 Are we ready? Good. Ready? Welcome, everyone, to the February 12, 2019 City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. I'm Chuck Sallie, and I serve as chair of the board. And this time, I'd like to introduce the other members of the board to my far left, Josh Speed. Next to Josh, Reggie McKnight. Then to my immediate left is Gene Deacons. And then to my immediate right is Marcellus Primus. And then the right of Marcellus is Jenna Stevens. I'd like to also introduce the staff that assists with the board, Rachel Bailey, the zoning administrator, Hope Hasty, deputy zoning administrator, and also Andrea Wolfe, the land use board coordinator. This board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded. For the record, anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony will be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name, and please speak clearly into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the board or staff regarding the case. Any member of the public may address the board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if a spokesperson for the established body of three or more people. The applicant then has five minutes for a buttle, and the board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case-by-case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn in. And if you are an applicant or, excuse me, yeah, phone call, if you're an applicant and you're here to speak on any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Sam, are you going to speak? Do you affirm or attest that the testimony that you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this time, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Bailey. Good morning. The board uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion in vote. If a member of the board or the general public wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed and considered during the meeting. The board then approves the remaining items. The first item on the consent agenda is the approval of the January 8, 2019 minutes. Item number two, case 2019-0001 for 201 South Assembly Street. This is a special exception to permit a locksmith shop. Item number three, case 2019-0003, 7539 Garner's Ferry Road. This is a special exception to establish a pawn shop. And item number four, case 2019-0004, 1604 Adger Road, a variance to the side yard setback requirement for an addition to a single family residence. If anyone wishes to have an item removed, please let us know now. Just to be clear, we are about to vote on these three properties. If you are here and you want those removed from the consent agenda, raise your hand now. I see none. I'll accept a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda subject to all staff comments. I second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item on the regular agenda is case number six. This is 2018-0123 for 1525 Westminster Drive. It is a variance to the fence height requirements. If the applicant is here, they can come forward. Good morning, sirs and madam of the board. I'm Ray Holberger. I live at 1525 Westminster Drive. Now I'm requesting a variance to the fence height ordinance to allow me to complete the construction of a privacy fence along Forest Drive. My understanding of the variance is that my secondary frontage along Forest Drive would only allow the construction of a six foot high fence and the side frontage for the 20 feet from Westminster Drive West would only allow a four foot high fence. And as you can see, I've got grade changes along Forest Drive, which if I were to follow the grade with a six foot high fence, would create a really jagged appearance with parts of the fence being two planks lower than other parts of it and in order to maintain a level top of the fence, I would need especially this portion that you can see right here to be somewhere between seven and a half and perhaps eight and a half feet high for it to maintain a level grade along the top of the fence all the way to Westminster Drive where the grade comes up and would allow for a total height of about five and a half feet where it meets Westminster Drive. I've had pretty extensive correspondence with my neighbors who've raised some issues regarding the appearance and the landscaping of the Forest Drive frontage and I've done my best to modify their concerns by requesting conditions that the posts be painted the same color as the rest of the fence, any of those overhanging planks that you see there be cut flush and vertical and that the Forest Drive frontage be well maintained and landscaped with evergreen plants and I further commit to installing terraced evergreen vines that'll flower up and down the fence so within a short number of years it shouldn't be visible from the Forest Drive side due to all the landscaping. Yeah, that's the thumbnail sketch of what I have proposed. Be happy to see the floor. Any questions? So what we're looking at now, this photo, you've got an existing fence. That's the fence that I'm partially, that I have partially constructed that I require the variance in order to... See the permit to do the six feet in the secondary front and the four feet in the front but he's requesting the variance to go above what that was. Along the entirety of the fence link, but changes, through the sloping ground there. So the new proposed fence, what is, with respect to the existing portion of the fence we're looking at, how much taller than that or is that essentially the height? The top of the fence would be the maximum height of the, the top of the post would be the maximum height of the fence. The top of that post that you're looking at. On the right side in the two panels. Correct. And that's up towards eight feet there. Although I'd be willing to consider cutting off the top of the post and