# Board of Adjustment - December 10, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 10, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4654 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4654?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-12-10 - **Last revised**: December 10, 2018 - **Length**: 4,654 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on December 10, 2018, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with the Chair presiding. The board addressed eight agenda items during the session, including variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative appeals from various applicants ranging from individual property owners to businesses and healthcare facilities. The board took nine votes throughout the meeting and heard two public comments from attendees. Of the eight matters considered, the board approved five items, denied two outright, and rendered a mixed decision on one case involving Baptist Hospitals Inc. The approved items included variance requests by David King and Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman, conditional use permits for A & M Hamburg, LLC and City Towing Services, and an administrative appeal by Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc., while variance requests by Ruth Marie Davis and Martin's Peterbilt were denied. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 10, 2018 meeting: • Branden Gross • Jan Meyer • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Chad Needham • Joan Whitman All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted nine roll call votes during the December 10, 2018 meeting. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Chad Needham motioned to approve the November 12, 2018 meeting minutes, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-18-00073** [timestamp: 10:00] Thomas Glover motioned to approve Ruth Marie Davis's variance request to reduce the required front setback from 6 feet to 0 feet, seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion failed 1-6. Only Harry Clarke voted in favor, while Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman voted against. **PLN-BOA-18-00072** [timestamp: 20:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve David King's variance request to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 6 feet, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with conditions requiring construction according to a revised site plan and obtaining necessary permits. **PLN-BOA-18-00078** [timestamp: 30:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman's variance request for parking spaces and fence height, seconded by Jan Meyer. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with conditions for installation according to submitted materials and permit requirements. **PLN-BOA-18-00076** [timestamp: 40:00] Raquel Carter motioned to approve A & M Hamburg, LLC's conditional use permit for a bank and coffee shop with drive-through facilities, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with extensive conditions regarding construction, permits, and traffic engineering approval. **PLN-BOA-18-00077** [timestamp: 50:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve City Towing Services' conditional use permit for a towing and impound lot, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with detailed conditions for fencing, lighting, and vehicle storage requirements. **PLN-BOA-18-00074** [timestamp: 60:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc.'s administrative appeal to transfer wall signage to canopy signs, seconded by Jan Meyer. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with permit requirements. **PLN-BOA-18-00075 (Administrative Appeal)** [timestamp: 70:00] Raquel Carter motioned to approve Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s administrative appeal to transfer wall signage, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with height and setback restrictions. **PLN-BOA-18-00075 (Variance Request)** [timestamp: 80:00] Jan Meyer motioned to approve Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s variance request to increase allowable height of two free-standing signs, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion failed 5-2, falling short of the required supermajority. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, and Joan Whitman. Voting against: Thomas Glover and Chad Needham. ## Public Comment Two public comments were received during the December 10, 2018 meeting, both from Amy Clark addressing separate variance requests. **David King Variance Request** [timestamp: 25:00] Amy Clark spoke regarding the variance request submitted by David King. Clark expressed specific concerns about preserving existing trees in the back yard of the property. She suggested that instead of impacting the rear yard vegetation, the front yard dimensions should be shortened as an alternative approach to accommodate the variance request. **Martin's Peterbilt Variance Request** [timestamp: 90:00] Amy Clark returned to address a second variance request, this time concerning Martin's Peterbilt. Speaking on behalf of the Fayette County neighborhood council, Clark expressed the organization's concerns regarding the company's request for a variance to install an 8-foot tall fence. The neighborhood council's specific objections to the proposed fence height were not detailed in the available summary, but Clark served as the official representative voicing the community group's position on this matter. Both comments focused on development and zoning issues affecting the local community, with Clark serving as an advocate for neighborhood interests in the