What do you want you to know that you're wearing well? There ain't a lady in the land so fine, oh my. Remember their baseball parties, your brother's karate, your all-day rock and roll show. Remember, homesick blues and radical blues have left a mark on you. You're wearing well. A little out of time that I don't mind But I ain't forgetting that you were once mine But I blew it without even trying Now I'm beating my heart out Trying to get less Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to start the meeting for the May 13, 2019 Board of Adjustments. So what we'll do is I will go through the call to order, and I'll go through the agenda for today, just let everyone kind of know what's going on. Prior to that, though, there are certain house cleaning items. Number one, if you have a cell phone, make sure it's turned on silent or off so it doesn't go off during the hearing. If you plan on coming up to the podium today, either in favor or against any applications, I will swear you in prior to us calling the cases. Normally the order is the applicant testifies, then anyone in opposition and the applicant will have a chance to rebut. I did not see any recommendations for disapproval today, so the staff will chime in as we ask for them, so they won't be giving a formal presentation on most of the cases. Do not approach us or the podium unless you've been recognized. Do we have any letters of support or in opposition today, Autumn? We do have letters for the first case on the agenda, PLNBOA 19-23, there's several letters for that one, and we have several letters for item D, the first under conditional use appeals, PLNBOA 19-20, Arbor Drive, LLC. And then we do have one letter of support for our first administrative review, PLNBOA 19-17, Athens Property, LLC. Thank you, ma'am. So with the letters, depending on how many there are, sometimes we can go ahead and have the case called, sometimes take a couple minutes to flip through them so everyone on the board has the opportunity to listen to the citizens request that who weren't able to make it today's hearing and then lastly of course we've got a long docket today if for some reason i need to i may limit the amount of time each individual is allowed to speak in favor and opposition to the matter and that's just a public comment not the applicants necessarily so with that being said I'm going to first call if there are any cases that are being withdrawn or postponed today. Hello, good afternoon. I'm Jake Michael here on behalf of Arbor Drive LLC, which is the applicant in PLN BOA 19-20, which is a conditional use application. That is item D1 on your agenda, and we'd like to request a one-month postponement to the June meeting. Okay, so our June meeting will be heard on June 10, 2019, to 1-30 in these chambers. Is there anyone here on the application for PLM BOA 19-20 Arbor Drive related to 3500 Arbor Drive? Mr. Walburn, if you want to come up. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Jacob Walburn, I represent several concerned neighbors. We've been in communication with the applicant. To Mr. Michael's credit, he promptly returned my phone calls. We don't object to their postponement, just did want you to know that there is neighborhood interest in this application. Thank you, sir. Staff, any objections? Nope. Well, hearing none, anyone else here in the audience on this matter? Okay, is anyone here that objects to postponing it to next month? Okay. Well, in that instance, the Chair will entertain a motion. I move we move on until June. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll call to a vote. Ms. Myers having difficulty with her machine? I vote yes. So mark her as a yay. The motion carries. Good luck. We'll see you guys next month. Hope you and the neighbors can work this out in the meantime. Thank you. Any other items on a docket to be postponed or withdrawn? Okay. Well, hearing none, what I'll do is I will call the balance of the agenda. If the case has opposition or you want to discuss staff's alternative, modified, I guess I should say, conditional use approval, then what we'll do is we'll put you at the end of the docket. Cases that have no opposition, the applicant is otherwise in agreement with the conditional use conditions, then we'll have those heard first. So with that being said, the first case is PLN BOA 19-23, William and Ben Stramer, and this is related to 1143 Athena Drive. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. You can see it right there. Is there anyone here that wants to speak to this matter? And we have one letter, and is that the letters, are they in opposition or support, Autumn? There are a few letters in opposition. Okay. We'll put this one on the first case to be heard, but you will be called very quickly. The next item is PLM BOA 19-26, David King's application for 675 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. Applicant present, raise your hand. Thank you. Good seeing you guys again. Is there anyone here on this matter today? Okay, well then we'll have your case heard first. next item is plmboa 19-27 timothy condo regarding 659 cardinal lane applicant present thank you sir is anyone here who wants to speak to this matter today okay you'll be the second case on the docket takes us to plmboa 19-29 ball homes llc regarding 2308 Armature Court. Thank you, sir. The applicant is present. Anyone here? Okay. This next case has been postponed until next month. The next case is PLMB-OA-1925 Marcus Camus. Yes, sir. All right. This is for 334 East High Street. applicant has is present anyone here to speak on this matter all right we'll put you on the to be not to be heard dockets next case is PLN BOA 19-30 Schlick and DeBoer LLC to I mean four or five seven zero Nicholsville Road is applicant present thank you is there anyone here to speak on behalf half of this one? Okay, so we'll mark that one. No opposition. Now we're in the administrative reviews. We have two. First one is PLNBOA 19-17, Athens Property LLC regarding 6251 and 6270 Athens Walnut Hill Pike. Applicant present. Thank you, sir. Anyone here to speak on this one? All right. next one is plmboa 19-24 dentistry plus regarding 2800 palumbo drives applicant present thank you sir is anyone here to speak on behalf of this case okay so next anyone who will be coming up to the podium on behalf of themselves in opposition or in favor of the applicant please rise now and raise your right hand i will swear you in do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you okay so i'm going to go ahead and call uh the david king case plnb 0819-26 regarding 675 north martin luther king boulevard mr chair um we've not approved the the minutes from last month? Oh yes. Approval of the minutes. In that instance, then I will. The minutes were circulated. Anyone who's had an opportunity to review them? Any questions or comments or if not, I'll hear a motion. Move approval of the minutes. I've got a first. Do I have a second? Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please register your vote. Thank you, Autumn, for reminding me not to skip things. All right, motion's approved. Okay, Mr. King, if you want to come up and put your name officially on the record for me. Yes, I'm David King, and I'm co-owner with Joanna Slogie. Yeah, and I'm presuming since you're plugging in your laptop, you want to discuss the staffs? Yes. Okay, so what I'd like to do then is have you sit down, go through the rest of the unopposed docket, and then we'll put you on the be heard docket. Yeah. So the first case with no opposition is PLN BOA 1927, Timothy Condo, regarding Cardinal Lane. Mr. Condo? Please state your name for the record. Sure. Timothy Condo. Good afternoon, sir. It looks like the staff has recommended approval. that approval is subject to three conditions have you read those conditions I have read them and I agree with them okay perfect um does anyone have a question for mr. Kondo or for staff at this time I think the only clarification was that proposed fence that came out in front of your your primary dwelling there on the cardinal lane side yes are you referring to condition number one Maybe I am. I am, yes. Yes, you are. Okay. Yes, I'm perfectly fine with that. That is not an issue with me at all. Okay, great. Any additional comments, questions? We're hearing none. Then I will entertain a motion. I move we approve. I'm sorry. I move we approve PLN BOA 19-27 Timothy Kondo's request for variance to increase the allowable height of a fence in the front yard from 4 to 6 feet in a single-family residential R1C zone at 659 Cardinal Lane, based on staff's recommendations and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll call to a vote. Please register. You've been approved. Good luck with your project. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. You all have a nice day. Okay. So the next item will be PLM BOA 19-29 Ball Homes regarding 2308 Armature Court. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here. On behalf of the applicant, Ball Homes, we have reviewed the staff report and the conditions and we agree to abide by them. Thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions on this application for staff or for the applicant? Okay, hearing none, then the Chair will entertain a motion. I move we approve PLNBOA 19-29 Ball Homes' request for variance to reduce the required side yard setback for a fence or wall from 3 feet to 0 feet in order to construct a retaining wall in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 2308 Armature Court based on staff's recommendations and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. I second the motion. We have a second by Ms. Whitman. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I will put it to a vote. Motion carries. Go to your project. Are you done for the day? All right. Have a good afternoon. The next matter on the agenda is PLM BOA 19-25, Marcus Commiss, at 334 East High Street. Applicant, Sir, come on up. And state your name for the record. Marcus Camus. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. The staff has recommended approval. That approval is subject to three conditions. Have you seen those conditions? Sir, yes. And you're agreeable to abide by those? I am. All right, thank you, sir. Is there any question from the board regarding staff or the applicant? I just had a question. Is that Latrobe Court? Is that a one-way street or a two-way street? It's a one-way around, yes. It's just one direction? That's correct, yeah. And does the driveway on the left side of your house, as you're looking from High, is that? It's in the back of my house. So the back of my house butts into La Trobe. Yes. As you're looking from High Street and you're looking toward the driveway on the left, that is not your driveway, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Can you use that or not? No, that's not my property, sir. Okay. Yeah. Okay, that's the only question I had. All right, in that instance, then I will entertain any motions. I move for approval of PLN BOA 19-25, Marcus Commuse's request for a conditional use permit for a home-based business, private yoga instruction in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 334 East High Street, for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. I second the motion. So we have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I'll call the vote. Motion carries. Go ahead with your project, sir. Thank you. The next matter with no opposition is PLMBOA 19-30, Schlick and DeBoer LLC regarding 4570 Nicholsville Road. Calling up, sir. Please state your name for the record. I'm Adam Bender with CMW. And Mr. Bender, you are the agent of the owner? That's correct. And you are authorized to bind them today? That's correct. Okay. Thank you, sir. the staff has recommended approval with the amended parking arrangement and on the conditional use they've recommend approval of the variants subject to four conditions are you agreeable to what the staff has proposed I would like to have condition number three reworded okay so what I'm going to do is I'm gonna mark this one has to be heard and if you've got proposed language do you want to show to Autumn, unless you've already seen it Autumn. You guys maybe will work this out before I get back to you. All right, thank you sir. Thank you. Okay, the next item is PLM BOA 19-17 Athens Property LLC regarding 6251 and 6270 Athens Walnut Hill Pike. Good afternoon sir. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the board, Jacob Walburn on behalf of the of the applicant, Athens Property, LLC. The staff has recommended approval excluding special events, and they have recommended 10 conditions. We do have one. How many letters do we have? Just one? Is it a support or opposition? Okay, perfect. Are you agreement with all those? We are, and I would add that this is one of those good circumstances where an applicant can get together with staff. we can work these things out without having a long hearing. Very grateful to staff for meeting with us, working through our issues. I think we've come to something we can live with. But yes, certainly in agreement with the conditions that staff has imposed. Thank you, sir. Give us a minute so we can look at the letter since it's going to be in the record and then we'll probably have a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Quickly, is there actually where they actually say we support or is this just a complaint? It's in there towards the bottom. Okay. I found it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have now looked at the email that was sent in to staff. At this time, does anyone have any further questions for the applicant or for staff? And if not, then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask one quick question. Have we settled the use of special events in condition number 10? It says the hosting of special events to a commercial purpose. Does that cover everything? Does that cover the objection there? I believe so. All right. Good. Thank you. At this time, does anyone want to make a motion? I will. Yes, I'll move. Mr. Chair, I recommend the approval of PLNBOA-19-17 Athens Property LLC, requesting an administrative repeal to make changes to the conditions placed on an existing non-conforming use in antique shop with accessory restaurant in order to expand the restaurant's operation and allow the facility to be open daily in the Agricultural Rule Zone at 6251 and 6270 Athens, Walnut Hill, Pike, Council District 12, based on the staff's recommendation and following the conditions as stated. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, then I will call it to a vote. Applications approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you all very much. Thank you, sir. Okay, this brings up the last case on the unopposed docket, which is PLM BOA 19-24 Dentistry Plus regarding 2800 Palumbo Drive. Good afternoon. Daniel Collins. And you said Coen's? Collins. Oh, Collins. Are you the owner? I am not. I'm a representative. OK. And the owner has given you the authority to bind it today? Yes. Thank you, sir. The staff has recommended approval. The approval is based upon three conditions. Has your client read those and agreed to abide by them? Yes. Thank you, sir. Any questions from the board regarding the staff or the applicant? All right, hearing none. My only question was kind of why they choose to do it. The visibility on the back of the building is obstructed by a large tree line, and there's no existing signage on the front of the building showing that that's the actual property and the business. Any further questions? Hearing none, then I'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLNBOA 19-24 Dentistry Plus requests for an administrative appeal to allow a second wall sign transferred from another wall to be located on the front wall of the building in a P1 zone at 2800 Palumbo Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and the three conditions listed below. Thank you, ma'am. I second the motion. We've had a first and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then it's called to a vote. Motion's approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Okay, that brings us all the way back to PLM BOA 1923, William and Ben Stromer. Come on up, sir. And then we do have some letters that we need to look at. We do have about six letters on this one. Okay. So if you want to go ahead and state your name for the record. My name is William Stramer. Thank you, sir. The staff has recommended approval, and it's subject to three conditions. Have you seen those conditions? Yes, sir. We've reviewed those conditions, and we agree with those conditions. Thank you. Okay, if you want to just have a seat here in the first row for a second, we'll look at these letters, which I believe are all in opposition. Is that correct? So we may have some questions for you afterward. Thank you. Sorry for the weight one of our board members needed to go blow his nose. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, you want to come back up, sir? So we had six letters in opposition, so I'm presuming that at this point certain board members will probably have questions for you. So I will open it up for any discussions. Let me ask a couple questions. Mr. Stramer, very quickly. Could you give us just a brief idea of what the purpose of the garage is and why you're doing that? The garage we're proposing to build will be to store our vehicle storage, as well as we have a hobby motorsports vehicle that would be for us to work on that. But these are hobby vehicles. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. One hobby vehicle. What kind of hobby? We have a diesel pickup, like for pulling truck, like for tractor pulls, only it's a pickup truck. Okay. Okay. Now, this garage is on the back of the property, is it not? Right close to the back line? It's at the very back corner of the property. Yes, sir. Is that, I understand that the garage, the new site would be actually lower than the house in terms of the land itself. The property tails away from the house, yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. Now, will it be visible from Williamsburg? I don't know for sure. Williamsburg, of course, our house sits on a hill, or my son's house sits on a hill from Williamsburg, and it would be built back in the corner of the property. We had to put up a new pole at the very back of the property when we got the encroachment easement work done, and that pole is hardly visible from the road, and that pole is 35 feet tall. And so there's some indication from the staff that the increased height would not be particularly visible from Athenia. Yeah. Is that correct? Yeah, from Athenia, yes. I'm sorry. You said Williamsburg. I don't think it will be visible from Williamsburg because the back corner of our property where that will sit is all tree-lined. Yeah, I asked about Williamsburg, but I'm also talking about Athenia as well. Yeah, Athenia is where we sit on the hill from Athenia. I know where you are, and I realize your house sits up pretty high, but of course I can't see in the back. Yeah. And you're going to pave that area to get? I'm not sure if it's going to be concrete or pavement, but certainly the driveway going in there, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. And real quickly, is there anyone here in the audience that wants to speak today on this matter? Does he see some? Okay, just want to make sure, just make sure you're here to watch and listen. Because if you want to... We wrote the letters. Okay. So the letters we read, you guys wrote those? All right, raise your hand if you wrote those. Okay. So we got several people, but you guys don't want to speak today. I just want to confirm. Because I've had it before, a few meetings ago, where people are like, I wanted to talk and they never talked. So I don't mind if you don't speak, but... I'm a resident. Well, not yet. If you want to speak, let me know, and I'll bring you up when it's time. Okay. I just want to make sure that, okay, you guys get an opportunity if you came all the way down here. Because, like I said, if you don't let me know, then I'll keep moving on, and I'll just gloss right over you. Okay. So I like to go to, right now, this is for engineering. I like to go with kind of what Mr. Clark was discussing. Some of the letters were discussing water issues, that whether or not adding this impervious driveway addition and also the building would increase any water issues. Does engineering have any problems with that? Or will engineering look at that before a building permit is issued? Are there any known flooding problems in the area right now? Not that I'm aware of. But we may hear from somebody from the audience. So typically on a construction project like this, we would require a land disturbance permit. And if there's known flooding problems in the area, we can request a hydrology study to see the effects of the stormwater runoff on the neighbors. And how would you go about knowing whether or not there's a water issue? sometimes via a complaint or if it's a known area that floods, we can also contact Division of Water Quality and they have records of areas in Lexington that have documented flooding problems within the neighborhood. So if the neighbors here complain and say that there is flooding, then that's something we can look into. I've got a question related to that for you, for engineering or staff is is the applicant required to manage that run water runoff on it onto his own property if there's a drainage easement in the back of his property that's typically where the runoff would be directed to if it's a swale or an inlet or if the water drains to the street to a public inlet then that's where we'd want that water to go our goal is to make sure that if a development like this goes in that it's not shedding water onto their neighbors to create flooding that wasn't already there or make flooding that was already there not make it worse so I guess the short answer is it should either go to a drainage easement or be managed on property not on the neighbors property Thank you, sir. I'd just like to note that the request is a height variance. The structure is within the allowable area, and any paving would have to meet the zoning requirements for paving, and a paving permit would have to be secured. So the question at hand today is the height variance and not the size of the building or the paved area, just to kind of put things in perspective. Thanks, Autumn. Appreciate that. And also, any more questions? I just want to know a couple things for the record, if there are no more questions, and then we'll have the neighbors who want to speak opportunity to speak. Okay. I just want to know a couple things. Some of the letters discussed design issues and that there are restrictions of record. This hearing has nothing to do with those. Those are contracts between you as homeowners that you may not have entered into in your real estate record. So this has no bearing on that. The second item I wanted to mention was it appears that this is for a hobby shop. This is not for a home occupancy conditional use. So we're not saying that someone could go in here and start doing an auto body shop or something else of that nature. This is personally for personal use. And I just want to put that clear on the record for