# Board of Adjustment - December 10, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 10, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4655 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4655?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-12-10 - **Last revised**: December 10, 2018 - **Length**: 19,340 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 over the session. The board addressed eight agenda items during the meeting, including variance requests, conditional use permits, an administrative appeal, and signage requests from various applicants throughout the community. The board conducted nine motions and votes throughout the proceedings, with most requests receiving approval. Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting. The board's decisions included approving variance requests from David King, Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman, and Martin's Peterbilt, while denying Ruth Marie Davis's variance request, and approving conditional use permits for A & M Hamburg, LLC and City Towing Services, along with Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc.'s administrative appeal and mixed outcomes on Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s signage requests. ## 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 No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered nine separate matters during the December 10, 2018 meeting, with eight approvals and two denials. **PLN-BOA-18-00073** - Ruth Marie Davis variance request for additional paved parking failed by a vote of 1-6 [timestamp: 02:00]. Thomas Glover made the motion, seconded by Raquel Carter. Only Carter voted in favor, while Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman voted against. **PLN-BOA-18-00072** - David King variance request for new single family residence passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 10:00]. Chad Needham motioned, Thomas Glover seconded. The approval included conditions requiring a front yard setback of at least 6 feet and obtaining necessary permits from Building Inspection. **PLN-BOA-18-00078** - Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman variance request for parking and fence height passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 20:00]. Harry Clarke motioned, Jan Meyer seconded. Conditions required installation per submitted plans and removal of existing driveway. **PLN-BOA-18-00076** - A & M Hamburg, LLC conditional use permit for bank and coffee shop passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 30:00]. Raquel Carter motioned, Joan Whitman seconded. Conditions addressed drive-through construction and storm water management compliance. **PLN-BOA-18-00077** - City Towing Services conditional use permit for towing and impound lot passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 40:00]. Chad Needham motioned, Thomas Glover seconded. Extensive conditions included 6-foot solid fencing requirements and lighting specifications. **PLN-BOA-18-00074** - Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. administrative appeal for canopy signs passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 50:00]. Harry Clarke motioned, Jan Meyer seconded. **PLN-BOA-18-00075** - Baptist Hospitals Inc. administrative appeal for signage transfer passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 60:00]. Raquel Carter motioned, Thomas Glover seconded. However, their related variance request for sign height failed 5-2 [timestamp: 70:00], with Thomas Glover and Chad Needham voting against. **PLN-BOA-18-00079** - Martin's Peterbilt variance request for fence height passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 80:00]. Chad Needham motioned, Thomas Glover seconded. ## Public Comment Two public comments were made during the December 10, 2018 meeting, both from Amy Clark addressing separate variance requests. **David King Variance Request** [timestamp: 15:00] Amy Clark spoke regarding the David King variance request, expressing concerns about preserving a tree located in the backyard. She suggested that the front yard should be shortened as an alternative approach to the proposed variance. **Martin's Peterbilt Variance Request** [timestamp: 85:00] Amy Clark also commented on the Martin's Peterbilt variance request, raising concerns about the potential impact of a proposed fence on the Paris Pike corridor. She suggested that the business should be located in a different zoning district rather than proceeding with the current variance request. Both comments focused on variance requests before the board, with Clark advocating for alternative solutions that would address her concerns about environmental preservation and appropriate zoning compatibility. ## Contested Items The December 10, 2018 meeting featured two significant contested items that generated debate among board members and community stakeholders. **Baptist Hospitals Inc. Variance Request** The board faced a divisive decision regarding Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s variance request for sign height. The proposal created a clear split among board members, with concerns raised about the appropriateness of the requested height variance. After deliberation, the board voted 5-2 against approving the variance request. The close margin of the vote reflected the contentious nature of the decision, with two board members supporting the hospital's request while the majority ultimately determined the variance was not warranted. **Martin's Peterbilt Variance Request** Martin's Peterbilt's request for a fence height increase encountered significant community opposition, particularly focused on concerns about the visual and aesthetic impact on the Paris Pike corridor. Community members expressed worry that the proposed fence height would negatively affect the character and appearance of this important transportation corridor. The opposition highlighted broader community concerns about maintaining the visual integrity of key roadways and the potential precedent that approving such variances might set for future development along Paris Pike. Both contested items demonstrated the ongoing tension between business development needs and community preservation interests. The Baptist Hospitals variance showed internal board division on development standards, while the Martin's Peterbilt request illustrated how community input can influence planning decisions, particularly when proposals affect prominent corridors or areas of community significance. These cases reflect the challenging balance planning boards must strike between accommodating legitimate business needs and maintaining community standards and aesthetic values. ## David King variance request [timestamp: 10:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00072, a variance request submitted by David King to reduce required yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence. David King presented his request to the board, seeking approval for reduced setback requirements that would allow him to proceed with his planned home construction. The specific details of the setback reductions and the property location were discussed during his presentation. Amy Clark also participated in the discussion of this agenda item, though the specific nature of her involvement and role in the proceedings was not detailed in the available materials. The board deliberated on King's variance request, considering the merits of the application and any potential impacts of granting the reduced setback requirements. While the specific concerns or objections raised during the discussion were not documented in the extracted materials, the board ultimately reached a decision on the matter. Following their review and discussion, the board voted to approve David King's variance request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific terms and requirements of those conditions were not specified in the available documentation. This approval allows King to move forward with his single family residence construction project under the modified setback requirements, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the board. ## Ruth Marie Davis variance request [timestamp: 02:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-18-00073, a variance request submitted by Ruth Marie Davis for additional paved parking. Joseph Reckelhoff presented the case to the board. The request sought approval for expanding paved parking beyond what is typically permitted under current zoning regulations. During the discussion, board members evaluated whether the request met the necessary criteria for granting a variance, particularly the requirement to demonstrate special circumstances or hardships that would justify deviating from standard zoning requirements. After reviewing the application and hearing the presentation, the board determined that the request did not meet the standards required for variance approval. The primary concern was the lack of demonstrated special circumstances that would warrant granting the variance for additional paved parking. The board voted to deny the variance request, finding that Ruth Marie Davis had not established sufficient grounds to justify the requested deviation from existing zoning regulations regarding paved parking requirements. ## Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman variance request [timestamp: 20:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00078, a variance request submitted by Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman for additional parking and increased fence height on their property. Katherine Wiseman presented the request to the board, explaining the need for the variances on behalf of herself and her husband Jeffrey. The application sought approval for two specific variances: one to allow additional parking beyond what is typically permitted under current zoning regulations, and another to construct fencing that exceeds the standard height restrictions. The board discussed the merits of the request and evaluated whether the proposed variances met the necessary criteria for approval. After reviewing the application materials and hearing from the applicant, the board determined that the request was reasonable and met the standards required for granting variances. The board voted to approve the Wiseman variance request, but attached specific conditions to the approval. While the exact details of these conditions were not specified in the available materials, conditional approvals typically include requirements such as compliance with setback requirements, adherence to specific construction standards, or other measures to ensure the variances do not negatively impact neighboring properties or violate other zoning provisions. The approval allows the Wisemans to proceed with their plans for the additional parking and increased fence height, provided they comply with all conditions established by the board as part of the approval process. ## A & M Hamburg, LLC conditional use permit [timestamp: 30:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00076 for A & M Hamburg, LLC's request for a conditional use permit to operate a bank and coffee shop with drive-through facilities. Nick Nicholson served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The applicant sought approval to establish the combined banking and coffee shop operation, which would include drive-through services for customer convenience. The board conducted their review of the conditional use permit application, examining the proposed use and its compatibility with the surrounding area. The discussion covered the operational aspects of the dual-purpose facility and the drive-through component of the business plan. Following their deliberation, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for A & M Hamburg, LLC. The approval came with specific conditions that the applicant must meet in order to proceed with the bank and coffee shop operation. These conditions were established to ensure the proposed use would be appropriate for the location and comply with local zoning requirements. The approval allows A & M Hamburg, LLC to move forward with their plans for the combined banking and coffee shop facility, including the requested drive-through services, provided they adhere to the conditions set forth by the board. ## City Towing Services conditional use permit [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00077 for City Towing Services' request for a conditional use permit to establish a towing and impound lot. Dana Winchester served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The application involved City Towing Services seeking approval to operate a towing and vehicle impound facility. The discussion centered on the specific requirements and conditions that would need to be met for the business to operate in compliance with local zoning regulations. Following review of the application materials and discussion of the proposal, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit request. The approval came with specific conditions that City Towing Services must meet in order to operate the towing and impound lot facility. The board's decision allows City Towing Services to move forward with establishing their towing and impound operations, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the approval. ## Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. administrative appeal [timestamp: 50:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00074, an administrative appeal submitted by Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. The company requested approval to transfer existing wall signage to canopy signs at their location. Scott Elpers served as the key speaker presenting information about the appeal to the board members. The specific details of the signage transfer, including the size, location, and design specifications of the proposed canopy signs, were discussed during the presentation. The board reviewed the administrative appeal request and evaluated whether the proposed transfer from wall signage to canopy signs met the applicable zoning and signage requirements. The discussion focused on the technical aspects of the sign relocation and any potential impacts on the surrounding area. Following their deliberation, the board voted to approve Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc.'s administrative appeal. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the company must meet in order to proceed with the signage transfer. The exact nature of these conditions was established during the board's discussion of the appeal. The approval allows Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. to move forward with their plan to relocate their signage from wall-mounted displays to canopy-style signs, subject to compliance with the conditions set forth by the board. ## Baptist Hospitals Inc. signage requests [timestamp: 60:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-18-00075, involving two separate signage requests from Baptist Hospitals Inc. The requests included a variance for sign height and an administrative appeal for signage transfer. Skip Alexander served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The hospital system sought approval for modifications to their existing signage arrangements, which required board consideration due to specific regulatory requirements. The board's deliberation resulted in a split decision on the two requests. Members approved the administrative appeal portion of Baptist Hospitals Inc.'s application, allowing the signage transfer to proceed as requested. However, the board denied the variance request for sign height, determining that the proposed height modification did not meet the necessary criteria for approval. The mixed outcome reflects the board's careful consideration of each component of the application on its individual merits. While the signage transfer met administrative requirements and received approval, the height variance request failed to satisfy the standards required for such exceptions to existing regulations. This decision allows Baptist Hospitals Inc. to proceed with certain aspects of their signage plans while requiring them to comply with existing height restrictions for their proposed signage modifications. ## Martin's Peterbilt variance request [timestamp: 80:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-18-00079, a variance request from Martin's Peterbilt to increase the allowable height of a fence beyond standard zoning requirements. Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker presenting information about the variance request. The application sought approval to construct a fence that would exceed the typical height limitations established in the zoning code. Following discussion of the proposal, the board voted to approve Martin's Peterbilt's variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the applicant must meet as part of the variance approval. The specific details of the fence height being requested, the current zoning limitations, and the exact conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The board's decision allows Martin's Peterbilt to proceed with their fence construction project under the terms of the conditional approval. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-18-00073** — failed (1-6): Ruth Marie Davis variance request for additional paved parking - **PLN-BOA-18-00072** — passed (7-0): David King variance request for new single family residence - **PLN-BOA-18-00078** — passed (7-0): Jeffrey and Katherine Wiseman variance request for parking and fence height - **PLN-BOA-18-00076** — passed (7-0): A & M Hamburg, LLC conditional use permit for bank and coffee shop - **PLN-BOA-18-00077** — passed (7-0): City Towing Services conditional use permit for towing and impound lot - **PLN-BOA-18-00074** — passed (7-0): Custom Sign & Engineering, Inc. administrative appeal for canopy signs - **PLN-BOA-18-00075** — passed (7-0): Baptist Hospitals Inc. administrative appeal for signage transfer - **PLN-BOA-18-00075** — failed (5-2): Baptist Hospitals Inc. variance request for sign height - **PLN-BOA-18-00079** — passed (7-0): Martin’s Peterbilt variance request for fence height --- ## Full transcript . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. very much for getting that up for us any additional questions or comments for the applicant staff or anyone else is there is our way of making that that picture a part of the record part of this record that Google Earth picture because I think that's about as descriptive as it's part of the video at least anyway but we can probably go ahead and you know print that and add it to the file whenever we get back to the office okay I just think that's helpful I mean that helps me understand the situation on the ground. Yeah, well, if there's no more comment or discussion, then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we disapprove PLNBOA 18-73 Ruth Marie Davis request for a variance to reduce the required front setback from six feet to zero for additional pay parking in order to bring additional parking space in the front yard into compliance at 26050 Rosebud Road for the following two reasons. Number one, there are no special circumstances that apply to this property that don't generally apply to other driveways and parking in the area. And number two, although there will be a cost to make the driveway compliant, those efforts and costs will not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of her property and making the driveway compliant will not cause an undue hardship. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? I second. We have a second for Ms. Carter. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then let's put it to a vote please. Let me sign in first. This application was denied. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda, we're going to go back in time for Mr. King's application. I will note in the staff, I brought this to their attention, they're going to put up the site plan for us because the version we have doesn't really, it's not, doesn't show the house outline very well. So if you could put that up on the board for us. Which do we want to do first? Pardon? Would you like to take a look at the site plan first or see the applicant's presentation first? He could, well, if you don't mind, let's put the site plan up first. That way we can get a better feel for what he's going to show us when he does his presentation. Got it. And again, I thank you all for approving the side variances. There's just a small point of contention with the front yard setback. And that's all this is really about. Let's see if that gets in focus. And it may be, Autumn, you may just have to hand it to us and let us pass it down the row. And the issue is when it gets copied and scanned, we can't really see the outline of the house very well in our copies. I created a 3D model in the presentation. Maybe it's more clear, perhaps, if you want to view that. Yeah, if you want to start your presentation and staff, we can just pass that site plan down, and we'll just pass down the row while Mr. King is presenting. Thank you. All right, thank you so much. Just a small point of contention again about the front yard setback. Thank you again for- quickly mr king if you could and i want to stop your presentation you are going to definitely present um so the staff on their approvals real quickly they've recommended approval from 20 to 12 um for the front yard you have an issue with that uh okay originally i asked for a six foot setback based on what i've heard from seven floor planning and their recommendation and for some other reasons. Other than that, we're all perfect with everything they've approved. Okay, so I just want to make sure I understand which one we're going to be talking about. So we're going to be talking about the front yard variance? Yeah, and that is all. That's all. Because everything else is perfect, so thank you. Okay, perfect. Thank you. On MLK, yeah. Okay, please proceed. And I'll be very brief. This is the yard we're looking at off of Martin Luther King and East 7th. And as you can see, that was the house that was there in 2013. It's been demolished. We've purchased the yard that was clear. You can see some of the front yard variances. That house is on a zero foot. It's adjacent to the sidewalk that was previously there. And these are the houses that are existing, no longer there. So when I went to seventh floor planning, I didn't just pull out six feet out of nowhere. I asked Mr. Jarman, who consulted with us, And he recommended, I said, how far should we set this house back? We're going to do a simple single-story house, keeping with the context and the character of the neighborhood, trying to make something small, quaint. And he pointed out that it was six feet set back in the previous image from Bing. So he signed that copy and gave it to me. And so initially when we went to design the house, we said, okay, we're going to start with a six-foot setback, and that's great because it's also going to be ADA compliant. It's a single story. All the bathrooms and counters are where they're wheelchair accessible. And the beauty of this, it's on a four foot high retaining wall. So if you can see in the back of that lot there, we have enough room where someone could wheel up or ramp up a wheelchair into the back. And there's a large garage door access door on the very back of the proposed building. So these are my previous points, but obviously the committee agrees with them. Again, the view, I made a model of what is currently there. Original house was in that footprint, and this is what we're asking. It's almost identical to the house that was previously there, so it maintains the characteristics of the neighborhood. And that's the amount of square feet. These are some of the proposed setbacks, which we've addressed. 20-foot yard setback, a side yard setback, which leave a zero room to build on. But those have been addressed. and they've also addressed the side yard setbacks. So we're asking for a six-foot setback just so we can make a reasonable amount of space and be able to use a wheelchair in the back ramp so someone can access it. So these are some of the points addressed. Again, to refute some of the points, other houses in the neighborhood have a similar setback. And we think it would add character and beauty into the neighborhood. Also allow us to be more ADA compliant and just maintain some of the charm of the community. So again, I'll fast forward to the end diagram and this is kind of what we're asking for. There was a house that was demolished where it says original footprint. And that gray area, the pad, is what I'm requesting. So that's how it would sit on the property. Are you saying that, put that picture back up if you don't mind. Yes, sir. Are you saying that the house that was previously there is where, on the corner, is where that gray pad is right now? Yes, sir. The gray pad, as you've shown it in your diagram, has a six-foot setback? Yes, sir. And the staff is recommending a 12-foot setback? Is that what I understand? Correct. And a 12-foot setback would require the house to be much smaller? It would leave less room for a ramp to access for the wheelchair in the back, and it cramps everything up. It's a small lot. It's only 20 feet wide, so it kind of places a burden on. I think I understood you to say that there are other houses in the neighborhood with a six-foot setback. Or less, yeah, correct. Is that what you said? The one behind it, in that diagram, it's right on the sidewalk. I know that's been grandfathered in and it existed, you know, a hundred years ago probably, but my intent was to keep the charm the original characters, so I want to land exactly almost in the exact footprint of the original house. Just briefly describe to me your handicap ramp that you want to access that from Martin Luther King or from 7th? From 7th Street. In the back if you can imagine that of course the front door faces those little stairs going up on the opposite end is a garage door and some of the berm wall is all short it doesn't go all the way to the adjacent property it has a little area there we're using it as construction entrance and upon completion will be packed down so someone can it's impossible to access with the wheelchair from those front steps so they'll be able to go to the side yard into the back of house. Is that, I can't recall, is that portion of MLK, is it one way or two way? Two ways. Two way. Okay. You don't think it's two way there? I think that's one way. Seventh is one way and MLK is two, I believe. Correct. At that. Wait, no, seventh goes both ways. Okay, so MLK is both ways. martin luther's one way there yeah yeah yeah i think martin luther king's one way there no it's two ways there okay okay well they own it so i'm i'm gonna go ahead and believe them no i agree this traffic in with traffic engineering is there any site distance issues with with the recommended, I mean, the six foot request versus the 12 foot? In this particular circumstance, no. It's very similar to other conditions. The applicant is correct that the previous building that was there was that close. Any setback would increase the site distance, but it still would be within the site triangle. So if you did require the building to be set at 12, it does help the situation, but it's still within the site triangle. My opinion is I'm probably fine with the six-foot setback. I'm not sure why the other, the home you have pictured there is set back so far. It almost looks newer. It is newer. It's built in the last years. And then probably the home next to that, everything's brought back up to six feet, isn't it? Wouldn't that be one of the few homes that is set back? That's true. Yeah, I mean, I think probably that should have been pulled forward. But, yeah, I don't have a problem with it. Yeah, according to Google Earth, 665 north Martin Luther King is maybe even closer than six feet. And that one's a couple down. This side of the street, which appears to be the west side, appears to have houses much closer than the east side, which have a further back distance, historically, that is. If you pull up the 13 PVA images, you can see both these houses on the corner are much closer. Anything else you'd like to say? I'm just happy to contribute to the community. I hope it will bring back the character of the neighborhood and reflect that. Okay. Anything staff wants to add? No? No? Ms. Clark, you want to interject on this one? I don't recall seeing your hand go up earlier. No, it wasn't. Amy Clark of 628 Castle Road. This is infill that's difficult. And I would invite you, urge you, to ask two questions. Would shortening the front yard enable the tree to be preserved? Is that the intent to preserve the tree? Because if so, it might be well to add a condition to the grant of the variance. and is there common ownership how is the parking and access working at the rear is is there parking in garage and if there's common ownership of that adjacent lot which is also some 20 feet wide quite narrow are they thinking about granting an easement what I'm wondering about is will the back turn into paving and I do think that especially if the tree can be preserved it looks like a good variance to grant the front yard variance. Thank you Miss Clark. Mr. King if you want to briefly speak to those two issues it looks like you it is common ownership. Yes both lots are. That's true. And is parking going to be on street parking? It's on street parking as it was traditionally. Yeah. And yes, we will preserve the tree. Okay. Well, I guess legal department is putting together something for us. All right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment. So if you want to have a seat, Mr. King, we'll see what legal comes up with, and then we'll entertain a motion. real quickly mr king if you would come up real fast i just want to confirm um so they did recommend two conditions depending on how the vote goes on number one that one will likely be adjusted but i'm assuming you have no issue with getting all necessary permits from no sir okay thank you that's it just want to note the record Amen. Thank you. Are we ready for a motion? Sure. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for a PLNBOA 18-72, David King's request for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 6 feet, to reduce the required side street yard from 20 feet to 3 1⁄2 feet, and number three, to reduce the required side yard from a deep building from 4 feet 7 inches to 3 feet in order to construct a new single-family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 675 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. Based on staff's recommendations, the approval of a variance from the front yard from 20 feet to 6 feet, based on the following reasons. A is a variance allowing a 6-foot front yard will be more in character with the existing neighborhood. We're going to get rid of B, and C will be there are special circumstances that justify the need for a variance because the property is situated on a corner and adjacent to a vacant lot, so the front yard setback cannot be averaged in accordance with the provisions of the infill and redevelopment area. Also based on staff's second recommendations of approval of the side street yard and the side yard variances for the three reasons outlined by staff. And this recommendation of approval is made subject to the following two conditions, that the building shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan indicating a front yard setback of at least six feet, and then two, all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction and occupancy. So we have a motion for approval as revising the staff's recommendation as noted. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a first and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, then we will put it to a vote. The application has been approved. Good luck with your project. You're welcome. Okay, let me get back to my sheet here. Take care of those two. Okay, we are going to pass over on Baptist Hospital because that one is to be heard. So the next unopposed item will be PLN BOA 18-78, Jeffrey and Catherine Wiseman. If you could state your name for the record. Catherine Wiseman. Hello, Ms. Wiseman. The staff has recommended approval of your application, and that approval was subject to three conditions. Have you seen those conditions? I have. And are you agreeable to abide by those? I am. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Are there any questions for the board right now for the applicant? I'll have a question for staff. one of the facts in the staff report says, I guess justifies the recommendation for approval because the property is just at the edge of the infill and redevelopment area. So it's just inside? It is in the infill and redevelopment area. It is sort of the last house at the border of the infill and redevelopment area, and the property is not really congruent with most of the properties that are in the infill and redevelopment area based on its size. Would the situation change if it were just outside? Yes, the requirements would be different for something that were not located within the infill and redevelopment area. The requirements would be? the 10-foot restriction would not be there um for the the width of the driveway um that actually may not be in that's actually not what we're varying here though um the the parking would not be limited to two spaces um outside of the infill and redevelopment area the fence restriction would be the same so we would be here for one variance instead of two okay thank you and for the applicant what exactly do you propose taking out what part of the driveway or parking do you propose to remove well the existing that's um that's in the new fenced in area to the left of the house that's all that's all parking right now and all of that will be removed to the left of the house as you're looking out from the house if you're facing the house if you're facing the house so it would be the glendover roadside so all of that would be removed okay i got you yeah Are you keeping the pool? Well, we don't have it yet. We're going to hopefully be here next month about that. We've been there 20 years, and so we're trying to make the house more accommodating and safer. We've been through several sets of parents and grandparents, and we've learned that the accessibility to that house is not easy with an older person trying to get from that side driveway to our front door where there's no steps it's almost impossible so right now our option is we park in the front yard to get people out of the vehicle this one when when we get to the point where we can see see the see the map on the screen I'd like for you to point out to me where the fence where you're asking for the fence to be six feet when we get to that point do that the site plan might be better actually than there this is an aerial view of the house and you can see where the current parking is that will be removed on the Glendover side there and then we can put up the site plan and show you where the fence will be yeah and miss wiseman there should be a clicker oh yes it will have a pointer if you want to point on this screen behind you so we can see i'm sorry i'm not super it may be upside down i've done that before okay i need some guidance Thank you. So it's basically, so this is where the driveway is right now. This is pretty much all pavement. So this is where the new fence line will be. It will be set back six feet there, but it will be in line with the front of the house. So it goes from the corner of the house? from the yeah from the front corner of the house out and then back to the property line back to the yeah over to the neighbors all right that's that helps me thank you that reads additional comments for anybody gentlemen it looks to me like they're well i don't know what you call i don't know what you're calling the front yard is is the front yard on glendover technically our front yard is technically in your address is glendover yeah your mailbox is on the glendover side well we don't we have a door slot so it's actually at facing the point okay right at the intersection of valley and glendover yeah okay thanks it's my understanding we're allowed to do the four foot fence there correct correct a four foot fence would be allowed there because that is considered the front yard on glendover in discussions between planning and building inspection. Since the address is on Glendover, we're looking at that as the front yard and valley as the side street side yard. In a side street side yard, which is what the Glendover side is really functioning as, since the house faces the point of the property, the fence would be allowed to be six feet if it were set back a minimum of three feet from the sidewalk. So that's why we recommended approval was because it was functioning as a side street side yard. but it technically is the front yard because of the glendover address and that is why building inspection referred this to you all uh i kind of like the plan and one one question another question i would have was the garage is is is it actually going to be for parking cars or is it going to be for woodworking or in in in that in that case where where would the new parking be i see it's i see where it says new parking it would be on the side of the driveway or how does that work um well you're referring to the new the new garage yes that's correct it will be a workshop and so yes we'll have to park in front of it there won't be parking inside and and that's why we needed just a little more width there to be able to get two cars to be able to park side by side i see because it's my understanding that the circular driveway that that center point is actually considered a space so since i have to call that a space i don't want to park there you know we kind of needed that side yard yeah and that back side all right the new driveway includes the turnaround yes sir and that is so that we can back up and then go out forward facing in the in that intersection i understand thank you Any other questions or comments? This is the third time I ask. Okay. Well, hearing none, then the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that PLNBOA 18-78 from Jeffrey and Catherine Wiseman's request for variance to, one, increase the reliable number of parking spaces from two to three for a single-family resident, and two, to increase the reliable height of a fence in the front yard from four to six feet within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential zone at 223 Glendover Road, based on the staff recommendations and the three conditions as stated. So move. Thank you. Mr. Clark, do I have a second? I second for approval. We do have a second. any discussions on the motion hearing none then i'll call a vote the application is approved good luck with your project thank you the next item is we're going to skip over martin's peter belt and go to the conditional use appeals which will be PLM BOA 1876 A&M Hamburg LLC's application. Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. Nicholson. If you could state your name for the record. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant A&M Hamburg and Mary Domigan is also here with me as well. Happy to answer any questions, but we have reviewed the staff report and we are in agreement with those conditions. Thank you. That made my job easy. So at this point I'll open up questions for the applicant or staff. from the board i'll start that process i just i'm not quite clear about the access road and how you actually get to that property uh off of off a polo you're actually coming by costco is that correct right so it's that existing entrance and you would come around to the back of the parcels and then go up and head yeah the all of the kind of spacing and the access will have to be reviewed through the final development plan process which has been filed and i think we're at the committee hearing at the beginning of january okay okay thank you i think i i think i understood that but if you're going if you're driving uh i guess northwest on manowar how do you get there so you you would basically turn on to polo club and then take a left into the Costco site and then basically come around to the rear of the the parcel and then basically head back towards Polo Club so you'd make a almost a 360 degree circle okay yes that's what it looked like but we didn't want to make sure that there was not congestion on the main Costco kind of exit where that stoplight is we would prefer to get the traffic off of the for lack of a better term kind of collector inside the commercial development and I I think there are a number of outlots with that same design in the Hamburg area. There are. Also on this exact parcel. So the Starbucks has to leave through the bank lot. Is that correct? It's kind of a side drive aisle, but yes. I'm not sure which is the bank and which is the... The Starbucks will be closer to Polo Club, and the bank is the one that's closer to Costco. Starbucks. And this is just for my own, would that be consolidated a lot or is that a separate lot? I believe this is proposed to subdivide the out lot. Two separate lots to be divided. All right. And again, that plan will have to be reviewed by Planning Commission and formally kind of approved by Traffic Engineering as well. And let the record note, we did receive one letter in support of this application. Who sent a letter? Okay. Who sent it? Who sent it? We did. We did. Oh. Just while we're waiting, how many Starbucks are there in Lexington at the moment? I believe 548. No, that's a complete joke. But I actually had you believing it. That's the scary part. Well, we're not really waiting for anything, Mr. Nito. Yeah, no, we're waiting for you guys to be done asking questions and i'll call for a motion well i'm there we go mr yeah it's always me i know it's a okay just just to make it clear in my foggy brain i in order to access either one of these you're gonna you're gonna enter through polo club boulevard is that right and if you're going to the starbucks then you're going to have to drive 360 degrees around the bank and starbucks to to get into access to starbucks drive-through is that correct there is an access aisle that basically it kind of runs parallel to man of war and so you would be coming in off polo club going kind of headed towards man of war take a left to go up into the starbucks area i'm happy to walk you through it on the site plan if you would if you can grab the pointer maybe you can trace it through so if there's that will please zoom out a little bit yeah and that's man of war going out of town correct yeah Starbucks. Either the drive-thru or you have parking right here. If you went into the store, you were able to leave the parking lot. If you went to the drive-thru, you are basically shuttled out with that access sign. And again, traffic engineering will have to review all of this plan. This is just for the ability to have any traffic facility. It just seems very convoluted to me to have to make four left-hand turns. Sure. Does it seem that way to you? It certainly could be. And, again, traffic engineering will have a full chance to vet any type of movements, but the kind of key is you want to make sure that there's enough space for stacking, and you're also getting the traffic away from impeding any of the other movements that are trying to get to the Costco or any of the other out parcels out there. So this way you are eliminating any of the potential drive-through kind of congestion from the rest of the site. And by way of example, the Starbucks located on Winchester Road, you do the same thing. If you're coming into town, you have to take a left on the Walmart service drive, then take a left at the corner, and then you swing back around and go into the cell. I've used it. I know Raquel's used it because I've seen her there. So while I don't like the design, it does function. If I mistake, there are five left-hand turns. So you're turning around five 90-degree corners. Okay. I get it. I think it's absurd. The whole reason why I believe the Starbucks drive-thru is around in the way that it is is because it was not thought to be aesthetically pleasing for it to be directly against Polo Club Boulevard. Just with, I guess, the way that you look at things and how does it look to customers to make it appealing for them. Of course, if you're going to Starbucks, you don't really care what it looks like. But, you know, when you're looking at these things at the beginning stages, you know, you want it to be as appealing as possible for customers to want to come in there. So that was that was the main reason. And that also is a city principle as well. You never want the buildings to be turning their back to the exterior roads. Tom Martin certainly has a particular interest in making sure that from any of the exterior roads, the building is basically facing those roads. which way is this Starbucks building facing so this would be on since this is your polo club right here this is the kind of entrance that you would be familiar with with regards to the glass windows the doors to come in right there so it's kind of facing that polo it just it just seems to me that it'd be easier to turn off of polo club Boulevard into the Starbucks stacking area I think traffic engineering would yeah I would disagree with you I would think that would I think that's seems like to me that's what we're trying to avoid correct if I'm not mistaken any type of right-in movement right there would have the potential to basically back up into the entrance into the Costco main site and so that's what they're trying to do I understand so we're trying to avoid the efficiency of turning of making one left-hand turn instead of five allow you to say that i have to be in front of traffic engineering way too much to ever try type uh you know that illusion do we need a subpoena casey we could bring her down here make her testify to the i'm just kidding any more questions mr gliver no i have no more questions any other comments from the board all right well hearing none then the chair will entertain a motion I make a motion to approve PLN BOA 18-76A and M Hamburg LLC's request for a conditional use permit for a bank and coffee shop with drive-thru facilities in a community center zone at 2800 Polo Club Boulevard. Boulevard based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the five conditions listed by staff. I second the motion. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then please register your votes. The application is approved. Thank you all. Thank you. And, Mr. Nicholson, just so you know, we have changed our time starting in January. we'll be at 1 30. so don't show up early okay I don't think I'm yeah I want to make sure the practitioners and miss Clark know that we were changing to 1 30 next months you're not here in the planning Commission yeah no confusion yeah I appreciate thanks thank you all the next item on the agenda is a condition use permit for PLM BOA 18-77 city towing services yeah we do have one letter of concern for this one I will hand to you okay thank you good afternoon if you could state your name for the record for me Dana Winchester okay and are you the owner yes all right staff has recommended approval today of your conditional use permit they have they've conditioned that approval on six conditions have you had a chance to look at those yes sir and are you agreement to abide by those yes sir okay well thank you and if we could Should anyone on the board have questions for the applicant or staff on this application? I just had a question about that area of New Circle Road. Is that, there's still an access point there without going off, without the, I guess, going on the off pass? It's between Georgetown and New Town Pike exits, and right now it's off of New Circle Road, so you turn off of New Circle. Oh, right. Okay. And I think that was on the other side they had it as well. Was it Happy Shamrock Glass or some glass company there for the longest time? And I wasn't sure if this was the same on the other side at some point. It's between TreePro and there's like an all-season. It's like a big salt. It's like a big warehouse. There's like a big canopy of salt. Yeah, no, I know where it is. Maybe it's a bushing for traffic. is that access going to stay we haven't seen plans probably engineering has but traffic engineering has not I'm not I'm not aware of I know there's some changes but I think the transportation cabinet has been in the process of acquiring property through there but I don't know the answer to that question okay I think if they have access I think the transportation cabinet will provide some form of access to them with any widening projects. Okay. All right. Thank you. What kind of fence or wall are you going to build? It has a six-foot fence right now with barbed wire over it. And then we just put a privacy screen over it because that was one of the conditions. And so it is over the long side of the fence. And then we've got to still come back. there's trees and brush like a lot of you can't see through it on two sides of the fence and then there's a gate that we've still got to put the privacy fence that we should have that done hopefully by the end of this week thank you so one of the conditions was regarding the type of fencing and the objection the concern on your neighbor currently is the condition or the type of the fencing that's there so we're saying that we are already planning to address the fencing that is there as well so the fencing that was there we're we're leasing the property we don't own it so when we moved in i guess the tenant that was there before us was storing big commercial vehicles and they were backing in and they had kind of knocked the fence over um where it was kind of bent over and kind of slanted so we went in and pulled all the fence poles back up pulled all the fencing back up pulled the fencing up to just to make it tidier to make it look nicer and then we've put that privacy screening on the inside of it all of that was done within the last week I have a picture on my phone I don't know I didn't bring anything Just so I do all vehicles have to be behind a fence. So the front there's parking in the front. That is usually like customers that are coming in. they'll park or somebody that comes in needs to come in the office there's probably three or four parking spaces there i might be off by a couple um all the rest of the parking is behind the the gate so anywhere we're wanting to put a vehicle would be behind the gate um this one judge i'm interested how many how many company vehicles will will be using this this property um the the company vehicles are stored there at night they mostly are gone during the day um we have five in our fleet that are running that are that are out and doing things every day so we're looking at adding one but retiring another one so it should stay around five and other vehicles will be vehicles that have been towed and stored for for a indeterminate length of time? Typically they're brought in and they're released. We do private property impounds, so they're brought in and released typically fairly quickly. People come and get them. There are people that don't come and get them. They're abandoned. There's a process for that. So there's a 10-day letter that goes out, a 45-day letter that goes out. So they're not going to be there for like a year or anything like that. Typically, we try to, we don't have a lot of space there, so we don't want them staying there long. Are these disabled vehicles that you're towing or are these vehicles that have been impounded by law? Most of them are private property impounds. If somebody parks illegally at an apartment, they don't have a parking permit, something like that. So we have contracts with certain apartment complexes. Occasionally someone will call us from a business. They'll call and they'll sign it if you abandon your car at a Walmart or something and they want removed and so that happens occasionally are you keeping the trees behind in the back of the that was our plan um we don't have any plan to to take them down unless that's something that you all need i'd like you to keep the trees we'd like to keep them just because it's it's privacy i mean it it keeps people from coming in it is a security feature for us but thank you yes sir any additional questions or comments from the board hearing none i will entertain a motion i move we approve plnboa 18-77 city towing services request for a conditional use permit to establish a towing and impound lot in a light industrial I-1 zone at 1004 West New Circle Road, based on staff's two recommendations and subject to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I have a second? I'll second. Mr. Glover seconds. At this point, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I will call a vote. Your application was approved. Good luck with your project. You're welcome. Okay, I'm going to go ahead. This is the Administrative Review PLNPOA 18-74. Ah, the gentleman is here. I did not swear you in earlier, so I'm going to swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval. It's based upon two conditions. Have you seen those conditions? I have. Okay. If you would state your name for the record. Scott Elpers. And your relation with the property owner is? I am the signed contractor. Okay. And you have the authority to bond your client? That is correct, yes. We signed paperwork, or the owner did, actually. Okay. Thank you. And at this point, any letters or anything? Nothing? All right. Board members, any questions for the applicant or staff on this item? Maybe just describe when we first read this, it seemed like there was a little confusion. What actually has taken place? Actually, we submitted plans showing the signs on the canopies themselves, but on the application we listed them as wall signs, and obviously there's a difference between the allowed square footage for wall signs versus canopy signs. So the signs were actually installed onto the canopy instead of the building But the approval was given on our drawings, but we had it listed wrong The configuration is actually a up rallies standard building look that they use You know all of their new locations if you'd goes to a previous location it would not be it's a different building format But the new building format does have them installed on both wings of the building. Does Rallies have to go through this board of adjustment process every time they want to build their normal standard building? Yeah, I would say that if it doesn't meet the code, yes, it would. normally we travel all over doing these restaurants we're actually putting one in in New Albany today they're cold and allowed for the signage to be installed in the manner most of the time it's by the number of signs and the square footage of signs not necessarily where they are installed on the building itself okay thank you mm-hmm any additional comments questions from the board all right hearing none the chair will entertain a motion mr. chair I move the approval of PLNBOA 18-74 custom sign engineering Inc requesting an administrative appeal to transfer a total 62 square feet of potential wall signage to two canopy signs 31 square feet each in order to construct two 36 foot square foot canopy signs in a planned shopping center be six pede zone at 4171 Tates Creek Center based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the two conditions as listed Thank You mr. Clark a second second it's Meyer seconds any discussion on the motion all right hearing none then I will put it to a vote it was approved thank you luck to finish your project thank you you're welcome Okay, so this brings us back to the first item that is scheduled to be heard, which would be PLN BOA 1875 Baptist Hospital Inc's request for a variance. And I note that the staff has recommended disapproval on the variance, but approval on the administrative appeal. Good afternoon. If you would please put your name for the record. Sure. Alexander, I'm the Director of Construction for Baptist Health Lexington. Thank you, sir. On the item for approval, the staff has recommended two conditions. Have you seen those two conditions on the administrative appeal approval? I have. Are you agreeable to those? Yes. Okay. Well then, I guess if you want, please proceed with telling us about your project and the variance you're requesting. If I may, I'd like to pass out a little larger. First of all, Mr. Chairman, board, thank you for your time today. We do appreciate the staff's recommendation for approval for administrative review. We do appreciate that very much. A little history, and I apologize, my allergies decided to hit today. Baptist underwent a rebranding about five years ago. And we moved from being Central Baptist Hospital to Baptist Health Lexington. That's not only in Lexington, that's across the whole state. We're now part of a whole system rather than individual hospitals. We've always been a part of a group, but not a system. We have finished primarily all the packages of signs on the main campuses of the hospitals. We're now entering a phase where we move to outbuildings or sites that are not on main campus, such as 2101. In Lexington, there are some nine locations. Some of those won't be as exaggerated as this one because they're in leased property rather than owned property. So we will abide by those developer standards, their signs that are already in place, and we'll try to add to those other than being on a marquee or something that they already have. In defense of the height, we'd like to talk first about the design, and that's kind of why I gave you the enlarged pictures. This is out of a package that we get from the corporation, and these are the standards the corporation has. So it's not unlike someone like McDonald's or any other national company or regional company. They have a design that they're bringing forth into a community. So my guess is some communities are going to have a more strenuous sign ordinance than others. Site conditions are going to vary from one site to another. Lexington has relatively flat sites where we are, but if you go down to Corbin, for example, they have pretty rugged land, and so the signs have to work with that. you will see on the sign that the very top of that is the four-leaf logo. That is a symbol that we will use on every piece of stationery, the signs, everything that goes out of Baptist Health from all sites. So across the state, if you were to drive into Paducah, you would see, get close to that hospital, you would see that same four-leaf clover. These were designed by a national company. They're a sign and wayfinding design group. We chose them because of their experience. We recognize that in this particular community, the height that we're proposing is two feet higher than what's allowed. Normally what we would think that when people are looking at these signs, they're going to look at that logo first. The wording below it is basically reaffirmation of the site where they are and the services that are there. So the most important thing on the sign to us is that logo. Some people might say, well, we don't even need signs nowadays. We should use the GPS on our phones. I had an experience about a month ago trying to get to Summit Place by GPS to pick up a piece of jewelry. And Siri was trying very desperately for me to go right as I was going out to Nicholasville Road. And I finally turned Siri off because I was getting pretty upset with her. Even when I got into Summit Place, it wasn't very good. I actually had to find a board and find the location of the site and walk to it. So signs are important, and especially when people have an appointment and they're in a hurry, they're somewhat stressed out about their health or a child's health or whatever, these signs become important. The monument number one, if you recall on the site plan, is the one that's basically an existing site location. It's near our Child Development Center. The site at 2101 is one piece of property. It has three separate buildings. There's one piece of property. The Child Development Center is probably the least important to us for patients to find because it's internal to our organization, and basically it's child care for staff. The other two buildings, there's a medical office building, it's three stories with a fourth level partial, has some 20 providers in it. So