variance review process. ## Contested Items The December 10, 2018 meeting featured two variance requests that generated significant debate and opposition. **Ruth Marie Davis Variance Request** The board faced a split vote on a variance request submitted by Ruth Marie Davis regarding additional parking spaces. The primary concern among board members centered on the potential precedent this approval might set for future similar requests. While specific vote tallies were not provided in the available materials, the division among board members reflected differing views on balancing individual property needs against broader zoning consistency. The split nature of the vote indicates this was not a straightforward decision, with valid arguments presented on multiple sides of the issue. **Martin's Peterbilt Variance Request** Martin's Peterbilt's request for an 8-foot tall fence encountered substantial community opposition during the meeting. Residents and community members expressed concerns that the proposed fence height would negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The opposition focused on how the tall fence might alter the visual landscape and potentially affect property values or the overall aesthetic appeal of the area. The community pushback on the Martin's Peterbilt request demonstrates the importance of neighborhood input in the variance approval process. When businesses seek modifications to standard zoning requirements, particularly those involving visible changes like fence height, community sentiment often plays a significant role in the board's deliberations. Both contested items highlight the ongoing tension in zoning decisions between accommodating individual property owner needs and maintaining community standards. The variance process requires boards to weigh specific circumstances against established zoning principles while considering broader impacts on neighborhoods and precedent-setting implications for future requests. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided materials for this meeting.* ## Variance request by David King [timestamp: 20:00] The board considered variance request PLN-BOA-18-00072 submitted by David King for the construction of a new single family residence. King requested three specific variances to reduce the required setbacks for his property: front yard setback, side street side yard setback, and side yard setback for a deep building. Key speakers during the discussion included David King, the applicant, along with board members Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham. The speakers presented the case for why the variances were necessary for the proposed single family home construction. The board reviewed the specific dimensional requirements and the requested reductions to the standard setback distances. The discussion focused on the justification for allowing reduced setbacks from the typical zoning requirements for front yard, side street side yard, and side yard areas, particularly as they related to the deep building configuration of the proposed residence. After consideration of the application and discussion among board members, the board voted to approve David King's variance request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available materials. The approval of PLN-BOA-18-00072 allows King to proceed with construction of the single family residence using the reduced setbacks rather than conforming to the standard zoning requirements for front yard, side street side yard, and side yard distances. ## Variance request by Ruth Marie Davis [timestamp: 10:00] The board considered variance request PLN-BOA-18-00073 submitted by Ruth Marie Davis. Davis requested a variance to reduce the required front setback in order to accommodate additional paved parking on her property. Key speakers during the discussion included Joseph Reckelhoff, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham, who presented information and debated the merits of the variance request. Following deliberation, the board voted to disapprove Davis's variance request. The specific concerns raised by board members and the detailed reasoning behind the denial were not captured in the available meeting materials, but the outcome was a clear rejection of the proposed setback reduction for the additional parking area. The variance request was formally denied, meaning Davis will need to comply with the existing front setback requirements or explore alternative solutions for her parking needs. ## Variance request by Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman [timestamp: 30:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00078, a variance request submitted by Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman. The applicants sought approval for two specific variances: an increase in the allowable number of parking spaces beyond the standard permitted amount and an increase in fence height above the typical zoning restrictions. Katherine Wiseman presented the request to the board, explaining the circumstances that necessitated the variances for their property. The discussion involved input from board members Harry Clarke and Jan Meyer, who examined the merits of the application and considered how the requested variances would impact the surrounding area and comply with zoning objectives. During the review process, board members evaluated whether the variance requests met the necessary criteria for approval, including considerations of hardship, practical difficulties, and compatibility with neighborhood character. The discussion addressed both the parking space increase and the fence height modification as separate but related