both the applicant and also the neighbors. Sir, if you'd like to have a seat here in the first row, any neighbors who would like to come up, please let me know. Raise your hand. Okay. And then were you sworn in at the very beginning? Okay. Please stand, and I'll swear you in right now. Both of you. Yeah, both of you at the same time. Raise your right hand. Do you swear, affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. So what I'd like to do is you guys come up. we will put three minutes on the board give you guys three minutes to tell us your thoughts about this plan which everyone wants to go first doesn't matter to me state your name for the record though Bruce Hutchison and I live not next door but one house away and I'd like to make a comment about the building of this structure in our neighborhood that it does not match any Any other structure that we have in our neighborhood is going to be much larger. It is going to cause runoff problems. The house next door to us has had a history of flooding in the basement. That person that owns that house is not here, but that person is also selling that house and leaving the neighborhood. I'm the next house down the hill. My house is the lowest house in the neighborhood. The next lowest elevation is the floodplain of Beaumont Park, and my yard sets approximately three foot higher than that, but it is the lowest yard in the entire neighborhood. And so I have concerns about water runoff. I also have concerns about the structure and how it looks in relation. But I do believe that the people that are building this, they are presently driving trucks that are waking up children at night they're loud they're offensive they're dirty they've bypassed the diesel fuel cleaning systems to make race trucks they drive through our neighborhood we've had a wonderful peaceful neighborhood and since they've moved in it has been nothing but heck from everybody saying that this new people have really changed our neighborhood for the worse I know that has nothing to do with the building of the building. Do you know the trucks do have stickers in the back windows advertising their name of their, what, company? Of their truck? Building? Racing? Company? Hobby? So who marshals this as whether it becomes a commercial entity or not? This is the type of construction that should be done in a commercial industrial park. If you're going to build race trucks, you should go somewhere outside a residential neighborhood, whether it's for a hobby or for benefit financially. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Bernie Skeeters, 1151, Athenia. More or less, I was going to say pretty much the same thing he said, so I don't really have anything else to say. Short and sweet. I like it. Thank you, sir. He said it. So once again, as staff has mentioned, that this application is only for a variance for a height of the building. It does not deal with whether someone's doing a home occupancy. If they were doing a home occupancy, that would be handled by code enforcement. A home occupation to allow for vehicle repairs or this type of vehicle work for a commercial purpose would not be something that is even allowable in the R1B zone. That's not something that you can do as a home occupation. Should there be issues where it appears that there are customers coming and going and that is what is taking place here, that would be an issue for our zoning compliance officers. and that would, you know, a complaint would be generated and then if that were to happen and our compliance officers would go and investigate and then that would start that process if that were to occur. And if for some reason there was a dispute on whether or not that is occurring, it would be brought before us or is that handled otherwise? I can't recall. That would potentially come before us. It would depend on what the zoning compliance officers found Mr. Marks may have. I mean, if they filed an appeal, they disagreed with what you guys said. Typically, this type of enforcement would not come back to you. If zoning enforcement made a decision about a complaint that another party wanted to appeal, then it could come back to you. That's what I meant. Potentially we could see it again, but it's not often that that occurs. Okay, so having heard from staff and from engineering and from the applicant, does anyone on the board have any further questions at this time? I'm hearing none. Then I will – oh. I'd just like one. Is there any photo you have of that pole that you've put back where the garage is going to be built this is for the applicant if you want to come up to the microphone again i do not have a photo showing that pole no sir so i thought you said you had a pole or you know we do have a new pole that was put in as part of the encroachment into the easement for the utilities that as we routed the lines for both ku and uh it was one of the other cable lines down along the property line and over who had to put in a new pole, which was a 35-foot tall pole. But I don't have a picture of that from the road to show what impact that or how tall that is. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any further questions? All right. Hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. I'd like to remind the board if for some reason you were inclined to move to oppose this application, then we would need to get with legal to have some findings drafted to support that finding based upon the testimony here. Thank you. I make a motion to approve PLNBOA 19-23, William and Ben Stramer's request for a variance to increase the allowable height of detached accessory structure to 18 feet in order to construct a detached garage that exceeds the elevation of the principal structure in a single family residential zone. at 1143 Athenia Drive based on the staff's recommendation and also subject to the three conditions listed thank you is there a second okay well hearing no second then the motion fails on for having failure to have a second in that instance I will take this as a hint that we should recess for a few minutes and let somebody talk with staff and legal for alternative findings a fact for this case thank you we're in recess thank you for your patience and waiting so the last action or actually no action was taken there was a motion to approve the application there was not a second for that so the application has not been approved at this time so at this point the applicant could still go forward with his plans without the variance so at this point he's not allowed to build higher ability higher than the i believe you said autumn I believe it's 12 feet 8 inches the height of the house it's 13 8 is that well whatever is in the record the height of the house is high 13 13 feet 9 inches is what the site plan has as the height of the house so the the garage could be constructed to that height okay so unfortunately sir your application for 18 foot has not been approved today if you want to come and say something But that's, yeah, if you want to come up to the podium, that's fine. But we have not approved your garage. Just a general question for engineering. Is the expectation, and I know this was a height variance, not a water issue, is there expected that there's more water runoff from an 18-foot building than there is a 13-foot, 9-inch building? If the square footage is the same, you could make the assumption that it would be the same. Thank you. Thank you. So that case has been completed. Thank you very much for coming, everybody. That brings us to the next case to be heard, which is PLMBOA 19-26, David King. Mr. King, come on up, plug your laptop in. Thank you. Mr. King, if you can once again state your name for the record for us. Hi, my name is David King, and this is... Joanna Sloge. All right, is this a different