staggering it down to match the other side. Which is also a bit above six feet. So what you're looking at there will require her variance or I'll have to take off the top one. You did not submit a landscape plan with your application? No, I didn't submit a landscape plan because it's, my intentions are subject to the availability of specific plans and also subject to change based on how well they take. Would you, would you just for the board one more time just go over the proposed landscaping between the road and fence? You can see that I've removed most of the laurel terry stumps that were preexisting there. Some considerable effort in a lot of aggressive vines and I've laid down some pine straw mulching. On top of that I will be putting a evergreen clematis on evergreen hydrangea should they take. And I'm thinking some red cedar trees at regular intervals as well as some broadleaf evergreens in between. But the back of the fence will be subsumed by evergreen flowering vines that I will control. So also in this frontal view you can see that some of the planks overhang the post there. I'll be cutting all of those flush and then painting the, painting the posts. As soon as the pressure treatment dries it'll probably be another month or two. But certainly. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else here to speak for or against this application? Would you please come forward? Just one at a time. My name is Charles Brooks. I'm the president of the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. It's 165 families. We have a very outspoken and active membership and many of our members exhibit a great deal of interest not only in the homes and gardens of Forest Hills but in the city as a whole. Regarding the fence variance for 1525 Westminster we invited 24 members of our leadership committee to comment initially on the fence variance. Then concerns were distributed to the general membership for comment. Overall there was opposition to the fence to one extent or another. There was one person who retracted their letter indicating opposition. We've met with Mr. Holberger on several occasions to discuss the fence and we proposed several provisions that we feel would be necessary for us to not oppose this variance request. We accept the homeowner's desire to build the wall to nine feet as requested with the caveat that he agrees to leveling the top boards. We require a new gate on Forest Drive that is of the same height and material as the remainder of the fence. And finally we do not accept his request to build a fence at nine feet beyond the allowed 25 foot setback. He is by zoning law allowed to build a four foot fence from the 25 foot setback to within four feet of the property line on Westminster Drive. We applaud Mr. Holberger's commitment to landscape and maintain the outside of the wall along Forest Drive and I personally regret any difficulties that have occurred as a result of this discussion. But this is part of the process when a homeowner builds a large structure that is very visible to the entire neighborhood on a daily basis. Thank you. Mr. Brooks. So explain to me just so I've got it clear about we're okay with a nine foot fence along Forest Drive. Is that what you're saying all the way down? So where is the 25 foot setback that you're talking about? Well, there's a 25 foot setback at the corner of Westminster and Forest Drive, I believe. So from Westminster. I think Mr. Holberger wants to build all the way to the corner at nine feet. And I believe zoning would not allow that. Is that not correct? Correct. The secondary setback runs along Forest until it meets the front setback which is the 25 feet from Westminster back. So that's where the 25 comes in. And under the ordinance, it would be four feet in the front setback, six feet in the secondary. On this map, the 25 feet is along the bottom. As it comes towards the bottom line there. So we're talking about the 25 foot setback from Westminster Drive. So if we want it to be even all the way across Forest Drive, then we're gonna go from nine feet to four feet. Before we get to the Westminster, what's the thinking about that? Right, well, as a neighborhood association, we do not want it to be nine feet all the way to the corner of Westminster and Forest Drive. And that's, is it a blocking visibility coming out of Westminster or is it aesthetics or is it safety that you're concerned about? I think it's a combination of those things. Looking left on Forest Drive to see oncoming traffic and aesthetics as well, because you've got a concrete wall there and you have what will be a nine foot fence as well. So you've probably got 18 feet there that the wall will be sticking up above the sidewalk and the street. And it just seems like a lot of wall. It may even be a safety issue. But we don't oppose his making it nine feet otherwise, all the way to the back of his property line. And so, and then you want a gate, what you're saying is you want the gate also to be the same height, I mean, same material? Well, some homeowners, some of the neighborhood members felt that it was just a big drop between the two. Well, I can see why. I mean, the gate is at the bottom of the gates, four feet below the grave where the fence is. It would make for a very tall gate, I admit that. I have to address that. With the gate, the applicant would have to amend his application for a taller gate as the grade is lower. That would be a very tall gate. So it would have to be addressed through an amendment as well. You mean if the applicant were to amend the height of his gate, you'd have to amend the application? Or if you all were going to make that a condition or if the applicant wanted to do that, it would have to be an amendment. Understood. Any questions from the board? Thank you, sir. Is anyone else here to