components of the overall variance application. Following their deliberation, the board voted to approve the Wiseman variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the applicants must meet in implementing the approved variances. These conditions were designed to ensure that the granted variances would be implemented in a manner consistent with local zoning goals and community standards. The approval of PLN-BOA-18-00078 allows Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman to proceed with their plans for additional parking spaces and increased fence height, subject to compliance with the board-imposed conditions. ## Conditional use permit for A & M Hamburg, LLC [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00076, a conditional use permit request from A & M Hamburg, LLC for a bank and coffee shop with drive-through facilities. Key speakers during the discussion included Nick Nicholson, Mary Domigan, and Raquel Carter, who presented details about the proposed development and addressed board questions regarding the project's scope and operational requirements. The application centered on establishing dual commercial uses - banking services and a coffee shop - both featuring drive-through capabilities at the proposed location. Board members examined various aspects of the proposal, including traffic flow patterns, site design considerations, and compliance with local zoning requirements for drive-through facilities. Following the presentation and discussion of the project details, the board moved to approve the conditional use permit request. The approval came with specific conditions that the applicant must meet, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available materials. The board's decision represents approval for A & M Hamburg, LLC to proceed with their proposed bank and coffee shop development, subject to fulfilling the stipulated conditions. This dual-use commercial project will add both financial services and food service options with convenient drive-through access to the community once construction and permitting processes are completed. ## Conditional use permit for City Towing Services [timestamp: 50:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00077, a conditional use permit request from City Towing Services to establish a towing and impound lot facility. Key speakers during the discussion included Dana Winchester, Chad Needham, and Thomas Glover, who presented details about the proposed operation and addressed questions from board members. The application sought approval for City Towing Services to operate a commercial towing and vehicle impound facility, which would require conditional use authorization under local zoning regulations. The discussion covered the operational aspects of the proposed business, including the scope of towing services and impound lot operations. Following deliberation on the merits of the application and consideration of any conditions necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit request. The approval included specific conditions that City Towing Services must meet in operating their facility. The board's decision allows City Towing Services to move forward with establishing their towing and impound lot operations, subject to compliance with the conditions attached to the permit approval. ## Administrative appeal by Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. [timestamp: 60:00] The board considered case PLN-BOA-18-00074, an administrative appeal submitted by Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. requesting to transfer existing wall signage to canopy signs. Scott Elpers presented the case details to the board, explaining the company's request to relocate their current wall-mounted signage to a canopy configuration. The appeal sought approval for this signage transfer under the city's sign ordinance provisions. Harry Clarke and Jan Meyer participated in the discussion, reviewing the technical aspects of the proposed signage transfer and its compliance with municipal sign regulations. The board examined whether the canopy sign placement would meet setback requirements, size limitations, and other relevant zoning standards. During deliberations, board members evaluated the visual impact of the proposed canopy signs compared to the existing wall signage configuration. They considered factors including visibility, safety, and compatibility with the surrounding commercial district's aesthetic character. The board ultimately approved Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc.'s administrative appeal request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the company must satisfy before implementing the signage transfer. These conditions likely addressed technical compliance requirements, installation standards, or design modifications to ensure the canopy signs meet all applicable municipal regulations. The approval allows Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. to proceed with transferring their wall signage to the requested canopy configuration, subject to meeting the stipulated conditions and obtaining any necessary permits for the installation work. ## Variance and administrative appeal by Baptist Hospitals Inc. [timestamp: 70:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00075, a request from Baptist Hospitals Inc. involving both variance applications and an administrative appeal regarding signage regulations. Baptist Hospitals Inc. submitted two separate requests: variances to increase the allowable height of signs beyond current zoning requirements, and an administrative appeal seeking to transfer existing wall signage from one location to