project or the same one we've seen? This is the same one you've seen. Okay. When I came last time, we proposed you approved the pros setback, and I already had the building plans approved, and I was told by Ms. Autumn to be in line with 157A for infill requirements that I'd have to either have a projection that's four feet of an awning, or I'd have to have a porch, which is more than four feet, on both sides of the street. So we designed the house so that both sides of the street on this corner lot would have a minimum of four-foot porch on each side. We lost square footage on account of that. These plans were approved. And so as you can see right there, that's our porch. There's a door on the side and the door on the front, and it both matches those. and this is kind of dark, but you can see that's the corner of the house. This is how the front should look. This is how the side should look. It's quite dark. This is a picture of what is actually there. I built that retaining wall as required. It was a crumbling mess. I took out 80 yards of dirt off both properties because there was a mound of dirt, so there's more visibility for everybody to level the properties. There's two of them beside each other. That retaining wall there keeps in all the stuff that was falling over the sidewalk prior. And the building inspector came to me and he says, I see you've been approved for this deck, but I'm going to have to ask Ms. Autumn if it's okay to continue with the deck. And so here we are at, in front of you gentlemen and ladies, yes. This is me showing that for someone to stand on the property for safety issues, they would roll off because of the, you know, we would have a door to nowhere, essentially. And there'd be a guardrail, of course, to keep them safe. And as you see, this is the front of the house. That's me standing there. And our access stairs would be poured into there. and that's the neighbor's house in back of our property uh mr sam roffo's house is showing that but our deck but our railing would have more visibility obviously his is right on the sidewalk line and so we're simply asking if he would allow us to build what we put in the plans that were approved by the plans uh to make a cute house it's just the normal access points for the property and And that's simply what we're asking for. So you're wanting to do essentially a wraparound porch? Yes. I'd like access to both sides because I have to do a retaining wall on the front as well and to match the one on the side just so they can access those two doors. I understand. Okay. Let me ask. I think the staff needs to weigh in for a second. So, Autumn, give us a little bit of background. A little bit of history here, I guess. I believe the original drawings that Mr. King brought to building inspection may have shown the porch, but those drawings were not approved and it was determined at that time that there were going to be a number of variances required. So Mr. King came to us initially with the variances that were requested for the side yard, the side street side yard, and the front yard. yard and that drawing did not show the the porch so my understanding was that the porch was no longer a part of the plan because it was not shown on the drawings I don't know where that got lost in translation other than it was not on the drawing that was submitted to the Board of Adjustment previously so so it was not approved and then then whenever the building inspector found that it had been constructed it came to our attention that it had not been approved for a variance and did not meet the requirements for a projection so that's why we're here our biggest concern is with visibility at the corner there with the the site triangle and Stephen may be able to elaborate a little bit more on that and we do have some images as well all right what you guys have a seat per second I'll let you guys have an opportunity but with the staff and with traffic engineering is going to tell me but yeah I don't recall on our plan we approved the last variance a wrap-around porch on it what What is the issue with the staff's perspective? What's the issue with having a wraparound porch? The issue with the wraparound porch is with the setback as close as it is already for the side street, side yard, and the front yard. Having that wraparound porch is going to raise an issue with visibility up higher. There will have to be a guardrail, of course, as well. So your visibility is going to be very obstructed at that corner of North Martin Luther King and 7th Street. So the requirements that our ordinance has for what we call a site triangle for visibility at a corner like that, those requirements are not being met with this wraparound porch as it is. So traffic engineering came up with a plan that was, I believe, included in your package, showing a porch at each door that would not wrap around, which I understand that the applicant would like for it to wrap around, But with the visibility issues, it's just not something that staff can support. And my recollection was that the site triangle was an issue when we approved the house being this close to the front. There were some concerns with the house being as close as it is already. So the added obstruction of the wraparound porch is very concerning. But just so we're clear, this part of Marlboro the King is one way only. So people would only be taking a right into Martin Luther King. But I guess that's the issue. The concern still is that if there were a vehicle in front of the house, it would perhaps not be visible. Or if there were pedestrian traffic, because pedestrians can go either way, regardless of whether it's a one-wide street. So the visibility of other vehicles and of pedestrians is the concern here. Okay, I understand. Steven? So the initial setback was 12 feet. We had some general reservations initially. We went out there and measured off the six feet and came to the conclusion it was questionable and we understood the applicant's desire and we recommended that we said we were okay with six feet. We did not see the plan that was submitted, traffic engineering, showed no porch whatsoever. We just look at an obstruction, whether it's a wall, a deck, a fence. We look at every structure as an obstacle and what the obstruction is. So the pictures that you have are pictures that I took on site. there was a gold Saturn sitting in front and then there was a van that was full-size van that you could barely see the vehicle from and I was sitting in it where a driver in a Ford Explorer so I'm a little bit higher than a normal passenger car. And the drawing that we recommended was a porch at both locations at the door. You could come down steps. It would be the same elevation as the retaining wall and then go back up the steps to the second porch. So the objective, if the objective is to be able to have access to both doors that is attainable. It's not on a level deck, but it is a buildable situation. And I think three or four doors down, there's a house that has a small porch, so it would be in character with the neighborhood in a very similar fashion of a size porch. So it's buildable. The access is attainable, but the plans that we were given did not show a porch. Had we known that a porch was going to be constructed in the fashion that it is, we would not have recommended allowing a 6-foot setback. We would have recommended a 12-foot setback. Because to traffic engineering, you're encroaching upon the setback with what you've built. Oh, go ahead. The porch that you're proposing on the 7th Street side, is that the maximum length that traffic engineering feels comfortable with the applicant having? we were trying to allow room for steps to come down so that would be the five foot beyond the door would be the level part and then you would