people are going to see the doctor. The third building is a diagnostic imaging center. It has x-ray and CT scans and MRI, things of that nature. So not only the people and the doctors that are at 2101 are not only the ones that use that. All doctors in town can send someone to that facility. So Monument One carries a responsibility for those three buildings. It can be seen pretty easily from Nicholasville, if you turn from Nicholasville, going towards Southland Shopping Center, it's pretty easy to see. It's open, it's clear to see. Unfortunately, if you're coming from the Southland Center area heading toward Nicholasville Road, it's essentially blinded. You don't even know there's a sign there. So one of our needs we felt like if we were allowed that extra two feet, that four leaf clover, that image would show up. And that's again for us, it's not the wording, it's the image that's the most important. The staff had recommended that we could trim the shrubbery back, cut down a tree. We're not in favor of that. we've tried especially on main campus we do it on the properties we own to enhance landscaping rather than decrease it the other thing is that the shrubbery around the daycare center hides the child playground area so we don't particularly want the public seeing that it's a safety issue if you will and so we've put that shrubber in many many years ago and and that's why that's there the second thing is that on on the monument that's there now see it's set back it's not right on the road and that's because there's so many utilities along southland drive not in the road but on the side verge that our sign is back we would have preferred to put the sign over closer to the 100 south and entrance side but it's it's just it's nearly impossible there's just too many underground utilities so we we're going to leave that sign at that location the second monument is a relocation the current sign sets on a berm Jackson's a detention top of the detention basin it's on kind of a diagonal and we want to move that down onto nicholasville road proper 10 feet back so forth we think it'll be a little closer and a little more makes a little more sense for the 2101 building and that's what that entrance on nicholasville road is primarily for the sign location gives the driver and you most everybody in the dream has been on Nicholasville Road at various times a day and you know what how much traffic here is that sign is not right at the entrance drive but back sort of middle between the intersection of Southland and also the drive into 2101 and that's on purpose if I'm going south I see this sign I can try to make sure I'm in the right-hand lane I can make safe turn into the property if I'm coming north back toward downtown it tells me that I need desperately to get into the turn lane to turn on to south and I won't I probably not likely gonna make it left turn into the property on Nicholasville Road most of the time in the day but it gives people a time to to make decisions so we are requesting to relocate that sign the height than that sign is probably not as important as one but what we're what our argument is is that the sign we're trying to keep the standard across the state and across the city in everything you see it's sort of in metal in this picture is what would be allowable sign area so that tells me that's the sign in quotations the stonework and the brick that's below that is just a support for that sign. It's really not sign, it's support. And some, I think there's some wording in the ordinance that says some enhancement, maybe that's what it is. I'm not an expert on the ordinance. An interesting thing about the monuments, the existing monuments, is that both of them, the top of those signs are higher than 10 feet as compared to the sidewalk. Both of them are about 15 feet above the sidewalk when you look at it. And I only get that from our topographical information. So it tells me that while the sign can be 10 feet, depending on where you are on the site, its elevation is going to vary greatly. So basically, for those two reasons, some visibility, some argument about what the sign is itself, and finally where it is on a site is why we think the extra two feet really doesn't affect, doesn't do any harm, if you will, to that site or to its neighbors. I don't know if we've had any objectors. We've sent out over 100 property owners. I haven't heard anything from anybody, so I don't know if we've heard anything or not. So we respectfully request that you allow us to stay with our standard. Sign itself would be 10 feet, but we would have the brick and stone base. And that also allows, when you're on a sloped site, we don't have so much of that in this particular site, it allows a variance on that sign so that it stays level, looks level, looks complete and finished. That's the end of my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I have a question for staff. Where we're transferring five square feet of the unused available wall signage, so where we're saying that the sign the allowable amount is 10 feet that already incorporates the five feet correct so it was first five feet allowable then we transferred five feet that's how we got to 10 feet well the the five feet is five square feet of signage area the 10 feet is in height and the difference another thing worth mentioning is that the monument base does count towards the 10 feet height but it does not count towards this total square footage of signage so they're allowed to have 45 the 45 square foot freestanding sign does not include the base but the 10 foot height does include the base yeah i guess that was my that was my question is where is the the 10-foot maximum height is that in the zone that says you can't be higher than correct it's in the sign ordinance okay for the p1 zone okay and does that start at the do you take a level just a level piece of ground that it where you want to set set it or it would start with the structure of the sign so if you had us the sign setting on a level it does not include any slope. But if I wanted a 15-foot sign or 15 feet high I could build up a mound of if I had a 10-foot sign I could build a mound of 5-foot dirt up and put my sign on top. I don't know how that would. Existing topography would be a different circumstance maybe. but yeah I think the issue on this one is there from base to top is 12 feet instead of 10 feet so I want to stay in the ordinance but I just say you know us that wear glasses even though I'm pretending like I don't I think the the words on how to get there those buildings and the hospitals and the office things is more maybe not to you guys but as important as the little logo well I think one issue we need to keep in mind would be going down Southland Drive and on Nicholsville Road the precedent of allowing higher signs than are already there because everyone every business wants a high sign if it can so I think that's you know one consideration would be the other requests that may be coming down the pike if we were to allow at this intersection approval of two extra feet mr. Alexander let me ask you this with I'm having a hard hard time understand why 23 inches I think I think that's the difference between what the regulation says and what you're asking how that can really impact on what the visibility of that sign it it really only impacts as far as i'm concerned it only impacts the southland drives uh southland sign side of this of that one sign everywhere else you should be able to see the whole sign because i'm very familiar with that area and i know that i know the signs that are existing now including the new southland sign which is on the corner there so i'm i'm just not convinced that the 10 foot is is that burdensome but and and i'm sure that say why there have have to be uh others other cities that have regulations of the of the same same type uh are there not other cities that say well it's 10 foot or i have with me uh a person from the corporate and i asked that question i've asked that question twice there of the hospitals we own so far this is the only place that it's an issue okay i guess my i guess my answer would be that the signed ordinance is important and i think we we we should try to we should try to stay with that if we possibly can Thank you. If someone misses the Southland Drive entrance, it looks to me like they have the ability to enter into the campus on Nicholasville Road and they can get into the daycare center via the… They can get into all three boats. So they can get into the entire campus. Sure. Maybe this is not not so much an issue. The ordinance that's included 17-7 E1 about one sign per building. Is that an issue? I mean, they've got three buildings and they're asking for two signs. so i don't i don't i'm not reading that as a as as the problem under discussion is that am i correct about that correct they are allowed to have one sign per building so they could have three signs for example if they wanted to but they're just asking for two correct okay and we did it we did agree or at least the staff is saying that the base constitutes about is counted in the total height but if it were an earthen base you're not so sure if it were an earthen base that were constructed as part of the sign it would I think it would count towards the height I think the issue is that I mean on the southland side for example I think the the slit natural slope of the ground is a bit higher there so naturally that sign is a little bit higher than the road but that that would not count towards the height but if it were an earthen mound that were constructed for the purpose of making the sign taller I think that would be considered as part of the sign yeah or at least a way to get around the technical requirements of the sign ordinance okay thanks any additional questions okay hearing that I will entertain a motion and just remind whoever makes it that right now if you decide to approve the variance request then we'll need to get findings in fact and the I guess this yeah miss Jones should we vote separately on these since it could get convoluted otherwise with voting to disapprove and voting to approve you you can vote separately if you if you want to if it'll make it easier okay so I think miss Jones says it's up to us the question then is if I if I if I disagree with staff on one and not the other how am I gonna vote well I think if we're think if we're gonna go against staff's approval then we'll need to have additional findings from legal and then we would definitely probably want to make two separate motions well right now what you have is you have a recommendation on a variance for a disapproval and that's based on reasons that were provided by staff if you're not inclined to go with that yes you will have to have separate reasoning you have an approval recommendation on the administrative part of the appeal which is transferring signage square footage so which are which sound like two separate issues. So it may be easier if you take them separately. Yeah. But in either event, the chair will entertain a motion or motions. Okay. Okay. I move for approval on PLNBOA 18-75 Baptist Hospitals, Inc., approval for administrative appeal as recommended by staff and also based on or subject to staff's two conditions. I'll second. Thank you, Ms. Carter. I have a first and a second on a motion to approve the administrative appeal. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, then please register your votes. Okay, so that portion of the application has been approved. The chair will entertain a motion regarding the variance request. I, on PLNBOA-18J75, Baptist Hospitals' request for a variance to increase the allowable height of two freestanding signs from 10 feet to 12 feet. I move for disapproval of the variance for reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions. Second. I have a first and a second on a motion to disapprove the variance request. any discussion on this motion hearing none we'll put this motion to a vote and that motion carries so good luck with part of your project thank you Thank you. Appreciate it. And this brings us to the last item I believe for a hearing today and this is PLM BOA 1879 Martins Peterbilt and staff has recommended disapproval and I believe the applicant is present with counsel come on up sir and we get the applicant is present and mr. Simpson if you could set your name for the record yes mr. chairman Bruce Simpson I'm here on behalf of Martin Peterville and I guess I will go ahead and allow staff to do a short presentation just tell us why they disapproved if you have things you want to paint pass out I'm passing out now to kind of expedite thing yep go ahead and turn those into us were there any letters on this matter okay and autumn let's go ahead and give us a couple seconds just to flip through mr. Simpsons materials that may help us with what you're going to talk about too Thank you. Thank you. I think we're ready. Okay. Thank you. This is a request for a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence from 4 feet to 8 feet in the front yard and from 6 feet to 8 feet in the side street side yard in order to construct an 8-foot tall fence for a truck and equipment dealership in a highway service V3 zone. In considering this request, staff took a look at other fence variances for commercial properties and found that they were not something that we typically see a lot of. And we determined that there are a number of vehicle and equipment dealerships throughout the city that do not have fences of any kind and do not have eight-foot fences. So we had a hard time finding any special compelling circumstances that would warrant the need for an 8-foot tall fence here. Additionally, this property is the former Joyland Bowling Alley, so this is located near residential neighborhoods. And there are a few other commercial properties nearby as well, but the 8-foot tall fence in this particular location doesn't make a lot of sense. Another thing that we considered was that this property is along Paris Pike, which it's not part of the Paris Pike overlay zone, which has a special body that governs what happens there, but it is still part of that corridor, which was studied as part of a small area planned in 1993. So we took those things into account in making our recommendation of disapproval. the diagram that I have put on the screen here shows what height fences would be allowed throughout the property. So you see the blue line here represents the side and rear yards, which would be allowed to be eight feet in height. The orange that you see is what would be considered the front yard, and that is allowed to be four feet height by right. And then the side street side yard here would be allowed to be six feet in height. So while it is perhaps a bone of contention for the applicant that they are allowed to have different heights throughout the property, and it could be an awkward situation if they were to construct a fence that was like this, we do not believe that an eight-foot fence is appropriate for the entire site. Let me ask you, because this is, okay, so the front is Rogers Road? this property is addressed on Rogers