speak? My name is Sam Clark. I guess I'm the old man in the neighborhood. Dr. Brooks has presented a position of the neighborhood as a whole. I represent a lifelong member of the neighborhood. Forest Hills was founded in 1926 and has tried to maintain the quality of an in-town residential neighborhood. Ever since then, with trees and homes only, you're our best with the streets, which are like many city streets, but I think like you and we do thank you for your service on this board because you protect the city in many ways that people don't realize. We're trying to protect our neighborhood by opposing the fence, if you may call it that, that's proposed on Forest Drive. We are trying to protect the quality and property values, quality of life in our neighborhood. I have, being the old man in the neighborhood, I have fielded many comments from neighbors, friends, family, and there's uniform opposition to a fence going up on Forest Drive, which is unsightly, cheap. And so we'd like to make the best of this weekend for the compromises Dr. Brooks has proposed. Thank you for your testimony. Is anyone else would like to speak? Hillary McDonald. I've lived in this, I was told to name the book for more than 20 years now. And like Mr. Holberger, I live on busy Forest Drive. My house is on the corner of Forest Drive in Wellington. So over the years, I have been working very hard to create a barrier alongside my property. Traffic, as you probably know, is very, very heavy on Forest Drive. And it seems to all of a sudden just shot up. And I'm thinking that when the Cardinal Newman property is developed, it will be even worse. So I am complete accord with Mr. Holberger's wanting to create both a barrier and a security for his children and his family. My interest is in beautification. I am a master gardener. I'm the former president of Columbia Green. My volunteer efforts over the years have all been directed towards beautification. So that's what I'm here to talk about today a little bit. We are very proud of the character of our neighborhood. We have lovely natural beauty with hills and mature oaks and pines and hickory trees. And we wanna keep it that way. We're really very proud of it. It's one of Columbia's special neighborhoods. That's of course a prejudice opinion. Last year we had the Columbia Green Garden Tour in our neighborhood. It seems to be a favorite place for people to come and see beautiful gardens and beautiful homes in natural settings. More than 300 people came on that garden tour last year. We want to maintain the character and the integrity of our neighborhood. And that's our reasons for objecting to this fence. We do not deny Mr. Holberger's concerns about wanting to create a fence on his property. We do want it to reflect the character and it's a very special standing of our neighborhood. That's what we're trying to find a compromise for to allow him to have the fence he wants but also to reflect the beauty and special nature of our neighborhood. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your testimony. Oh, one last thing. Since I am a master gardener we actually have several master gardeners in our neighborhood. My garden was on tour several years ago. I have offered and will reiterate my offer to help the Holberger family with any landscaping. So I'm available to be a consultant or a mentor should he so desire. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? So I'm Mary McCants and I'm a neighbor and I'm also the historian for the National Register nomination. It was written for the neighborhood and took us seven years to write with a lot of volunteer involvement and also a grant from the city of Columbia for which we were very grateful. So the neighborhood was listed in 2007 and I was asked by the Neighborhood Association to just give you a little bit of historical context. And I have with me some images that were used to support our National Register nomination. You may have even read the nomination or I hope the city has made you aware that this is a National Register historic district. As you know, National Register designation does not carry with it any real protections from individual actions. It does provide protections from federal undertakings or those things requiring a federal permit. So we are here as a neighborhood to let you know just as a reminder that we have a National Register historic district that we are trying to maintain the character of two things. One, when a neighborhood is listed in the National Register, it is listed under four criteria and two that I would like to bring to your attention are the criterion of setting and materials. And those two things were important in the listing of Forest Hills as a National Register historic district. And so I would just call your attention to what has been proposed by Mr. Olberger and to take into account that this is a National Register historic district and that the issues of setting, original setting and original materials are an issue for the National Register nomination. So I did want to show you, we are about seven years away from the 100th birthday of the neighborhood, the day in which it was, or the year in which it was founded and designed. And this was before the neighborhood was designed one of two original entrances. This entrance was off the Camden Highway. So I wanted to call your attention to the fact that the corner of Westminster and Forest Drive was once the only entrance to the neighborhood and is the original entrance. Yeah, I'm afraid your time's up. All right. Sorry about that. No, no problem. I do have these maps. I would like to see those if you don't mind. Would you mind just showing us the pictures real quick so we can see what you're talking about there? Thank you. So before the neighborhood was designed, it was the home of Benjamin