Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we appreciate them letting us use this room for our hearing. So we appreciate them accommodating us as well. So we want to just pick up right where we left off. We had one person standing in line who I promised to hear next before we got any further along. So come back up and tell us who you are, and you've got three minutes. Hello, my name is Martha Jane Mulholland. I operate Mulholland Springs Farm, 2245 Ironworks Pike. I'm located on Ironworks with 173 acres between Russell Cave and Newtown Pike. So I'm literally around the corner. I also lease at this time the property on each side of Fasig Tipton, approximately 150 acres on each side of Fasig-Tipton. Therefore, I currently back up to the proposed site for this soccer field. I can tell you when I moved here 20 some odd years ago and purchased this farm, I bought it for two reasons. One was the proximity to the vet clinics. I'm within seven minutes of each of the major vet clinics. And two, because of the overlay, I literally did this on a map, where are the best soils? We have a soil here in Fayette County that is the equivalent of an endangered species. I don't know if you are aware of the designation. It's called a unique soil. That is the exact equivalent, if you'll look it up, of an endangered species. The horse industry was located in Lexington when the powers be decided it more than 100 years ago because of this soil. And there was a decision made of whether they were going to go to Shelby County in Tennessee, just south of Nashville. They had, I say past tense, that unique soil. It's now been plowed under and paved and covered in houses. It's gone forever, never to come back. No way you could get it back. We have it here, and you're proposing to pave over it. And we don't have a lot of it. Don't think it's located in the state of Kentucky. Don't even think it's located in the county of Fayette. It is located in a fertile crescent that starts at approximately a brine station, goes in a crescent around down towards Versailles Road and a little south of there. It's in a crescent. That's all there is, period. No more. I love children. I love soccer. My kids played soccer. The only thing I do besides care for the 400 horses that go through my farm in the course of a year, the only thing I do is volunteer as the president of the Central Kentucky Riding for Hope. where we help children in a number of capacities. I support activities that help kids with problems that you've heard speakers talk about, what soccer does for them, and I agree with it. Horses that we do help children, but they need to be in one spot and we need to be in another. And I must commend Mr. Anderson for his long term planning. Because 15 years ago or so, we were here in this very chamber arguing that we did not need houses on this property. With the kids and the dogs and the dangers that it causes. And now you're proposing, and it's quite ironic, to bring hundreds of children and dogs onto this property that will threaten the one small area that we've asked for in Fayette County for horses, and the last I heard, we were the signature industry for Lexington. We are the reason Lexington is Lexington, and I think all of us need to understand that that can go away. We are threatened right now by Ocala, as far as being Ocala, Florida. If you do not know about what's going on at the World Equestrian Center down there, I implore all of you to find out, because we do not need to keep our status. Your time has expired. Thank you very much. We know that Fayette County is unique. It's unique for its soil. That's why people came here, and the irony is they built houses in order to live here in this wonderful area. That is indeed ironic. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Simpson, we will proceed with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am Bruce Simpson. You have 20 minutes. I am here on behalf of Fayette Alliance with Wes Harned, my partner. The woman that just spoke, I suppose I could just say ditto and sit down. but I have too much microphone addiction to do that. Many of us do. She certainly, as you will hear in a moment from Frank Penn, who's part of the presentation that is included in my 20 minutes, he will not only endorse what she just said about the soils, precious soils, in this particular area of Fayette County being the best. He'll expand upon it and educate you. It's ironic that I follow her because she said it's ironic that 15 years ago she was in this chamber fighting against houses on this same property. It's ironic for me because I was representing the developer in that case. It was my first development case. All previous times as a lawyer, I've been representing neighborhoods because that's who called me. And I finally got a developer to call me, and I was bludgeoned to death right here on this floor. And I say that for one reason, and that is I learned a lot in that case. Now, this is personal. I learned a lot in this case about the importance of our rural services area, my hometown. I learned a lot about incompatible uses when it came to agricultural uses, but particularly horses. And if there's one thing that will forever ring inside my feeble brain, it is that kids and dogs don't mix with horses. They are natural enemies. And from that case, it was very controversial. The Fayette Alliance was actually born. And they have become, over time, the champion of not only the agricultural area of Fayette County, which is the leading economic engine, but they've also taken leadership positions for development inside the urban services area on the planning commission on the board of adjustment and the urban county council and you will hear several speak tonight frank penn as i mentioned will is part of the team that I asked to speak to you because Frank was intimately involved with the threats to the agricultural area back in the mid-90s when Lexington was undergoing a renovation of planning, a new experience. We hired Charlie Seaman out of Florida, expert planner. And from that lengthy process, the Rural Land Use Management Plan was created. The Rural Land Use Management Board was created. And the purchase of development rights was created. Why? Because those folks, Frank Penn, Gloria Martin, Mike Owens, Don Robinson, realized that if they didn't take some action for which they got no money, zero money, that their very industry would be threatened. And so these ordinances, like the Agricultural Rural Ordinance, was adopted. And the comp plan evolved, has evolved ever since. And if you read every plan since 1996, the recurring dominant theme is protect the rural services area. It is the source of our brand as a city. As was just said, that