another on their property. Key speakers during the discussion included Skip Alexander, Raquel Carter, and Jan Meyer, who presented details about the hospital's signage needs and the regulatory framework governing the requests. The board reached a split decision on the two components of Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s application. Members approved the administrative appeal portion, which allows the hospital to transfer wall signage as requested. This decision enables Baptist Hospitals Inc. to relocate existing signage to better serve their operational needs while remaining within established guidelines for transferred signage. However, the board denied the variance request that would have permitted increased sign heights. The denial means Baptist Hospitals Inc. must comply with existing height restrictions for any new or modified signage on their property. The mixed outcome reflects the board's approach to balancing the hospital's operational signage needs with maintaining consistency in zoning regulations. While the administrative appeal was deemed acceptable under current transfer provisions, the height variance request did not meet the criteria necessary for approval. This decision affects Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s signage plans and requires the organization to redesign any proposed signage to conform with existing height limitations while allowing them to proceed with the approved signage transfer. ## Variance request by Martin's Peterbilt [timestamp: 90:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-18-00079, a variance request submitted by Martin's Peterbilt to increase the allowable height of a fence beyond current zoning regulations. Key speakers during the discussion included Bruce Simpson, Matt Kerley, and Amy Clark, who presented various aspects of the proposal and raised concerns about the requested variance. The specific details of the fence height increase sought by Martin's Peterbilt and the rationale for the variance were discussed during the proceedings. Board members evaluated the request against standard variance criteria, which typically include considerations of hardship, impact on neighboring properties, and compliance with the comprehensive plan. Following deliberation, the Board of Appeals voted to disapprove the variance request. The denial means Martin's Peterbilt must comply with existing fence height restrictions in the applicable zoning district or pursue alternative solutions that conform to current regulations. The case represents one of several variance requests considered by the board during this meeting, demonstrating the ongoing need for property owners to seek relief from zoning requirements while balancing community standards and neighboring property interests. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of the minutes of the November 12, 2018 meeting - **PLN-BOA-18-00073** — failed (1-6): Variance request by Ruth Marie Davis to reduce the required front setback from 6 feet to 0 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00072** — passed (7-0): Variance request by David King to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 6 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00078** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman to increase the allowable number of parking spaces and fence height - **PLN-BOA-18-00076** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for A & M Hamburg, LLC for a bank and coffee shop with drive-through facilities - **PLN-BOA-18-00077** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for City Towing Services to establish a towing and impound lot - **PLN-BOA-18-00074** — passed (7-0): Administrative appeal by Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. to transfer wall signage to canopy signs - **PLN-BOA-18-00075** — passed (7-0): Administrative appeal by Baptist Hospitals Inc. to transfer wall signage - **PLN-BOA-18-00075** — failed (5-2): Variance request by Baptist Hospitals Inc. to increase the allowable height of two free-standing signs --- ## Full transcript after a snow and ice event. The hydrant is there for your protection and it may be several days after a storm before they can be cleared. By following these recommendations, you will be assisting us in providing you with safe and efficient snow removal operations. As always, for more information, please visit our website at lexingtonky.gov or call LexCALL at 311. I'm Katherine Minton and thanks for watching. Good afternoon everybody. I'd like to call the order to the Board of Adjustment meeting on December 10, 2018. The first item of business will be approval of the minutes for last month's hearing. These were circulated by staff to the board. Anyone on the board have any comments to the proposed minutes? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Second. I've got a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. The minutes have been approved. The next item I will do is I will ask if there are any matters today that are going to be postponed or withdrawn. Okay. Hearing none, then what we'll do is I will call the agenda. I'm going to call each case, and then I'll ask if the applicant is present and if any opponents are present, or anyone else who wants to speak on the matter. If so, those matters will be put towards the end of the docket, and then we will, after we go through the agenda, we'll call the unopposed matters first. So the first item on the agenda is a variance appeal, which is PLN BOA 18-72, David King. Is the applicant present? He is. Is there anyone here that wants to speak on this matter? Okay, I see none, so we'll have you call first. The next item is for PLNBOA 1873, Ruth Mary Davis' Variance Appeal. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Anyone here want to speak on this matter? Okay. The next item is PLNBOA 1875, Baptist Hospitals, Inc. Is the applicant present? I see that the staff has recommended disapproval of the variance, approval of the appeal. So we'll have that one heard. The next item is PLN BOA 1878, variance appeal for Jeffrey and Catherine Wiseman. Is anyone here to speak on that matter? Except for you. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Okay. Okay, the next item is PLN BOA 1879, Martins Peterbilt, variance appeal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Anyone here to speak on that matter? Okay, Ms. Clark is here, so we'll have that one to be heard. The next item will be the conditional use appeals, PLN BOA 1876, A and M, Hamburg LLC. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Anyone here to speak on that matter? Okay. Next item is PLM BOA 1877, City Towing Services. Is the applicant present? Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of that other than the applicant? Okay. And then lastly, we have an administrative review, PLM BOA 1874, Custom Sign and Engineering Inc. Is the applicant present? This is custom signed in engineering, Inc. Is there anyone who wants to speak on that matter? Well, what I'll do is I'll call this matter out again once we get through the other items since this would be towards the end of the docket. Okay, so the next item is anyone who is going to be speaking either as an applicant or in opposition or proponent of the application, please stand right now and I need to swear you in. And raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. so that will bring us to the first item which is the variance appeal plmboa 1872 david king you want to come up to the podium sir and if you could state your name for the record my name is david king thank you and i know that staff has recommended some approvals and also subject to a couple conditions. Have you read that report? I have not. Okay. I guess then would, do we have an extra? Did you receive a copy of the report in your email at all? I have not. Okay. Here's a copy. If you want to take a look and read through that, that's what we're recommending today. Perhaps it would be best if you could take a couple minutes to look through that while we hear another case. It would probably make more sense for me to call the next unopposed. If you don't mind, I made a presentation. Oh, no, you're going to have an opportunity to speak. Oh, thank you. Yeah, but that will give you a chance to read the report and make sure, because you may be in agreement with what they're telling you, or you may not. It would be number, first page CI, and that's the report regarding your case. Yes, sir. I'd like to go ahead and make my presentation if that's possible. I want to suggest you're going to have an opportunity to do your presentation, but I'd like you to look at that and see what they, because we may be able to do away with some issues during your presentation that we don't have to be heard on just in case. So look at that, because they are recommending some approvals, so we maybe will narrow it down to you can discuss about two or three points, but you will only be seated for five minutes. Fair enough. Yeah, I'll call you. Give you five minutes, read that, and I'll call you back up the next case. All right, thank you. Okay, the next item is PLM BOA 1873, Ruth Mary Davis. Come on up, sir. We do have one letter on that one. Okay. Is that a letter in opposition or support? Opposition. Okay. Well, while we're looking at that, sir, please state your name for the record. Yeah, I'm Joseph Recklehoff. And are you the contractor? I am. Okay. And you have the authority to speak on behalf of Ms. Davis today? I do. Perfect. The staff has recommended approval. They've recommended approval with one condition. Has your client reviewed that condition? Yes. And you're in agreement with that condition? We are. Okay, perfect. Well, give us 30 seconds. We'll look at this, and we'll see if anyone has any questions for you. When I looked at this on the Google Maps, I don't think it had the right address. It doesn't. Do we have the actual photo? We can put up a photo from where I drove by the other day. Okay, that would be great. Thank you. while she's putting that up there mister is it brindelhoff yes sir uh it wasn't uh completely clear from the from the drawing that was submitted with the application at least it wasn't completely clear to me where the curb cut is located it it looks like it it covers the area including the additional paving area is that correct uh no the the parking pad is just on the other side of the sidewalk on the back side of the sidewalk i see okay thank you yeah that picture is helpful Thank you. I have a question. I'm curious as to how that pad got added when, according to the staff report, it wasn't there when it was applied for, when they had to permit. Yes, ma'am. We built the home and the lady's handicapped and there was a change order that was requested while the home was being built. And it was our understanding, it was our mistake, but it was our understanding as a builder that concrete below a certain square footage did not require a permit. We didn't realize one was required because we had a permit obviously for the house. So the lady requested it. It seemed reasonable to us, and her needs were, she had some specific needs. It wasn't just because she wanted extra parking. She's handicapped. And so we wrote a change order. She paid us to pour the additional pad. And everything was there, by the