Abney and the entrance to the Abney home, which dates to 1903, was the corner upon which Mr. Olburger's property sits Westminster and Forest Drive, which was then the Old Camden Highway. And so this plaque shows that entrance and that entrance was used as one of the, now two primary entrances to the older part of the historic district. And then this shows you the Forest Hill's layout as it was originally planned in 1925. If you go down so we can just... Is there anybody else? Good morning. My name is Barbara Racks. I am the opposite side of the street. This is 1525. We own the home at 1524. Therefore, we are the other gateway at this corner. We came before this committee maybe five years ago to request a variance. We proposed a wall that is at some points 15 feet. We however approached it by having an engineer help us construct our plans. We got the input of many of our neighbors who submitted letters in support of it because two reasons. One that I will address a little bit more is that we were worried about the safety of our small children. There were one and two when we moved there. The other is that at the opposite end, the far back end of our property, the existing wall of Forest Hill's court rose to 15 feet. So because of the topography of our property, we were six feet at one end and to level it, we had to go to 15 feet at the other end. The input from the neighbors, we invited them to come and see our plans. They were very approving of it. Some of you may have seen the stone wall across from the CVS on Forest Drive as roses planted along it. It's a very attractive gateway that sort of matches kind of, Sam's is nicer, but Sam Clark's on the Westminster at Trevay Street side and Hillary McDonald's another block up at Wellington. When we were building ours, I wanted to make that contrast with you because there was not input that was requested from the neighborhood and I understand that cost is a factor, but we have a very helpful neighborhood, many of whom have chainsaws and hammers and access to funds and materials that might have helped had they known that there was a need for them. But the protection of our children was very important. So when we built our wall, we added a perpendicular section that goes from the front wall along Forest Drive up to our home. It blocks off the entire backyard so that our children are safe. In this case across the street, although safety is an expressed concern, no similar barrier is in place so the children can run straight out onto Westminster Drive. Perhaps it's less likely than them going out onto Forest Drive, but I think that touches on the need for the safety of the family. Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you ma'am. Any questions? Thanks Barbara. Barbara, wait, I don't know what to ask you. Tell me where you send your wall to. At about, so our maybe 40 feet from the Westminster line, our wall goes to the setback. But we have, we have a... Sorry, you have the same 25 foot setback over the Westminster? I think our setback is about 25 feet. Whether it's 25 or 20 feet, I don't recall what was exactly in our variance, but it is setback. But about midway through that, we have a stone wall of the same material that runs perpendicular to the Forest Drive wall in order to barricade off the entire backyard so that our children are safe when they're playing outside, rather than being able to run into the street. Does that make sense? Perpendicular up to the house with a locked gate. So in summary, you are in agreement with the applicant's request with the proposed modifications from the Neighborhood Association? I'm, yes, yes. And I think the gate is very important. I understand that zoning has... Taste and appearance are not necessarily included in zoning, but I do think that the consistency of the gateway to the neighborhood is a very important part of the property values. No, my home is for sale. I've lived there for 22 years. I love the home, but I don't have any kids left it there. Don't need four bedrooms and four baths. I have had every person who's come through that home looking at it remark on the fence across the street and wondering if that's going to reduce the value of their property if they buy the house. So kind of hard making two mortgage payments for a very long time. So I agree with the Neighborhood Association that it's very important that for all of the neighbors that we maintain some architectural integrity in order to maintain the property values of an older neighborhood. So I am Eric Powers. I live at 2615 Stratford Road, which is five doors up from the Holesburgers. I concur with the prior statements, particularly the qualifications suggested by Dr. Brooks. Over the last 10 years, I've been concerned with kind of gradual changes in the architectural character of the neighborhood. And I consider this fence to be a change in character. Unfortunately, we don't have any protections other than what zoning allows. So I'd ask that you do what you can to help us protect character that we have in the neighborhood. And again, I concur with what Dr. Brooks suggested. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would the applicant please approach? Rachel, could you get the application, a copy of the application for him to look at real quick? So I want to establish through the variants in your words, kind of where we are. And there are six criteria for the variants that would like to go over with you. And the application had asked you to describe the extraordinary exceptional conditions, such as your size, topography, et cetera, in the property. It necessitates the nine-foot fence. Mr. Sallie, if I may just correct the record, I'm not looking to construct the fence to a total of nine feet along the total length. It would be a maximum of nine feet where it meets the gate and then as the slope comes up, pretty precipitously, it requires a seven to seven and a half foot fence along the larger part of the length, tapering down to a five and a half foot length where it meets forest drive. So it's a maximum nine-foot-high fence for a short section where it meets the gate. The majority of it is seven to seven and a half. And where it meets Westminster, the ground comes up to a point where it would be where it joins Westminster. So you can see the top of the post there is at about eight foot high. If the plank were a little higher, it might approach nine foot, but that's the only section that's actually close to nine feet. The remainder of them are seven to seven and a half feet. Down to five and a half feet where it meets Westminster because of the grade change. So the majority of the variance is to allow for it to be constructed to seven and a half feet, seven to seven and a half feet along. It's the majority of its length instead of the six feet that's allowed. And explain to me again why the height is varying. Because you can see the ground dips there as it gets towards the gate. And in order for the top of the fence to be even, that portion would need to be seven and a half to eight foot high, where the majority of it is seven to seven and a half feet as the ground comes up going east. And then where it hits Westminster, the ground comes up some more and it would only be five to five and a half feet. Not only that, it's pretty overgrown in that corner. So I'd be putting it in between an olive and a cherry tree. So the corner isn't really visible along Westminster. Okay. So to address your points, the exceptional conditions are that there's a downward slope from my house there. And the Highway 12 Forest Drive is a really visible presence in my backyard and in the main entrance to my house. As Ms. Rex noted, other houses right across the street and down Forest Drive have similarly high albeit textured cement fences, which unfortunately our means don't allow us to consider. I locally sourced cypress wood for its durability and for the traditional aspects of it and then stained it white with 25 year stain. So it ought to be very durable through the future for years, even if it were to be covered in evergreen vines. And we've already discussed the way that the ordinance would prohibit its construction. I think that the prior property owners had neglected the entirety of the lot and especially the frontage and it was overgrown with laurel cherry and different aggressive species, which I've ripped out by hand and done a lot of work to try to maintain better, more beautiful conditions in harmony with the neighborhood's idea and sense of aesthetic. So the nine foot high maximum and I don't think that I'll quite hit it, it will be required to maintain a level top of the fence. If I were only allowed a six foot top of the fence, the effect would be one of like a set of broken teeth, kind of one section jutting up and one section jutting down because I was constricted based on height. And my intention with this fence and I know that it's not shared by many of the speakers here is to improve the neighborhood and to create a safer environment for my kids to grow up and I don't want to cut myself off from Westminster Drive. I like to have access and a view of it from my front yard, but at the same time, this having this retaining wall next to a highway that my kids could just run down is an unacceptable safety hazard for a two year old. And I feel that Westminster Drive does not pose as much of a threat to them. In regards to comments about the gate, the gate serves a critical safety purpose as well as you can see it in my secondary driveway there slopes right down to it. And ideally I'd like to construct a mechanism to it that would allow it to be mechanically open. And if I were to construct this, what 13 foot tall wood gate, I don't think that that would be feasible or I'm very attractive either, but I would be willing to paint it white in order to make it more consistent with the aesthetic of the rest of the fence. And if need be, I would plank it up to the, it's roughly four and a half feet tall there. So I could put white cypress cross sections on it if that would be acceptable. Although that would take a bit of experimentation. I've built this all myself because I don't know whether any of you live in 100 year old houses but they have so many $10,000 problems and this is just the most pressing one of them. So yeah, this is- I guess the conditions, you're from a topography standpoint, of course you're right on a five lane road that's understandable, I'll see what you need that there. And then number three is describe the ways in which the application requires is only in order to effectively prohibit the unreasonably restricted utilization of the subject property mentioned that you're worried about the safety of your children there and being able because of the busy street, I think that's appropriate. And then describe the ways in which granting the variance will not be substantially detriment to the adjacent property or to the public good additionally in what ways will the grantee of the variance not harm the character of the district? I commit to plant traditional plants that are found throughout the neighborhood with a focus on evergreens that flower at different times, up and down the entirety of the frontage and also putting evergreen vines that will completely block the view of the fence a few years in the future. So any of these aesthetic concerns will be moved at that point? So it's very difficult not being able to get any drawings or anything to really see what your plan is gonna be once this is complete as far as the fence and the height but the testimony from your neighbors today indicated that they would support the taller