Road but the building is configured towards Paris Pike so we are looking at that as the front yard in this situation since it does just have two street front edges that we are able to consider that the front yard since the front plane of the building is facing that direction on their plans that's what's on there correct on this plans okay what you see here this is where the the bowling alley is located they're constructing a garage addition here the plans that they submitted to building inspection showed that this would be the entry point for any kind of like showroom so this is the front of the building so if the building design were to have that garage placed between the utility the ku utility area like yeah that area then the front would be Rogers Road? Yes, we would consider the front Rogers Road in that situation. And if the front were Rogers Road, would your diagram be different? I have another diagram prepared if you would like to see that. Good. All right. Yeah, you would. All right. And I maybe could have chosen better colors it looks like, but again, the orange portion would be considered the front. The red would be the side street side yard and the rear and side yard. So I think the blue is allowed to be eight feet. Eight feet. And the red would be four feet. And the orange is six feet. we and i'm just trying to think of something because you're right i'm not aware of a lot of automobile dealerships that have fencing of this nature um but what about for like self-storage are are you know do they i did not look into self-storage we've not had any variances for for that so perhaps in another zone where an eight foot fence would be allowed like in an i1 zone um they there may be examples i'm not sure of but there are not any b3 locations that i found that had similar variances okay and this is what our we've had a number of front yard fence requests this year for residential uses but this is yeah no commercial we really haven't had very many um the most recent i found was in 2016 and that was for a replacement fence so and that was not it was a different scenario altogether it was a considerably less tall fence and it was replacing a fence that was taller than would typically be allowed today thank you autumn any other questions for staff before i just have one question on that where Where would you come into that building? The gates where it says gates down on Rogers? I was going to say that may be a question for the applicant. So the gates that there are hard to see but there's a gate right here from the access road. There's a gate right here from Rogers Road. This being our main entrance with truck traffic flowing down in the picture. the intent although they can come in and out either exit they choose okay thank you all right well thank you autumn I'll let mr. Simpson speak and then oh okay I guess you want to come over here. Mr. Simpson, I thought you were saying hello to the staff. I'm sorry. Your microphone wasn't working. Yes, it wasn't working. Okay, gotcha. It wasn't working. I love microphones. So is this the first exhibit that you had? And I'm just trying to kind of, because in my presentation, we're going to talk about an amended proposal. But just for the board's clarification, can you describe again the sections of the eight feet, six feet, and four feet that you were talking about? The blue portion is allowed to be eight feet. Okay. The front, which we're looking at anything along the Paris Pike side of the property, can be four feet. And then the side street side yard would begin behind the front plane of the building. So I just took that line down and to the rear here. That is allowed to be six feet. That's what we're considering, the side street side yard. Okay. and then the second exhibit the purpose of that was to show what the purpose of the second exhibit was to show if the building where we're facing towards Rogers Road if Rogers Road were our front yard I gotcha okay all right appreciate it and I see a number of people in the audience just real quick I know miss Clark's gonna speak are you gentlemen planning on speaking oh all right thank you Mr. Chairman, I and members of the board have passed out some findings. Those would be kind of my guidepost along the way. Just wanted to point out a couple of features. I'm certainly, first let me say that I'm mindful of the history that this body has had with requests to increase the heights of fences recently. And there's been some considerable debate about those. And all of the ones that have been controversial have been in residential areas where the request was for an apartment complex, particularly on the front to increase the front fence from four feet to six feet. When we filed this request for an eight-foot fence, and speaking with the applicant, and then we went through the history of the previous applications and saw that there were three commercial properties that had been approved for a six-foot fence, After we had filed it, we had decided that we would amend our application at the hearing, and I had indicated to Jim this was something that we would likely do. And rather than request an eight-foot fence, we would request a six-foot fence. We'd be asking for a two-foot variance around the property that we need the variance for, which is primarily along the front toward Parrish Pike. There are several distance features which I want to call the Board's attention to. I ought to mention this is on Parris Pike, but it is also not part of the Parris Pike corridor overlay or design plan that's been in planning books for many years. This is the last commercial piece of property because everything from this property on end to New Circle Road is commercial, almost exclusively along Paris Pipe. Adjacent to this property over here is a convenience store right here. And across the street from Rogers Road is a strip shopping center with a Whitaker bank and a couple other small shops that exist and then it's commercial of course all the way down and i'm sure all of you all have been out there to look at this site and are aware so what we have is a situation where it's a new business in lexington the owners are here today it's they're investing five million dollars in this site once it's complete they will have about uh... ten million dollars of inventory these are all brand new tractor trailer trucks dump trucks uh... big trucks all brand new uh... with trailers they sell trailers and they'll have uh... fourteen repair bays for truck service all of these uses are expressly allowed in the zone that they have which is B3 highway service business. So there's no dispute about that. The question is, what is a reasonable fence height given the fact that it doesn't have any of the policies that you've heard before that underpin the four foot minimum, particularly across the front, frontage fences. is all commercial there's no residential units on the property it is contiguous to apartments to the west and across the street there are some apartments on the other side of rogers road to the north is a church i mentioned the convenience store that's directly contiguous to it there is also to the north would be the northwest it's actually just can parallel to the to the church is a Kentucky utility power station I've got a few slides that I'm just going to talk about very briefly after Mr. Simpson, point to that Kentucky Utilities. Sure. I will. Just to orient me. Yes, sir. It's currently under construction right now. Folks paid a little over a million dollars for the property and they're going to put another four plus into it before it becomes operational. And the next slide will be that power station. And this is connected to our property. It's contiguous to our property. It is approximately 100 feet on all sides. The fence is 7 feet tall with about a little more than 12 inches of barbed wire. and of course it's designed for security reasons and for attractive nuisance reasons and so we have really 400 feet of fence that's eight feet tall counting the barbed wire that is directly adjacent to our property. The next slide is Mr. Glover and I'll show you. The Kentucky Utilities power station is located right here. Paris Pike is right here. you can see that the the distances of the fence it's about 75 to 80 feet from the edge of pavement of this service road to paris pike the majority of this fence would be more than 200 feet away from Parris Pike. Similarly here, it's a smaller segment of about 147 feet of fencing that would be about 120, 75 to 120 feet away. It kind of varies in terms of, as you can see, its angle. So it's a considerable distance from Parris Pike. The notion that the fence would be a blight on Paris Pike when property is zoned B3 that allowed for a bowling alley to exist before, in addition to a number of fairly intensive highway service business uses, that the notion that a fence is somehow going to make it more unattractive or unappealing seems to be an unreasonable conclusion to me. The task that we have is that two of our neighbors, as the folks with Peterbilt were examining the use of this property, two of the immediate neighbors, one, the convenience store owner, has been broken into many, many times and just recently had to put a fence up around the back portion of its property. to help with that situation. Whitaker Bank has had issues. It's right across the street off Rogers Road with some problems to the point that the only way to get into Whitaker Bank is to press a buzzer and to be buzzed into the bank. I've seen that within jewelry stores before. I've never seen it with a bank. So there are security issues there with $10 million of property that's stored outside. in an area which has a history of property crimes right next to us. And then in addition to that, as we continued to assess the site, we became aware certainly that there are children in the area for which this property could very well become an attractive nuisance, that brand new trucks, people working on trucks, kids get small trucks for Christmas. We certainly don't want anyone to be hurt on the property. We want to make sure that we take all the reasonable steps to accommodate public safety of children that might be inclined to cross over the property. and we, for that reason, believe that a four-foot fence is much easier to climb over than a six-foot fence, which is what we're asking today. We're not asking for an eight-foot fence. We're asking for a six-foot fence. So it's a two-foot variance in those sections for which the variance is needed. This is a heavy truck-use site. the sites located a half mile from the interstate there'll be tractor trailer trucks coming into this area for service repair replacement and we want to make the area internal to the property as safe as possible to try to ward off people that might just be curious and just to let them know that this is a business site it's a trucking operation you need to be careful and we think a six-foot fence a two-foot adjustment in the height would be a reasonable accommodation given the location of the property and given its own and it's and it's permitted use in the B3 zone so we believe with those adjustments of coming down we match the three prior decisions that this body has made since 2014 which accommodated a six-foot-high fence one of them to be more accurate was a one foot I think an 11 inches almost two feet so we would ask for the similar treatment as what previously has been approved and again we think this is reasonable considering matters of public safety and security for substantial new business coming into Lexington I'd be happy to respond any questions we have representatives from Martin's Peterbilt here to respond to any specific questions you have about their operation as well well mr. Simpson I want to ask if we were to grant the six-foot fence the variance of two feet would your client be willing to put in some shrubbery to buffer screen the screens the screen the fence from the roadway so as to lessen the possible you know effect of having a you know however long chain link fence going around this property from the street view I could have a second no that's Yeah, I'm just curious. And while they're consulting, if staff wants to think about the fact that they changed their application. Mr. Simpson, do you have I'm sorry, go ahead and answer his question. Well, I was going to say they're certainly amenable to doing that. It kind of conflicts with the principle that heretofore has been examined pretty closely in these fence cases for lack of a better description that you're supposed to be able to see through the fence for safety reason and security reason and those kinds of things but my folks are perfectly willing to put some buffering around there you know up to six feet in height hedges that would grow to six feet you know that kind thing and i'm sure yeah staff is we've discussed that many a time that it's safer to have things more open than closed off yeah so purpose um is there any existing uh are is there any existing fencing around the property right now um come on up just introduce yourself sure hi i'm matt curly I am the general manager of this. Tell me your name again. Matt Curley. So along this side, along the apartment side, there was an eight-foot fence there. As we cleaned out all the dense brush that was along that side, we took the fence down with it. It was required for us to have 10 feet of clearance around the building, from our understanding. So our intent is to simply replace the fence that was already there. along the side where the church was, there was a really old, I can't even guess how old, it looked like some kind of old farm fence, but that, with all the grubbing, that was taken out as well. But it was probably four feet would be my guess. This question may be more for staff again. With it having the Rogers Road address, if we consider Rogers Road the frontage, then the issue we have with regards on how it appears from Paris Pike, it's kind of moot, right? Because it's already allowable to have a six-foot fence on the Paris Pike side if Rogers Road is the frontage, and it does have a Rogers Road address. It does have a Rogers Road address. If we considered Rogers Road to be the front yard, that portion would have to be four feet in height, but the Parris Pike side could be six feet, yes. But I think that the building functions such that Parris Pike is the front yard. So the only variance would be then for the Rogers Road side. So I guess what I'm saying is that from four feet to six feet on the Rogers Road side, which kind of negates the discussion that we're having about the landscaping or how it looks on the Paris Pike side because it would already be allowable. The Paris Pike side is allowed to be four feet if Paris Pike is the front. While it is addressed on Rogers Road, the building faces Paris Pike, and if we're considering that the front yard, then the variance would apply only to Paris Pike. But that's a whole lot of space in between there. It's not like with residential where the front is clearly there. The way the ordinance reads is between any public or private street right-of-way and the front plane of the building, four feet. So if it's the front plane of the building, which it is the front plane of the building, regardless of whether the Rogers Road address. Let me make a couple of comments here, Mr. Simpson, if I might. Surely. First place, I had written down on this piece of paper. when I studied this issue prior to coming, I wondered if the applicant would be willing to adjust the height of the fence to six foot. So I was ahead of you. And I think that's actually a very smart move. I'd also like to add to this discussion that this addition of the Peterbilt dealership is quite significant uh this is uh uh certainly nationally respected firm and if you know what peterbilt is you understand that this is a major addition to that area and one of the first things i thought of when i read this application look at the address was the incident of crime in that area and talking about the the the grocery store filling station there it's in the newspaper way too much and so it immediately occurred to me that the request for a higher fence was absolutely uh uh imperative to making this this the site a safe safe place um and so So the idea of building a six-foot fence around this just seems like to me to be minimal, and it should be almost not a matter of discussion, even though the law says differently. I would certainly recommend that we approve this. I think a six-foot fence is a good adjustment and would work well. a four-foot fence for a site like this, for a company like this, and the kind of investment that's involved is almost pointless, seems like to me. And I would certainly vote for a six-foot fence all the way around if that matters. Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions for, because I would like to have, we have Ms. Clark still needs to have an opportunity to speak. Sure. I mean, I agree with Mr. Clark. I think that I'm sympathetic to the applicant's request, and I had also made a note on my notes that my staff report that a six-foot fence all the way around would be a good compromise. So I'm in favor of the application as amended. However, we have denied requests for six-foot fence along the front plane of a building in similar zones, and so I'm curious about if the only distinction between this applicant and others is the amount of investment. I don't think that's a fair way of distinguishing this one from other applicants. And for safety reasons, I don't think it's fair either, because I think one of the reasons we denied a previous applicant's request for a taller fence than four feet, than the four feet requirement was to allow a policeman to jump the fence chasing a bad guy or something like that. So we didn't want to restrict the height of a fence for purposes of law enforcement to be able to do their duty. So I'm a little bit torn. But I think I'm probably more persuaded to make an exception for this one simply because of the location on the outer limits of the city. I know we haven't heard from Ms. Clark yet, but I don't want to give her a chance to say something. But I am curious about one thing. You said you had taken down an eight-foot fence on the side of the property that parallels Parris Pike on the back. Is that right? Did I understand you decided? Correct. When did you do that? Six weeks ago, maybe. Somewhere six weeks to eight weeks ago would be my guess. What was the fence that you took down? It was a silver chain link. It was an eight-foot fence? Yes. Okay, thanks. If I could make one comment, I agree with your statement that just because we've invested a lot doesn't mean necessarily we should be granted a higher fence. But I would state that what is inside the fence would matter. You know, if I put a bar of steel inside the fence and you had a four-foot fence, I think you'd feel a lot different if that were a bar of gold. right our inventory sitting outside the the building is quite valuable so that's what we're trying to protect well i mean yeah but that's i mean you could build it you could build a building to house all the trucks if you wanted to so i mean there's an argument either way i i'm i understand the problem it's a problem we face here as a board uh on a monthly basis it's just i'm trying to find some reason to support your application. Thanks. Any additional comments or questions for Mr. Simpson before we bring allow the opposition opportunity to speak? Alright thank you we'll bring you back up in a second. Mr. Chair I have one question for Mr. Simpson. Bruce over here. Is your proposal or your amendment six feet all the way around or it was it's it's for six feet for where we need you know the two-foot variance reason I talked to Autumn because there was dependent upon the building orientation you know we wouldn't need a six foot we wouldn't need a variance and all on old Paris Pike if the front was off Rogers Road I understand there's some discussion and debate from Autumn whether or not we actually front on Rogers Road based upon the building orientation right so we would like we would like to continue to on those areas where we're entitled to the eight-foot fence maintain that and for those areas where we need a two-foot variance to have a six-foot fence have that the six foot would certainly we're entitled to that so the only variance that we're seeking is is the two foot over the four foot minimum which would be along the front okay just I mean for my would you like me to put that diagram back up yeah please do and I'd like to say that you know I know there was some discussion I'm not sure if there's a lot of argument on the zoning ordinance says as it's the front plane of the building, the building's facing Paris Pike. So looking at the Paris Pike as the front side, which I think we have to, the orange portion is allowed to be four feet, so that's what would be requiring a variance. The applicant would maintain the blue line as an eight-foot fence. They are entitled to a six-foot fence along the red line, and then they would also like to have a six-foot fence along the orange portion, which is only allowed to be four feet without a variance. And up on the screen, the orange portion looks black? Is that? The portion along Paris Pike is orange. I know it's kind of, let me, yeah. Sorry. I really should have picked better colors. This is orange. This is red, this little portion here. Okay, so the red could be six. Correct. And then everything else from the plane of the building all the way is currently allowed to be four and they're asking for six correct sorry Paris Pike which is going based on the orientation of the building which is already built it sounds like so that that is clearly the front of the building so that would be the front yard yeah the ordinance the ordinance says a plane plane a front plane of the building the you said the blue area along the back could continue to be eight correct the blue portion is allowed to be eight feet okay one other point of clarification I'd like to make that we are a semi dealership and not a car dealership she mentioned that most dealerships around town don't have fences and I agree when you look at car dealerships however when you look at semi dealerships all of our main competitors have at least six feet if not eight feet fences plus barbed wire now they're not on paris pike but our competition does have all of them have fences and the reason for that may be that they are in different zones the B4 and I1 zones have different fencing regulations all right thank you mr. Simpson any other questions for the applicant this point I do have one question for staff I think I recall there is a pending text amendment on fences is that for apartments to allow the six I believe that that text amendment the language currently does say for residential only if I'm not mistaken but that has not made its way through Planning Commission yet okay I mean I think just I think that's the dress us denying some six-foot fences for apartments is that what instigated Correct. There was an offense that the board denied earlier this summer, I believe. That sort of is what began this process for that attorney to initiate this text amendment that is currently... Did I understand you to say, Autumn, that if this were a B1 rather than a B3? Or maybe Mr. Simpson said it. In a B4 or an I1, I believe. A B4 or an I1, I'm sorry. yes in a B4 and I1 if it were B4 or I1 a six-foot fence would be appropriate correct okay thanks miss Clark come on up and I've been very generous today because of the holiday season with time so I've not kept people to their time limits so that's good I've been waiting thank you so let's do 15 let's just try to get to the end of it with rapidity. I want to put up 15 because I don't want to be here. I'm ready to wrap up for the holidays. I live at 628 Castle Road but I'm speaking on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and I've been in discussion also with the Joyland Neighborhood, one of our staunchest members. And I think part of the reason not a great many of them are here and so forth is because they support the staff recommendation of denial of this variance. and I do know that some of them, one is ill and one is, well, in poor health, and one has a commitment and one is out of town. These things happen. I think where you're taking the discussion is exactly right. It's a B4 zone or any of the industrial zones that would allow a higher fence, And it allows the uses, warehouse and shops of special trade for B4, industrial, actually more, so truck repair. And this operation, very significant in terms of economic development, is taking over a bowling alley site, which was earlier, Joyland was a cultural center. It has a lot of history. It was where the city went to play in the country. It was a nightclub scene. There was dancing. It was a very significant cultural place. And then after a while, it was a bowling alley. And then with the interstate nearby, it's a tremendously advantageous site for a truck repair operation. It's actually two interstates joining here. I think other Peterbilt operations are in the mountains where land is not so dear and not so precious. The other thing to remember about this site is it's also nationally recognized as our horse country corridor. This is the Paris Pike corridor with national recognition. And they're correct to say that the subject property is not within the boundaries of the Paris Pike corridor, but it is embraced in the small area plan governing how land uses in and around, how site design in and around the corridor should develop and be regulated. So let's think also about our precious horse country and the very significant economic benefit of this tourism and so on. First of all, I want to thank the staff for making the recommendation they did. it's a case where this is your responsibility all the time but you're looking out for the common good of the larger city and it happens you can see that the notice area touches very few properties still fewer of those are homeowners it's got a couple of churches major institutional uses there's a housing authority project behind that larger lot there so very few people did get notice of this and it's important for the staff in these cases to look out for people who live in housing projects immediately adjacent to this kind of thing let's see where's the thank you I kind of prefer it that way but we'll see I take issue with the 75 or 80 foot distance from Paris Pike corridor. And I have a, you can see but barely on the sheet furnished you. Do you have that furnished you? The cross sections of the roads. but it's easier to see on the actual final development plan. Do you see two staple-like brackets around the roadways? One is for the largest one is for Parris Pike. Let me go back to the other one. Okay. Do you see the lower blue arrow facing this way? And there's a piece of a bracket there. That's the cross-section of Parris Pike. Paris Pike has a grassy verge that extends a goodly distance. It extends nearly to the very edge of that private drive there. That's all Paris Pike, and what they have is landscape and stormwater mitigation built into that grassy verge. So actually the property is very near what is actually and technically Paris Pike, and the fence would be too. That front area there fronting on the pike is, I think, nine semi-tractor-trailer parking spots. Okay. The area has, as I said, the housing project at the rear. It has a church on one side. It does have altogether commercial and business uses as you head toward the interstate. On the other side of Parris Pike, directly opposite is a horse farm, the old Spears farm, and closer to the interstate, also directly opposite, a wooded estate of Garnetta Graham. And so this is what they look at, and a fence doesn't improve that in any way. There's a concern about fencing off commercial enclaves and leaving the rest of the neighborhood to deteriorate. Because they got a piece of cheap land here, luckily sited near the interstate, it doesn't necessarily mean that you want to shut off the connectivity and put these other people who actually make their homes here in a different class. any landscape screening of a fence would be very welcome but not a higher height of fence in fact the front door and drive of the horse farm goes directly to about where the power station is so he can see a good bit of this truck establishment from his front door. Mr. Bicknell and his wife, McLaughlin, Jeannie McLaughlin, they have recently invested in the restoration of that horse farm, and it's actively a horse farm they train and so forth. Okay, to move on, we've gone through the distances. Clearly the front plane of the building is there because it does have the showroom and it does have the main entrance. We have no argument with a rear fence. What I want to think about is the zone. This is the scenic effect of having a truck dealership along the edge of the property. it was not something that was welcome to the neighborhood when it came in but it was something that had B3 zoning and that was deemed to work. B3 zoning allows truck repair only as accessory to truck sales so it came in on a slender pretext and really if they need a larger fence to guard their wares perhaps the way to do that is to get a B4 designation in zoning for this property, Warehouse and Shops of Special Trade. I put this up because it shows you the floor space devoted to general industrial and again to warehouse uses. And of the 50,000 square feet in floor space, all but 12,000 of it is general industrial and warehouse. These are B4 uses. and they would permit the kind of fence that's being asked for. So the message is that they want a business operation and a zone to guard the wares for it that belongs in a different zone. And this development plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved under certain strictures. and if they want something that entails guarding repair, merchandise, warehousing, and so on to this degree, a different zone is the better zone for it, and it probably is not appropriate for Paris Pike in this location. I will check and see if there's anything else. I think that's about it. There's in fact a historical marker right there along the roadway, commemorating what Joyland used to be along the Paris Pike corridor, which is, as I said, nationally recognized prize-winning corridor. One of the elements in the small area plan was exactly the view sheds. They've mapped them, the scenic views. The Peterbilt trucks, as was mentioned, will never make a scenic viewshed for the Parris Pike, but let's not make it worse. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. anything else from the staff before i have mr simpson come up and give his closing any questions for miss clark i was before miss clark before you leave i put that graphic back up that was just there if you don't mind it was uh that was different than what i what we had seen before another one that you just this is the one that has the two the color the one that with the color the red and blue colors I was just this is I think is this a Martin's Petersville no it's a I don't want that one this is Kenworth it's not Peterbilt this is this is I think Martin Peterbilt he wants the site plan with the colors the graphic with the red and blue colors that's from the applicants right there okay and I'm not sure why it's only partly blue I think the sides of the front yard were not taken under that was different than what we saw and it looked like the north south lines were blue and the i think i can explain that that the original um conversation that we had with mr simpson and the applicant we were a little bit unclear on the um requirements of the fence height and this is the blue and red lines ended up not really being correct so that's not what we're that's what i would disregard those arrows and colors on that drawing all right thanks uh but you can see the property boundary and i think probably with the angle of it it's it's a little generous it may be biting into a little of paris pike just right on the pike it's true that that that point of access comes from Rogers Road. It was not subject to review of the Parris Pike Corridor Commission because the point of access, all the trucks will be on Parris Pike, but the point of access was not. Thank you, Ms. Clark. I had a question for staff. When you were looking at properties, did you guys look at the Northside RVs? has a fence it looks like i can't tell if it's four feet or five feet i did not look at that one um that's down there closer to the intersection um i mean i see it's taller than a car but i didn't know i did not find any record of any variants for that site um it may be that it's zoned for whatever i'm not sure it's zoned b3 so i was curious but but also note on the other side of the street where they park a lot of the number of their rvs they've got no fence at all um so i was just curious if you guys had looked at that fence did not look at that one okay any questions for staff if not i'll have mr simpson come back up sir appreciate um amy's comments and the staff's follow-up and the other questions that have been tender today at at the end of today what what What we're seeking is not to be unreasonable. Certainly within the board's power to grant a two-foot variance. You've done it three times before on commercial properties. Unlike halls and some of the other sites, we are next to residential. We are in an area where there is a problem with burglary and invasion of the property as witnessed by two of our closest neighbors. The connectivity points that Amy was making that fences don't make good connectivity, I don't think anybody in this room would, or on the board would conclude that having neighborhood connectivity to the interior of a tractor-trailer site with tractor-trailer trucks coming in and out is necessarily the kind of connectivity that we've been talking about. That kind of connectivity is reserved for apartments situated with residential properties, not other commercial properties. This is a safety issue. This is a business site, a large business site. People that have bought this site did not zone it. It's been zoned for many years, zoned for the kind of use that it's being planned to be used for. The B3 uses allow farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, motorcycle sales, sales, boats, travel trailers, mobile homes, restaurants, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, entertainment, dancing, and use of alcoholic beverages, car wash establishments, indoor amusement such as billiard or pool halls, dancing facilities and the like. It is a highway business service use. It is our most intense commercial zone. There's nothing that adding a two-foot high fence is going to do to make it any more than what it is. It is a truck sale dealership and repair of those vehicles. And the notion that somehow lowering the height two feet is going to make it more attractive simply isn't a reasonable conclusion in my opinion. I think this is about trying to protect private property. a substantial amount of private property by high-quality new business to our community, and granting a two-foot variance on those sections that need that variance in light of three prior cases that have granted a variance, given the circumstances that exist next to this area of Lexington and along Paris Pipe, is a reasonable request. I don't believe anybody would conclude that it's not. It's not like you're going to have a fear of some dangerous precedent that's going to take place, because that precedent has already occurred with three prior approvals for a variance to the height of six feet. I think it's a reasonable request, and we would ask the board's endorsement. I've submitted findings that will allow you to make a motion in that regard, and if you have any additional questions, we'll be happy to respond. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Simpson, if I can refer to the graphic that you submitted with the application, just to ask you for points of clarification, it looks like you've got on the graphic that we have in front of us, it looks like the dotted lines are not on the exterior of the property i mean it looks like the proposed fence does not circumnavigate all of the parcel is that correct i mean what i'm if we could pull we're looking what we're looking at on the screen is not what we're looking at yes and the property and keep that up there because what what it looks to me like where you that area where you're pointing right yes that's the ku substation right there yeah the area next to next to ku you're you're not proposing to encompass in the fence is that right Okay. Okay. Okay. That's intended to be overnight parking. Outside the fence. Correct. Outside the fence. this region right here so the fence is that's actually parallel most of the fence that's parallel to paris pike is not not as close nowhere close to this line it should be down here this is our our main entrance is right here so it comes all the way to that main entrance and then up and along the edge of the grass there and then back along beside that service station the graphic that i'm looking at shows um indicates two gates one is correct one is on rogers road and one is is oriented towards Paris Pike correct there's also a note on that that says no access to Paris Pike provided I think correct that there's a we have access to this frontage road here right we have no direct access from Paris Pike okay so okay I got you which is why our address is actually Rogers because there's no access directly from Paris. Okay. That cleared it up. Thank you. I think I'd just like to voice my opinion. As I look at it, I think Ms. Clark brought up a few good points. Can I interrupt you one second? Sure. Do you have any more questions for Mr. Simpson? Because if not, I can close the public, and then we can pontificate. All right. I will close the public portion of the hearing. And at this point, if we need to ask questions for anybody, we can still. But thank you. Can I continue now? Yes, thank you. But, you know, it's reasonable to ask in a corridor such as the Paris Pike that, you know, appropriate screening or proper screening could be included in this fencing variance. And that's all I would ask. I think I'm fine with the six-foot fence. You know, when you just touched on overnight parking, and I'm not sure if we want to hear what that all entails, but, you know, maybe we do, but that's another use that I assume is provided under this. Sure. Come to the mic and introduce yourself first. Justin Martin. I'm one of the owners. So we don't have overnight parking, so to speak, like I advertise overnight parking, but what will happen occasionally if a truck breaks down and they need access to get off the road so they're not blocking somewhere, then they'll come on site and wait until we're open up in the morning. So it's not an advertised like just truck parking. It's just a service for customers to be able to get there and be off the road. Okay. Okay. And that's in, can you just show me where that's going to be again on this? That's in the recessed area between. I don't know which buttons. It's going to be behind the KU sublamp. That's going to be in this area right here. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's reasonable to ask that that be a little bit more screened. I know you still want a frontage, and I'm not sure if we're determining if this frontage is going to be facing Paris Pike or facing Rogers Road. But, you know, I think that the view, you know, if it could be screened in a certain way, would be nice. And I don't know how to involve that in this proposal, but that's my thought. Well, I don't think that's before us. The building has been built. And so I think we can only decide on the fencing, not necessarily landscape buffering outside the fence, you know, the area. Just throwing that out there. Narrowing our issues. Well, if I could say, I would also like to add, I'm really inclined to agree with the two-foot variance, but less because of the safety issue, because we've already, you know, beat that dead horse in all the meetings, in all the prior testimony that we can't really prove that those fences help or don't help, but more so because it is on the outskirts of the business area and the district and it is right there before the corridor we're trying to preserve and right on the edge of where the residential. I like the fact that we could set aside, you know, so that's kind of the period on the end of the business area. And it does kind of give some set aside from the residential portion of it. and it's different from what we looked at with the apartment complexes where they're trying to put tall fences in front of areas in residential neighborhoods that's all residential that we're looking for that connectivity but this piece of land and this type of business really does need some set aside it's not open to the public in general I mean you don't have people walking off the street looking maybe nobody I know walking off the street looking to buy a semi so it is more you know I think it helps with some set aside for me more than for safety but it's just my opinion Thank You Ms. Clark I would like to put on the record that there were discussions of the KU sub plants fencing and how the height was and the barbed barbed wiring, but you're not allowed to have barbed wiring underneath our zoning code. So just so the public knows, there will not be a barbed wire fence going around this if this were to be approved. Any additional questions? Okay. Legal is working on alternative findings of fact if someone wants to make a motion to approve but at this point we will it we can if someone wants to make a motion to I guess disapprove and we don't need it alternatives but if they want to make an alternative motion I would say get with Miss Jones she's drafted up items based upon the testimony today Thank you. I would like to make a motion for approval for PLNBOA 18-79 Martins, Peter Build's request for a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence from four feet to six feet in the front and side yard in order to construct an eight-foot tall fence at the rear of the dealership in a highway service business B3 zone at 425 Rogers Road based on the following reasons. One, the front plane of the building is on Paris Pike, so applying the variance will only be on the front plane side of the building and the side yard to the front plane of the building on Rogers Road. Number two, the requested variance arises from some special circumstances such as intrusion and burglary of businesses nearby or adjacent to the property, a utility substation, and posing a potential danger to unwanted and uninvited persons who may enter the property without permission. And number three, granting a two-foot variance as requested will not alter the essential character in the general vicinity near an interstate exchange and will not cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public and may help prevent nuisances or hazards by limiting engagement with the large equipment on the site by the general public. Those are the reasons. And then based on two conditions, that the proposed fence be built as amended and shown on the site plan, and number two, that they attain all necessary permits to build a fence. Second. We have a friendly amendment to that motion and just put down from the Division of Building Inspection on the permits version. Sure. So that reads properly. I second that. We have a second. And real quickly, before we move for any kind of vote or a discussion on the motion, Mr. Simpson, could you come to the... I'm assuming your client is agreeable to the two conditions as proposed. We are. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The side yard does not require a variance, so you might want to amend that to say from four feet to six feet in the front yard. Yeah, and I think, yes, we'll make that amendment. I think the distinction is, Mr. Needham, is that the fact that the front yard starts after the building on the side yard? Is it? Correct. Anything in front of the front line of the building. That's correct. Or you could say the front plane of the building to the right-of-way. Yeah, we just want to make sure that it's six feet minimum for the fencing around the property. I recognize the dispute that can take place about orientation of the building. Correct. But we need six feet is the issue. Yes, and I think we're in agreement with that. I think we're all in agreement with that. Thank you, sir. Okay. So with that, we've got a first and a second as amended by staff and myself. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, I'll call a vote. No, I guess I was late to the vote. Application's approved. Good luck with your project, gentlemen. Okay, so this takes us to board items. Do we have any items any board members may wish to present at this time? Hearing none. Any items from staff at this time? Perhaps a reminder that we're meeting at 1.30. I was going to handle that. Yes, Mr. Clerk. Was that it? Jim? Happy holidays. Oh, thank you, sir. Happy holidays. So we have amended our meeting time, so our next meeting will start at 1.30 p.m. on January 14th. All of our schedule has been set for next year, and our new meeting time will be at 1.30 p.m. There's no further business. I will adjourn us. Have a great holiday season. Thank you. Thank you.