way, when we received a CFO on the house. So we didn't even realize until, evidently there was a complaint, but we didn't realize until this home has been occupied for over a year, we didn't realize that there was an issue until very recently. Any additional questions for the applicant on this application? well hearing none um the chair will entertain a motion well i've got a question for staff i'm sorry is this why do we need a why do we need a variance on this since the parking pad is directly behind the sidewalk we don't have that six foot setback that we typically ask for where we typically see that diagonal that we talk about to create that six foot setback we don't have that here as we noted in our reasons for approval if we did have that it would require the space to be shifted back towards the house and would actually likely result in more paving than what we currently see here but that's the the reason that we're asking for the variance yeah and what kind of precedent is this going to set i mean i can see anybody asking for forgiveness for building an extra parking pad and citing this as an example of the board approving one thing that that makes us a little bit more comfortable with this particular instance is that the The apron was not widened to accommodate this, so it's not truly a complete parking area. Although, as you see in that photo, someone is parking in this space, but that is something that we tend to see. I'll put the photo back up if you don't mind. I mean, it's a two-car garage with parking spots for two cars. I mean, it's just, is the reason for recommending approval is because the owner is handicapped and needs the additional parking? Right. The owner's handicap isn't, sorry. It's right. It's not for additional parking. It's to allow extra space for the handicapped resident to get in and out. and as I said that if it were to be compliant parking space we would actually probably end up with more paving because we would have to have that six-foot angle so the in order to get a vehicle in there if they did want to park there it would have to be paved all the way up to the house practically so we would be seeing quite a bit more pavement in the front yard so it's sort of a trade-off in this instance okay thank you I have a question because now that confused me so if we're if we're compliant then what you're saying is we have to do that diagonal where the minivan is sitting right that to go six foot you know how the way we do the portion that is I don't know if it's a minivan but I don't I think it's a smaller vehicle but um but yes the the portion that is not on the apron would have to be flared that that angle okay Because when I read it, I thought we were saying just a small part was not compliant. But actually, that entire space? Well, no, it's just the, if that triangle were to be removed, it would become compliant, but it would likely not be useful at that point. Well, parking, but for access, it would. Correct. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah, that's what I kind of understand. If it's compliant, which it's not supposed to be for parking, it's just supposed to be for access, then the angle would suffice. It just to me looks like with a car parked there, it's for parking. I mean, so it's, I don't know, how do you get in to that spot without going over that grass curb area? I guess you can. Can I? Typically that car is not parked there. Obviously we see that there was a picture taken. And the purpose of the extra pad there, like this lady said, was when the van can pull up, the elderly lady can get out and utilize that area for getting in and out of the vehicle. Typically, there's not a car parked there. As you said, they don't normally park there because it's not an easy place to pull in. And I don't know. You know, obviously, they parked there that way on this particular day. but the reason for the pad was for the homeowner to be able to pull in probably kind of right behind where the other car is parked and then she can get out. She has a walker and so forth. And if we did the six foot, like this lady said, it would eliminate most of what's there. So it would be not as useful, I guess. But what we're saying, if the triangle was built in, in grass, that pad could be extended all the way back to the house and still be in compliance, could it not? Yes. Staff, is that correct? Yeah. That is correct. Okay. I guess my question is, if we leave it like it is, it's probably going to be a smaller piece of concrete than if we take out part of it, put the triangle in, and then pave it all the way back to the house. You know, I'm not really excited about approving this, but at the same time, I think the alternative is probably not as satisfactory. That would just be my opinion. i would even add to that i i think that looks nice i understand it i get the point but i'm also just thinking about every house and all of these subdivisions want exactly that like that's what we hear all the time nobody can has enough parking for it with their two-car garage and their two spaces in the driveway so everybody wants the additional parking and i'm just wondering you know how we word it and if we're accepting it in this instance then like mr glover said every time someone needs additional parking for lots of good reasons makes it tough to say no the next times but it does it looks nice and i get that it look that's a better solution than the alternative aesthetically in other words what sets this apart from every other application we're going to get and or have gotten that we've denied because it was non-compliant and this one is non-compliant but we're granting it because it'd be