have traversing down with steps to an elevation level with the retaining wall wrap around the corner and then go back up steps at the front of the house to the platform at the front door so we were trying to allow enough setback mathematically sitting down with engineer calculator it worked out that the five feet was on the conservative side but i don't want to put 10 feet and then he builds it in a i've created another problem by not taking into account the elevation differences and steven i know When this came through before, I was a proponent of allowing the setback to be reduced. I think it appears to me from looking at the photos, both the applicant provided and what you provided, that while it's not a fence, after you factor in the retaining wall, the fill, the porch, the railing, we're looking at almost 10 feet at that corner, which a 10-foot fence would never be approved at this location. and this is from a view wise this is very similar to if we were they were asking to put like a 10 foot fence that's correct we look at we don't define what it is we just look at it as a visual obstruction and when we went out there building inspection contacted us and asked us for our opinion and it definitely impacts the view and the safety of any pedestrian or a vehicle sitting there. If a child was sitting, crossing the road and not in the appropriate location, they would be obstructed by the wall and everything. Let me ask you, if the railing was a little more, I mean the railing proposed, I'm not sure if I exactly saw what that was, but if that was, would that create, could that create a little bit more visual if it was say one of those wire railings you know something a little bit that very easily you can see through but what if there's a group of people staying on the porch which is what portraits are used for or for that matter landscaping pots I mean you can plant and trees and between, you know, behind the wall that could go up 20 feet. So let me ask Mr. King, is the desire from that 7th Street deck to get down to the area, I mean, do you want to be able to walk around the front? If you come in the front door, is there a need to get from the front door deck down around? Yes, because they don't have access to their house. They can't possibly access it. It's too dangerous. They just fall right off. It's on a mound. It's on a hill, as you can see. Yeah, but what's been proposed now is that you want a staircase off of that deck. No, not at the front. No, there's no staircase here, just a railing. Where I'm standing right there, there'd be no stairs, no access from 7th Street. It would be from... Right, that's what I mean. I mean, you're coming out of the side door of the house on 7th Street, so that's the front door. Yeah. And then you don't have any desire, though, to – it's almost like it's going to be a private patio almost. It's a patio or it's on the ground. I'm trying to – it's a flat surface. We have a retaining wall. We're up at my waist height, and I'm six feet tall. Right. As you know, I have police reports. We have break-ins. We have crime there. You don't want people to access from 7th Street. Obviously, it's not that safe. And I was not given any photos of the obstruction of you from engineering. Also, the plans that we submit never did not have a deck. I mean, everything I've submitted has a deck. So I'm confused as to why there's no email or communication. I'm just, if I could see the pictures that you took, if you'd be so kind. Oh, okay. So if you're turning, you can see pretty much all that house, if I had a railing there, like a guardrail. That wouldn't impede anything. I can see that house completely. I can see... I mean, the retaining wall was there. I reconstructed it, but it was always part of the original design of that neighborhood. There was a shotgun house there. I believe the retaining wall increased in height, though. No, sir. It was approximately... It decreased in height. It was at three feet. Ours is at 32 inches plus the cap block. I'll show up Google images. But that's fine. I'm just saying with the deck out there, you now have an obstruction that is approximately eight feet tall. How is it eight feet tall, sir? The railing would be three feet. There'd be a guardrail and a metal. In the photos that you have, there's a full-size Ford van sitting there. I don't have that photo, sir. I have this. This is what I was given. Oh, there's more photos. That's not even on the lot. That's on the next lot. That's at 673. Actually, it's like in the adjoining one that's the empty lot. I can see that gold car sitting there in front of it. So that's perfectly visible. I see one whole car. I'm not understanding what the obstruction, where it would take place. That van is not even on the property. That's in front of that, what's her name? Stella's house? any additional questions for the applicant from the board if you want to do a quick summary that'd be great a quick summary sure um the plans that we've submitted from the very beginning from what we've submitted on our end has had the deck in The ones that were approved have the deck on it, so we didn't go into this building a deck in addition. It was on our plans. It's been there from the beginning. And we're requesting that the, it's not even really much of a deck, it's more of a wraparound porch. It allows people to have, it's a tiny little yard, it's 20 feet wide, it's 100 feet long. They don't have very much. In terms of yard usage, and you know it would be nice to throw a little grill up there, be able to go out your back door, have a little area that you can access a little bit of yard yard in the middle of an urban environment and having that wrap around deck with the railing on it helps for safety otherwise you've got you know the land slopage. Putting steps in at that point actually to remove that dirt is questionable with the structural integrity of the foundation of the property if we're having to build stairs there since the foundation is already in. So our request is for the porch wrapping around please. Thank you. appreciate it and just to give you guys can sit but just give you guys some context we had a case uh sometime last year i believe in which somebody had built was it a six foot brick wall right there in chevy chase and we made them remove the offending feet so that's not something we take lightly but it does happen but ma'am i'm talking now and sir the pub i finished the public comments portion so i'm just putting this as just give you guys some context so um at this point i will uh if the board members have any more questions from anyone if not i will listen to a motion All right, so no one wants to move for this project, which I'm okay with. I guess I have a question. So the staff is approving the variances. Everything besides the... Correct. A staff is recommending approval of the variances, but with the site plan that traffic engineering provided. And the applicant, you should have received this in your package, I believe, but did you not? Have you seen this? If you'd like to take a look at this, this is what staff is recommending approval of. So you would still need a variance to do this, and we're recommending approval of a variance to do this without the wraparound portion to eliminate those issues with the site triangle. Because the variance is required to put any of the porches or decks. Correct. Okay. So, Mr. Queen, the question would be is would you be agreeable to that site plan with the three conditions that are set forth? Because it does not appear that there are votes for your plan as proposed. And I don't mean to interrupt. Can I ask just one more? Maybe to traffic over here. on the where we are recommending the five foot that was to have the stairs down if they're saying they don't want access to the seventh