fence if it was the same height all the way there instead of going up and down like that. That is very much my intention as well. Okay, so you're in agreement then to make the same top of the fence the same height all the way through on Forest Drive. Correct. And I'll replace the tough boards where they're not level. Right. And since we're talking about that effect on the neighborhood, et cetera there was also concerns just about the height of the fence within the setback on Westminster as a condition of approval of this variance would you be willing to reduce the height on that within the 25 foot setback of Westminster? That would be acceptable although it would make the top of the fence uneven for that section. It would be a foot and a half drop but it's definitely an acceptable condition. And then you've also mentioned that your intent to and are willing to landscape the area between the fence and the retaining wall along Forest Drive. Absolutely. And I think that that'll lead to a tangible improvement in the character of the neighborhood as the landscaping develops. And I think you've discussed and made your point about how the height is the minimum necessary because of the topography of your existing house and where it sits as far as the view into the Forest Drive and how its proposal and harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood and otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We've talked about I think those issues are the same issues that we discussed in four above. That you're willing to make some concessions if you will that will create a more pleasing structure in its completion. I guess I've stated that at length in correspondence over the last month and a half. Any questions from the board? Would anybody else in the audit flat to redress anything since we at this point we're getting ready to make a vote. If you wanna come back up, I'm happy to hear one more item from anyone if you're ready. The only thing we've left out is the gate. Did you mention the gate? Yeah, so I have a hard time understanding how big giant white gate is the same height as that gate that I'm looking at there that fence that would open up off the Forest Drive is better than aesthetically more pleasing than the wrought iron black gate that's there now. Explain to me why that would be better. It sounds like it would to me, it would be awful looking. Well, I'm afraid I have to agree personally with what you're saying, but there are some members of the association who believe it would look better straight all the way across. I'm not sure that, and I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that a gate that tall made out of wood would be functional. Perhaps if the sharp corners there were scalloped to make them just slightly lower and more part of the gate. I think something could be done aesthetically to make the gate. The base of the gate is almost three feet below the base of the wall and it's on a driveway that's had about a 7% slope going up. So I mean, how do you, I mean there's just, it's not practical to do that without, unless you wanna make a gate that has a big gap on the bottom of it, which means the whole purpose of the wall, the security of his children playing in this yard, you're gonna allow it to go out. My personal belief is that the existing gate is fine. He did mention that he's willing to, try to make some improvements to the gate to make it more aesthetically pleasing, but I just do not follow the idea of a big solid giant white wall that would actually be, talk about a broken tooth, that is a broken tooth, look, go in there. I just don't see it. To make it the same height as the wall. I see the difficulty. Clarify, Rachel, is that even on the table? Did you say there had to be an amendment to consider that? The gate was part of the original permit, and so that's when he installed it, but the variance request in the application was not applying to the gate, so if it was going to be made taller than it can be per code, then it would have to be an amendment to be able to be addressed. Could the corners of the wall be scalloped just a little bit so that it, it doesn't look like such a sharp break in the white wall? That's really the only thing I can see that would improve the appearance of. How about if we just, as a stipulation, that agree that you all will discuss with the Humor Association some plans for the gate? Hang on, hang on, don't talk from the floor. Hang on, if you wanna come up, then I'll be glad to let you come up. Well, so it would be just a matter of discussions between the Homeowners Association and the Neighborhood Association and the owner. Right. I'm not sure how that would work, but we're an agreeable bunch, and we're trying to work this out, and so if that's stipulated in the agreement. Well, he's already made a concession that he's willing to do some things to the gate that'll make it more pleasing, and I think that willing to work with the Humor Association to do that, I just, I'm not gonna try to stipulate something that's gonna be impractical. So I kind of don't know how we write that into a motion. I think we need to agree that either a problem with the gate or there's not. I personally agree with you. I'm not sure how we, and Dr. Brooks said it also, I'm not sure how we put up some 13 foot gate and make it up here to a solid wall that you can't see through how that's an improvement. So I think as a board, we might be better off to craft some sort of emotion to prove or deny and just leave out the gate. You know, we've bettered it out, but if we leave it to them to go back and discuss it, what's the point? They can discuss it anyway. Right, I'm with you on that. I think we have one other person who would like to approach the bench, or two others. Maybe I speak to the safety of the