so in case and Jan I'd like to say I agree with what you're saying the concern about making accommodations for you know five people living in a single-family house but that same accommodate accommodation now it's like for any family like I just can't imagine not having two cars and being able you know times where everybody needs a car I'll well yeah I'll say I live in an older neighborhood actually not far from this one we have a one we have a two-car garage but one lane and there's nowhere to even put a lane I think that what was installed aesthetically matches in the character of the neighborhood So if they had come before us in advance, I probably would have been supportive. So in either case, that's my two cents. Does anyone have any more questions for the applicant? Any questions for staff? I have a question. All right. I guess I have a question for staff, but probably it's not one that staff can answer. I suspect we're going to see more rather than fewer applications like this, either before or after the construction is done. And I just want to verify suspicion, I guess, that the reason for restricting a driveway to 10 feet in a residential area is for the purpose of preserving the green space or the permeability of the ground rather than the impermeability of concrete multiplied over the neighborhood, I guess. Is that your suspicion as well? I would say that is certainly part of it. I would say there are probably other factors that have gone into those numbers as well. I think traffic engineering has their numbers, and building inspection and planning have theirs as well, and they're not all exactly the same. The 10-foot limitation is only in the infill and redevelopment area, but the way that planning and building inspection have agreed to determine the allowable width is based on that single-car garage. So that is sort of where this is coming from. I don't know if that answers your question or it does thank you and now and my reluctance is based again on the precedential value of granting forgiveness rather than permission that's that's a that's my biggest hang-up about this one I'd like to ask the question how many times we have these come up a lot and we've had people take out their driveways and we have accepted this and And, you know, I'd be curious to know how many, you know, what our track record is on that. I mean, it's a case-by-case basis, I know. But I definitely, I wouldn't say we're consistent, but it's a case-by-case basis, as in most things. But it does set a precedence. As, you know, the world changes, you could argue people, more people drive cars. We live in an area that you'd like to – I think these single-family homes were designed for maybe one car, and, you know, you still rode a bike or walked. And, yes, we'd like to see more of that in Lexington and in downtowns in our neighborhoods. But, you know, to me, adding more driveway does not do that. So, you know, I'm torn with these. Obviously, when you own a property and you have a desire to use it the way you want, a single family neighborhood should have a single family in it. But, you know, obviously there's blended families now. In this case, it looks like, you know, it's friends or your children, and they have friends, and they're probably renting to their friends. That might be a little different than what I think a typical single family might be. So, you know, it puts me in a tough spot. I don't know yet. Ms. Jones, do you have heartburn yet for Mr. Needham's testimony? I said do you have heartburn yet for Mr. Needham's testimony Well I mean there's going to be precedential value either way you go and I don't have a number on how many we've approved versus how many we haven't I recall the last 12 months I know we made one gentleman over around campus I believe we made him tear out a large driveway in the front yard and then we have granted one in the Chevy Chase area in which the builder had done a double I came over the road before so I mean just within the last 12 months I know we've had two of these cases right and if I remember the one close to campus correctly and I'm I don't know that this was part of the reasoning or not but I think it's because the driveway in that instance resulted in total pavement in other words instead of having any grass there was just a constant flow of pavement so you know I don't know if that is a consideration for you all or not but I mean And, you know, in interpreting the literal letter of the ordinance, obviously this doesn't comply. But I think you have on occasion in the past when you felt like it was warranted by certain circumstances granted it. I have a question for traffic. Do you know how wide Jesslyn is? I believe it's 30 feet. Is that wide enough for cars to park on both sides of the street and two lanes of traffic? I mean, 30 feet. The fire department has, we're having this exact discussion in the expansion area right now. And the fire department wants 20 feet clear. So if you get someone that's a bad parallel parker on Jeslyn, it's going to be really tight, especially two cars across from each other and trying to fit a fire vehicle down through there. So that's why we're entertaining parking on one side of the road, possibly. Yeah, I think, I mean, 30 feet, if a single-family, if a single-car garage width of a driveway is 10 feet and you've got, and the street is 30 feet, it seems to me that the natural conclusion would be that you've got, you may have two, may be able to park on both sides that only leaves you 10 feet of drive space in the minute for two and it's a it's a two-way street so it sounds like to me that the street is not large enough and I applaud your efforts at looking at looking at Jessalyn and that makes me more inclined to to to to approve the variance request than to go along with the staff recommendation. I'd also like to mention, if I might, the concept of a single car garage is pretty well gone forever. And even though people have single car garages in the neighborhoods that we know about, most of those people have two cars and most of them don't even park in the garage. So it may not be a factor at all. What is a factor is that we have, even if there were only two cars involved, they would be parking side by side. And it seems to me that there's something a little wrong or inordinate that we say because we have a single car garage, we have to have a 10-foot wide driveway. So I understand the precedent, and I'm really concerned about that because I've voted the other way more times than not. But I don't know how I vote on this, but I think it's a dilemma in my mind, and I wonder if we're being really fair. but not to the just to this case but in other cases as well that's no solution but that's my concern could I make one more statement we did look at other solutions also we had considered a circle drive in the front yard but the front yard just doesn't have that amount of depth and that would be as you had mentioned just basically a pad of concrete in front of your house and I think that would look much worse than what we have done but and I did want to assure you too this is a very limited amount of time that the girls, which it is within ordinance, really. I have talked to Jan and zoning, but it is a very limited amount of time that there will be that many girls there. One is getting ready to graduate, and another one is waiting to get into PA school. The other one will graduate next year. Eventually, it's going to be one of our daughter's homes. I mean, it is going to be a single-family home. It's just kind of was nice with a couple of them being in college, and they're all family friends that it just worked out nicely. so alright you're making the case you're making the case for disapproval I'm just kidding okay I'm like oh no any other comments if not if you just want to sit down any questions or anything alright I think we've heard plenty of testimony on this matter and I will entertain a motion Mr. Chair I move what we approve PLN BOA 18-22, Dan Davis requests for a variance to reduce the required setback for additional paved parking from six feet to zero feet in a single-family zone at 130 Jessalyn Drive for the following three reasons. Number one, the need for a variance arises from circumstances along Jessalyn Drive, a narrow street, that the circumstances have resulted in sideswipes and hitings of mirrors on cars that are parked in the street. Number two, granting of the variance will not affect the public health, safety, or welfare, as granting it will provide off-street parking in an instance where street parking has resulted in sideswipes and accidents with parked cars. Number three, the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, since there are similar driveways of similar widths along and near the Jessalyn Drive corridor. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? A second. Second by Ms. Carter. Any discussion on the motion? please register your votes motion carries your application has been approved you're welcome okay that concludes our cases for the day. Does anyone from the board want to bring anything to the chair's attention? Any staff members? Okay hearing none then our next meeting is set for April 9th 2018 at 1 p.m. and I look forward to seeing everyone then. Thank Thank you.