street side which i could see why you may not necessarily want another access would that give them some more footage square footage they can get on the deck if there is no steps down and no tree or some other kind of vertical obstruction going to be placed in that area I think we could increase up to like 10 feet is that the only this is outside traffic I'm gonna make the staff would that make only the front entrance on Martin Luther King the only entrance in and out of the house is that even code wise legal I believe so the the question I guess is whether or not are we talking about stairs down to the street or stairs down to the ground level to where the retaining wall is so that you could walk from that one porch to the other porch on on the ground or are we talking about stairs down to I don't think you want stairs that's not right about that and that's not what I was envisioning well let me ask you let me let me ask this mr. King are you are Are you even willing to entertain the two porch option? And if so, then we may want to just not postpone. What do we do when we kick it to next month? We may want to continue it to allow you and staff to discuss that option if you want the two porch option. But it appears to me that the one porch option is not going to work. The railing suggestion that Mr. Needon proposed, If we did a metal railing or something that had more visibility, maybe clear plastic, would that be a solution that would allow us to have that? I don't think you've got the votes for that today. I don't think you have the votes for that today. I don't think the one porch option is going to pass. So I can either push a vote or we can continue to next month, let you talk with staff. You can come up with something that makes both sides comfortable. Do you want to do it? I don't want to speak for everybody, but I would be willing to consider a more visible option. Okay. I would consider a more visual option. I think the two porch option extended another five feet without a stare down to just above the level of the dirt level, which I don't think would really be neat. That would be another option. I mean, I can see being approved here, if you could get another five-foot extension, I think that would be fine. But then have, you know, if you wanted to come back at that point, you're still going to have to take part of the corner off just to help with the visibility. But I would be opposed to the railing. But I can see it both ways. What if I grade down the dirt and pour cement all around the house like a porch? As long as there's no guardrail. But then the safety issue, people will fall off, off the retaining wall. That's... Right, and then I wouldn't be allowed to because... mr needham and miss carter here's my issue is that i asked for a motion and you both set silently so if we're going to have a motion let's have a motion if we're going to continue let's continue but in either case you know i don't like us negotiating here and at the board level this appears to me to be an applicant staff item and if they can come through and show something that you guys can live with and couple together majority i'm fine you know with that at that point but you know so if you guys have something you one or both of you are comfortable with I could take a recess and let you put your thoughts together and have a condition put together and we can have a vote I'm comfortable with that all we do is just move for a continuance second have a vote and it comes back next June I mean comes back this following June But I'm not sure if you're going to get traffic and staff to support a see-through fence. I mean railing. I don't know. I have a question. I'm a little unclear with back and forth. You are not planning steps down off that side porch. Not planning. So did I hear you say that if they didn't put steps in, they could extend that out another five feet? Yes, ma'am. It was explained to me by building inspection that the intent of the applicant was to access from one door to the other. So in taking that into consideration and drawing out the plan, we drew the five feet in anticipation of steps leading down to a concrete sidewalk that would turn the corner and then lead up in the front of the house coming up on the side to the front door. and so we were trying to follow the desires of the applicant and satisfy the applicant's desires for access to both doors and then satisfy the visual requirements of traffic engineering and not obstruct. So if he wanted to isolate and create a non-accessible deck to the side door, I think it could be extended to 10 feet. I don't think that would be a problem at all. I don't think that the structure that was built currently could extend past the front facade. The front facade of the house is fine, but it has to go up to the front corner of the house. It can't extend beyond, even with steel cabling and things. So I think what is drawn on the front of the proposal is accurate. Okay. Good. Thank you. That clarifies it. Now that I'm thinking about that, I thought this was supposed to be a house for disabled when you guys were here last time. At the back, and that's another issue. Are there two units? Yes, there will be another. No, it's a single house. There's a back portion as well. There's access at the back of the house. We can do a ramp because there's two patio doors at the back of the house. Okay, because we keep talking stairs. I'm like, how's a person potentially going to use stairs if they're... Exactly. So it's designed for, like, the postman to come up and put the mail in at the front, the wraparound porch so they can enjoy the outside. and there's two paddy doors at the very back of the house where they can do a lift and get into the house but I don't know at the expense now that I wish they would have communicated this with us I guess that's the way it goes I will say if you look at that site plan that is what was provided to traffic engineering So the outline of that building is all that I had to review. It did not have any porches or anything on it. So that drawing has not been altered. The only alteration that has been done is the extension of the two porches that I drew on there. So that was what was provided to the Division of Traffic Engineering in reviewing whether to move the encroachment from 12 feet to 6. At no time was a site plan shown to traffic engineering that showed a front porch extension on the front of that building. We see this all the time in new developments and everything. Encroachment across the building line, and we always consider what it is that is being built. Now, we don't much get into landscaping, but we do have the authority to, if it impacts a site triangle and creates a public hazard, we can require that landscaping to be removed, and we do sometimes. Thank you. All right, if you want to have a seat, anyone else have questions? No? Okay. Well, in that case, are we back to, should we consider our motion? Okay. I move that we approve PLNBOA 19-26, David King's request for variance to reduce the minimum required setback of a projection deck to one and a half feet in the side street side yard and two feet in the front yard within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 675 North Martin Luther King Boulevard, based on staff's recommendation of approval with the amended site plan removing the portion of the porch that wraps around the house. Subject to the three conditions, I would want to amend the first condition that extends the maximum of the left side porch to 10 feet instead of 5 feet of the door frame, but all other conditions would remain the same. I second the motion. Okay, so we have a motion on the table. I would like to quickly discuss with Ms. Carter, so is the intent for the 10-foot, which means there would be no stairs allowed