gate. I live on, I told you already, Forest Drive in Wellington. I have created a barrier, very thick as I can get it, of shrubs. And I want you to know that the city of Columbia hounds me if I do not keep that pruned back for visibility. So there is an issue of people making left turns from my street onto Forest Drive and being able to squeeze their car out, edge their car out a little bit so they can see oncoming traffic. It is a safety issue. I would argue that this is a safety issue as well, that sitting in a car is gonna put somebody's eyes down, maybe just about gonna go level with that wall. I don't think they're really gonna wanna use that access point to either come out of their property or go in the property. One, because of the volume of the traffic, and two, because of visibility. I think the whole thing is a problem. If I lived there, I would just close it off. He does have access from Westminster. And when we were there chatting with him, in fact, that is the way his wife came into the property. Well, it is a private driveway, so it's not like it's a public property with people coming in and out. But if he can't see, then it's a city issue because it's a safety issue. Well, I mean, clearly there's a, the gate is set back and if you increase the size of it, it would only exacerbate the problem as opposed to helping. It doesn't change the visibility issue, I agree with you. We're not gonna go there about shutting off, making a stipulation about shutting off a driveway. So that's just off the table. Okay, that's fine. But on the other point I wanted to make was, our original objections included the color of the fence. We all object to it being a white fence. It's really quite garish in our point of view. So we already gave that up as a negotiating point. I just wanted you to know we are trying to be very accommodating and come to a compromise agreement with the homeowner. Understood, thank you. Very short, I just wanted to make sure it was on the record. We did negotiate about the color and I think one of the things that might make that gate more attractive would be if the fence adjacent to it were the same or a similar color so that it didn't stand out as much, no matter how tall or how short it was. And Mr. Hoseburger was very amenable when in our discussions to painting that. So I think that might be a good compromise that we could come to where we aren't getting into whether he builds the gate bigger or whatever the materials are, that it become much more a part of the appearance of the fence. Understood. Mr. Rushberg, would you approach one more time? Would you agree to paint the gate the same color as the fence? As previously stated, I would be amenable to painting the gate the same color as the fence. Thank you, sir. You wanna come back up? When we talked about it, Mr. Hoseburger agreed that he would do a dark color of the fence on the outside. He likes the white from the inside, but from the gateway to the neighborhood, I'm sorry, I hadn't heard the white gate idea. I think it's black, it's black now. If the fence itself is a dark color so that it blends with the ground cover and the foundation wall, that it will be much more attractive as a gateway to the neighborhood as opposed to reversing the gate color. Excuse me. Some like chocolate and some like vanilla, I guess. Okay, so here's where we are on this. And I guess I'm gonna make a motion. I'm gonna make a motion that we approve this request with the stipulation that the wall be even all the way across that except for the 25 foot setback between Westminster, the wall goes back to a four foot wall in that, within that setback and that the applicant agrees to landscape the areas between the retaining wall and the wall facing Forest Drive. Oh, excuse me, that's Surveys Street at that point, yeah. And that the applicant agrees to make the gate and the wall the same color or agrees, yeah, I think that's all. A second. Here a second. I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, the final item on the agenda today is item number seven. Case 2019-0002 for 2807 Atlas Road. It's a special exception to permit one, a gasoline service station and two, a convenience store. The reason that this was placed on the regular agenda is just because it's gonna require two motions as it's two special exceptions that we combined under one case number. The applicants, welcome to come forward to address any questions. First of all, thanks for everybody's time. Very much appreciated. My name is Paul Lawler. I'm with Bowman Consulting Group. We're a civil engineering firm and we are working with Circle K on this project. Can you get a little closer to the mic, please? We're working with Circle K on this project and there are a couple of representatives from Circle K here. If you have any business or operational questions in regards to this special exception. A little background on the project. We're working with Circle K on this project and there are a couple of representatives from Circle K here. If you have any business or operational questions a little background on the project. Circle K does own and operate this existing gas station on this parcel and they are looking to redevelop the site. There is an existing canopy with an under canopy store and then next to that there is a diesel canopy. Other proposed improvements include a separate automobile canopy out front with an A 43, sorry 4,351 square foot building and then behind that there is a diesel canopy with a couple diesel pumps. As far as the access goes the access improvements for the site. Closing one access on left road and keeping the access furthers on the intersection and as part of that we are redesigning and reconstructing that access. It will be a more radial design to allow trucks to enter and exit the site there. And then on Atlas