costly or troublesome to require him to take it out that's never stopped us in the past and i'm sympathetic to the applicant understand this but I'm just trying to make this I would like to find a way to keep this from being precedent for as Miss Carter said everybody else in this neighborhood and others who just want additional parking or additional space concrete in the front yard we lose green space inch by inch yeah I think I'm having a problem with it just because we have we have asked people in the past to cut this back and I don't you know it's hard for me to say if the handicapped car was parked you know if the I mean I'm just looking at two cars here but if if the maroon car comes in behind the other she still can't or he can't still can't get around because there's no they there's no access pad from the the new pad up to the sidewalk so to me it looks like just an extra place to park a car i'm sorry i mean i think i think you may have misunderstood what i said uh normally there's a car parked when she when mrs davis who's the lady we're speaking about that's elderly she would normally park behind in a position that would be located approximately behind where that car is now so she could access the pad i'm not saying that one would pull behind the existing car she i was just trying to give you a visual of where she would typically park she would park adjacent to that pad there to get out of her car the one car now is pulled forward more so than she would she would be parked typically i think if i could ask traffic to chime in and also what is the what's the i forget now what's the width of a parking space isn't supposed to be 10 feet uh typically nine to ten feet um there's multiple issues here and i will everyone has brought up very good points i'll start with mr glover we have this board rejected a very similar application for exactly very similar reasons on Marqueeuse Avenue and it was a very similar design and it was not in compliance with what our typical standards are this is not in compliance with the typical standards one thing that traffic engineering looks at is when whenever a handicap application is brought forward we look at all the scenarios and one thing we noticed was there are stairs leading to the front door so our typical ingress and egress would be through the garage and looking at the elevations and typically the way the garage goes up into the house could be a handicap ramp we don't know what's inside but we did notice there's not a ramp leading to the front door so we questioned why the accessibility was needed for us a second pad when you've got two car parking in the garage and two-car parking and possibly four-car parking outside of the garage in looking at it. So we do have a concern about this setting of precedence. We have rejected very similar applications that have not come before the BOA but have come to traffic engineering because we typically want that separation between the sidewalk and the parking pad or drive simply because I don't believe that car could pull out without driving across a corner of the sidewalk. It could be done in a multi back and forth motion, but typically you don't want that, especially with elderly or handicapped accessibility problems. So there is some concerns about setting a precedence. As far as aesthetics, we agree aesthetically it probably is fine aesthetically, but given the access, we may have wanted to, if accessibility was the issue, then I'm not quite sure we needed 10 to 12 feet of concrete. Typically in our parking lots for a car that pulls in, we don't ask for much more than a six-foot sidewalk, and we feel that's accommodating for handicap accessibility. So behind that maroon car is a Chevy Malibu, and behind the car is a separation between the sidewalk to the house. house so if a person gets out they have to come back to where the where the trailblazer is go up and then go into the sidewalk so that connection just didn't make a lot of sense to us as far as trying to increase the accessibility yeah I noticed that as well it seemed to me that if accessibility were the issue even if there were even if even if the occupant could get up the stairs with a walker or whatever that you would build a pad for accessibility closer to the house rather than closer to the street so it just looks like additional parking to me i agree with you thanks comment yes um the there's still i guess i'm not following your logic about the steps if if mrs davis which is i've already stated where she parks um and and granted now I don't know about the six feet or eight feet we just went by what the homeowner requested when we did the change order So I would somewhat agree that maybe it's a little wider than it May need to be But if she parks in the middle of the driveway and gets out there's plenty It does provide her more room to get in and out of the garage She would she would come down that parking pad and into the garage So I think the fact that you're citing steps on the front is really not part of the argument. She can still use this parking pad the way it's designed to get in and out of her vehicle and into the garage. And it's more of a convenience. I wouldn't say it's necessary. Again, keep in mind we did this as a change order during construction. It was a request for the homeowner. So we didn't evaluate this from every angle possible like you guys are today. We just, she requested the additional area to make it easier for her to get in and out of the car, and that's why we did the pad the way it is. I certainly agree with what this gentleman said. If we designed it in, you know, a precise manner for that, the design might be somewhat