on that? Yes. Okay. And now I have a question for the applicant. It looks like we've got a movement for the plans as provided by traffic engineering, but to allow an additional five feet on the 7th Street side. Is that something you're agreeable with? Can we take a few moments to discuss it? Yeah. We can take a couple of minutes to recess. All right, thanks. Okay, so we're back in session. I believe Ms. Carter and Ms. Whitman may want to make a slight modification to their motion that was first and seconded. and just clarification that we were saying that side porch was up to 10 feet so if you wanted to do some combination of the porch and the steps you know you still could on the five and the steps but together they would extend 10 feet i think the tension from talking to traffic engineering during hearing was 10 feet essentially porch and then five feet of steps is what you would need is that correct the original the plan that you have now was five feet to allow for room for the steps because we weren't sure how far out it would go okay so if it's ten feet it would be ten foot total so it would be at the porch plus steps whatever they do however they fit that within that's correct okay wait a second ma'am just wait one second here and so miss Whitman are you fine with the motion is amended okay so we have a first and a second now back up to the applicant are you agreeable to the side porch being up to 10 feet yes okay thank you that's all we needed okay so um oh wait sorry one last thing I apologize guys, you can't come up one, ma'am, come back up real quickly. The staff has recommended those three conditions. Those three conditions have now been slightly modified to allow the 10-foot. You guys are agreeable to abide by those three conditions. Correct. Just need that for the record. Thank you. Okay, so we have first and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll call it to a vote. motion carries go up to your project thank you this brings us up to the last case to be heard today um in my recollections we mark this to be heard because we do have some letters um autumn is that correct we do not have any letters for this one um the applicant to discuss has requested a change to one of the conditions and they've amended their site plan we'd like to show that on the screen and once again sir if you could state your name for the record I know you could entered it earlier but that way we have it put together I'm Adam vendor from cmw and then just to summarize prior you had you do have the authority for the owner to come before us today and that you just wanted to discuss potentially one of the conditional conditions which i think was number three yes sir but you're okay with one two and four that's correct all right thank you all right so the original plan that we had submitted had 19 spaces in the front and encroached as close as i believe 15 feet to the nicholasville right-of-way the staff explained that they had an issue with us taking up all that green space in the front along nicholasville road and that it changed the character of the general vicinity and so in the interest of compromise we submitted a new plan uh we are we'll we've we've lessened the spaces to 16 we are trying to expand on the sides and toward the building as much as possible and so what we're asking for here is rather than the setback of the existing parking area shall be maintained we're requesting that we have a 28 foot front yard parking setback be maintained so some of the challenges that we're dealing with with trying to put parking in the back rather than the front is that at this time that area is fenced in and it's being used to walk dogs and so it's usable open space that we don't want to remove from the owner it would have a large impact on the way that he does business there's also a very tall hill that we would have to deal with somewhere around 8 to 10 feet tall the building addition the 700 square foot building addition has been sized to fit the flat space that's back there before the hill begins so there will be minimal grading but having to put five six seven parking spaces in the back would mean an enormous amount of earthwork and there's also a very large four foot diameter tree back there that we want to protect. So we want to keep creating operations in the back as limited as possible. So we are looking at maintaining at least 28 feet minimum of green space. There is a tree out front that we are going to protect and you can kind of see this is a fairly skinny lot and so a lot of times people driving up and down Nicholasville Road don't even notice that this is there. So I don't think that this is going to have any kind of nuisance. I think that this is going to fit within the general vicinity. And after speaking with the staff, I believe everyone is on board with what we're suggesting at this moment. Apart from there's one parking space, the traffic engineering didn't really like the geometry of it. And so we are agreeable to removing that space. Thank you. And staff, are you comfortable with the proposed site plan and then possibly, I guess, looks like a new condition is being added? Correct. The parking spot that the potential issue is with was shown on the previous drawing. That parking space that is closest to Nicholasville Road, there was sort of an odd angle drive there to that parking space. Traffic engineering had expressed concerns with that space, and I believe that the applicant is okay with removal of that. So with that, we are agreeable. The condition change here would be to condition number three with the highlighted sentence being removed and replaced with the handwritten portion there at the bottom. So it would read that the final configuration of the parking lot, including any changes to the existing parking layout, should be subject to the approval of the Division of Traffic Engineering and a front yard setback of 28 feet shall be maintained for the parking lot. In the applicant, you're agreeable to the modified change? Yes, sir. And you're agreeable to delete, omit that one parking space? I am. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. Thanks. Any questions for staff or for the applicant? All right. We're hearing none. I will entertain a motion. I move we approve PLNBOA 19-30 Schlick and DeBoer LLC's request for conditional use permit to expand an existing animal hospital and a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet in order to construct a new addition in the agricultural urban AU zone at 4570 Nicholasville Road. Based on staff's recommendations of the conditional use with the amended parking arrangement and then staff's recommendations of the approval of the variance and subject to the five conditions outlined by staff at the hearing, and number five was added at the hearing. It's just four conditions with that sentence being tacked on to three. I think you could bring it up. I misunderstood that, too. Yeah. Okay. So it's essentially a modified. Correct. condition number three would be modified to remove the second sentence and insert the i think it's clear enough on the record that that's the intent and it'll show it up we're confused we thought that was a new condition i think it could kind of go either way okay subject to the four conditions outlined by staff is there is there a second second Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I will put it to a vote. Okay, the application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. That draws to a conclusion, our hearings for the day. At this point, are there any items that any board members want to bring to our attention? Any items that staff want to bring to our attention? Our next meeting date is set for June 10, 2019, at 1.30 p.m. Since there's no further business, I will adjourn. Thank you.