Road there will be one access which there is currently one and that access is going to be further from the intersection which allows a safer turn in and out of the site. Other improvements for the site there is a storm water pond to detain some increased impervious volume from the project and there are also utility improvements associated with the project. Backing up a little bit as part of this this was originally un-corporated Richland County and when this project was discussed there was mention of annexing into the city because of the utilities and we have gone through that process and City Council approved this month to annex the site. So now we are here trying to get this special exception for the gas station and convenience store use. Any questions about this and should I run through the special exception criteria? Yes, please. All right, so item number one describing which ways a proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact of vehicular traffic or vehicular pedestrian safety. Now adequate provisions are made and proposed exception for parking for loading and unloading. So here we are not changing the use we're still going to be a gas station and convenience store use we're not adding any other uses. There should not be any increase in traffic because there are both automobile fueling stations and diesel fueling stations. We've moved the diesel canopy back behind the store which kind of separates the two trucks and regular vehicles making it safer for everyone including pedestrians. We've added a striped crosswalk going to the Atlas Road sidewalk from the building so allowing better pedestrian safety. Item number two describing what ways a proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environmental factors. Here again we're not changing the use and we're just proposing the same exact use on this site. As part of the improvements we are meeting buffer requirements around the site and there will be some site lighting on site with the upgraded fixtures and poles that will be shining directly on site. Item number three describing what ways a proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on a static character of the area. So the orientation of the building it's going to remain the same it's facing bluff road and the elevations which were included in the package it's an upgraded elevation from what's out there right now it's a very old store out there now and it's okay we'll be putting in their new format a much better looking building. Number four describe the ways in which a proposed special exception will not have adverse impact on the public safety or create nuisance conditions detrimental to the public interest or conditions likely to result in increased law enforcement response. So again here we're not changing the use so there should not be any increase in nuisance conditions it's the improvements to the site in my opinion will make it a lot safer on the site lighting around and the access in and out of the site. Number five explain how the establishment of proposed special exception does not create concentration or proliferation of the same or similar types of special exception use. So here we're just replacing this site with a sea store and gas station this isn't going on across the street or on the opposite corner and then the closest gas station is over a mile down bluff road as you go back to the interstate. Number six explain how the proposed special exception is consistent with the character and intent of the underlying district as indicated in the zoning district zoning district description so this was zoned GC for Richland County and as it was annexed into the city it's C3 we're not changing anything here so it's in line with all city zoning requirements and the gas station and convenience store use special exception in the C3 district which is why we're here. Number seven describe how the proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with permitted uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the property the property is staying the same and it's consistent with what's around the property. And then finally number eight explain in what ways the proposed special exception does not adversely affect the public interest same site here we're not changing anything just upgrading the site and we did reach out as part of the special exception process we reached out to all the neighbors and notified them of the redevelopment and did not receive any feedback or corresponded from them and then also we reached out to the city of Columbia Police Department to talk about their crime prevention unit to request any feedback or improvements that we could do for the site and did not hear from them either. Okay, thank you very much anyone here to speak in favor or against this application? All right any questions from the board? Okay, so we can do this in two parts. Two separate motions. One for the gasoline service station and then one for the community. So I'd like to make a motion on part one for the special exception for the gasoline service station pursuant to the applicant's testimony both written and verbal that he has met the conditions for the special exception and subject to any comments contained in the application by staff I make a motion to approve this request based on the written and verbal testimony of the applicant and subject to conditions of approval cited within the application. Second. I have a motion in a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. And part two the application for replacing the existing convenience store I make a motion to also approve this request second. I have a motion in a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. No other business on the agenda. I make a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Aye. We're hereby adjourned.