different. But this is what we're left with now, and we're just debating whether we want to require this lady to tear her driveway out and completely redo it. Well, I don't think that's really the issue. Right, I understand. I mean, I think my issue is, or maybe the issue of another couple of board members, is that I don't know how this pad, this additional pad, helps her get in and out of her car. Okay. I mean, how wide is the existing driveway without the pad, for example? Well, it's a standard driveway, so it's about 17 feet, I guess. Okay. A standard garage door is 16, so you can look at the picture. So if she drives up, like the car on the right, and she gets out, she's going to be getting out into grass and not on the pad. So I don't understand how this pad, you know, unless there are circumstances we haven't heard about here. I don't know how this pad is helps her get in and out of the car. I mean, this is just gives her more room to get on a hard surface if it's raining or something, right? But she's going to be getting out on the grass. I mean, this pad is closer to the sidewalk and the street and not to the house. There's grass between the back of that pad and the house and the sidewalk leading up to the house. I'm not sure I'm following you. I think what Mr. Glover's trying to say is you've got a sidewalk and you've got there's a flower bed in front of the sidewalk with landscaping in it but I think his point is is that you've got a car sitting in a on a in a parking space that is arguing trying to say this is for her convenience when you could probably could do the same thing with two three feet and make it closer to the house I mean It looks like a parking space. I think that's the board's problem. It looks like a parking space. There is a car parked in it like it's a parking space. It appears to me that they wanted a third parking space. Okay. I think that's some of the board's concern, and they do not want other neighbors in this neighborhood coming and saying, well, you gave her a third parking space. We, too, want a third parking space for our. Sure. I think that's the board's concern is it's the precedent, allowing this in this neighborhood in addition to the two parking spaces within the garage presumably like ideally she should pull into the garage right in all weather and yeah but of course you can't then there's even less space to get out right inside the garage you mean if there's a second car there but I mean for a one car to pull into a two-car garage is really okay our best clearance Any more comments from the applicant? No, thank you. Are there any questions for staff or for anyone else? Hearing none, then I guess I'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Is it too late for me to make one more comment? No, you take it. Okay. If the board doesn't approve the variance, I mean, there's still going to be a parking pad there. We'll just make it comply. So as long as it's six feet, we'll have the diagonal like what was described. There'll still be a pad there. it won't be as useful as it is now I'm not sure I understand what you just said explain that again the only thing that's non-compliant about this pad is it does not if you read the ordinance here is that it needs to have a six foot how would they describe it six feet set back. So the pad's allowable. It just has to be six feet back from the public sidewalk. So it's not the fact that there's a pad there. It's just the configuration of it. And how long is the pad? 15 feet? I would say maybe more like 20. Well, the diagram shows 15 feet by. Okay, I don't have the diagram in front of me, sir. It was submitted with the application. It shows it's 15 feet long and 8 feet wide, 8.2. Okay. So it ended up being 9 feet wide then. Okay. I'm sorry, 9 feet deep, if you will. Is that accurate, staff? that if they tore out the first, the front six feet, it would be compliant with our zoning ordinance? Correct. If they could do the angled six-foot setback, and then it would be compliant as is. What would that look like? Thank you. diagram yeah let's can you do a close-up on that triangle i'm just kind of curious that's similar to what we approve normally in those one car garage areas right we're looking at those little areas with the one car garage they want to add the space and they always have to do that cutting and there's no curb cut is that correct that correct there would be no curb cut it would remain as it is how deep is that uh left edge of the triangle six feet yes that's the six feet okay Okay. And if that were done, then it would be compliant and they wouldn't need a variance. Is that right? Correct. Okay. If they did want to add additional paving closer to the house, they would need to be cognizant of the requirement that no more than 50% of the front yard can be paved there at about 33% as is with the pad as it is. So if they were to add additional, they would want to be sure to make sure that that was not. But if they're taking out, they probably would be compliant. Right. To me, on this diagram, it just looks like there's another 15 feet from the back of that pad to the house. And in that photo, it doesn't look like that's possible. Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure that the drawing that was submitted with the application, at least from the one photograph that we saw. I'm not sure the drawing is to scale. If it is, then I feel better. If it's not, we probably need to know that. We're going to try to get a Google Earth shot to show you how it looks for real from an overhead. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, no. Say it. Thank you. Thank you. It's like an old picture. Thank you.