now is threatened in Ocala, Florida, because they say we can be the horse capital of the world. Every community wants to have a brand that they can be proud of as a citizen of that community. And as a citizen, I'm proud of the brand. I'm proud of the brand. And I learned it on this floor. I started to learn it, and I've learned it ever since, that when it comes to preserving the urban services boundary, it needs heightened scrutiny when you have a project like this that's before any land use decision-making body. Now, let me say this, with no offense to you all, This is bigger than just a soccer field. This is a massive commercial endeavor, including a 10,000-seat stadium, lights, probably sound, through the text amendment, this is just a small camel's nose under the tent, first effort to get an endorsement to have this major mega sports entertainment complex. And as a land use lawyer, when I have a controversial case, I do like it's done here. I will try to find some sympathetic front person to say this is what it's all about. It's really all about helping kids. And there's no question kids like soccer. Parents like soccer. It's very worthy. It's very good. But this is not about kids and soccer. You all don't make decisions about that. You make decisions about what is the appropriate location given the rules that we're obligated to follow. So I ask you this. This is an important case for a lot of reasons. We're about to start planning for the 2023 comprehensive plan in which the boundary of the urban services area is going to come up for discussion about whether to expand and where. Now, quite frankly, I will probably have differences with the folks that I'm representing about that process of whether it should be expanded or not. And that's okay, because that's the process that should be undertaken. It is evaluative. You look at data, people come in and share all of the information, and over a period of months, the planning commission makes a decision about whether to expand and where or not. And we live with that decision. That's the process. What's going on here is really a serious threat to that boundary. Because if you approve this application, as worthy as kids and soccer may be. We're talking about land use that is supremely intense, right next to the urban services boundary, right next, adjoining. I can guarantee you back in 1996 when the agricultural rural ordinance was adopted and changed, No one had a notion that one day, one of the conditional uses that they envisioned and approved for soccer would be a facility that required 750 parking places. That kind of a parking lot would feed a humongous development inside the urban services area. shopping centers, major office complexes. That is a lot of parking. And it's being located on an agricultural rural zone. Unbelievable precedent in the wrong direction from where we have been evolving and reaffirming the principle that the rural services area is the number one priority for Fayette County because it is our brand. It is the most important industry that we have. We want to preserve it. And you're being asked tonight to put a chink in that boundary. You say, well, it's just a chink. No. I can assure you that every land use lawyer within earshot of Lexington is looking at this decision of what's going to happen. Because it will be the most intensive development ever approved next to the rural services area since the rural land use management plan was approved and the zoning ordinance was changed. I get those calls already. I'm betting Brandon gets those calls as well. I know other lawyers have gotten those calls. Now, for personal reasons, because of my epiphany that I had 15 years ago in this chamber, fighting to put houses on this land, you know, I've chosen not to do it. I don't claim to be holier than now. Heaven forbid, no. I've got too many other faults. But I will say, in terms of the importance to this community, this boundary needs to be protected. And agricultural interests need to be protected. Now, I passed out a little green book. I want to make a couple of references. I've always found that when you have well-intentioned people with highly different views, with worthy causes such as soccer for kids, and you're asked to make the decision, it's always best to look at the guiding principles of law. So under tab one, purpose of the zoning ordinance. Why is that important? Well, it tells you what's the ordinance supposed to do. I've highlighted it for you. The purpose of the zoning ordinance to implement the comprehensive plan and other adopted community plans of Lexington and Fayette County to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. Under tab two, this has been cited many times by both sides now. What is the intent of this ordinance that you're looking to grant a conditional use for the largest commercial recreational complex in Lexington's history in the rural area? intent. The zoning, this zoning is established to prepare, to preserve the rural character of the agricultural service area by promoting agriculture and related uses and by discouraging all forms of urban development except for a limited amount of conditional uses. That is the principle, that's the philosophy, that's the underlying policy that is before you tonight. Now, it gets more specific because under statute, Kentucky statute, you are entitled and powered to grant conditional uses. And so what does a local ordinance say? It actually tracks the statute. Say about your power and what you're obligated to do. The board shall have the power to hear and decide applications for conditional use permits to allow the proper integration into the planning area of uses which are specifically named in the zoning ordinance, which may be suitable only in specific locations in the zone, only if certain conditions are met, and, and, this is a big and in this case, and which would not have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. it. That last clause is majorly important in this case because you're going to approve a major urban development right next to the urban services boundary in the middle of a comprehensive plan update on whether to expand the boundary or not. Approval of this would give every indication, well, let's just do it here since the Board of Adjustment approved the conditional use permit on the most precious and valuable soil in Fayette County. This area, Frank Penn will tell you. What is another guiding post as you come to evaluate the testimony tonight, evaluate the evidence, and reach your decision? Well, I've highlighted that in a second paragraph down. Number two, in approving a conditional use permit, the board shall find that the public facilities and services which will be needed are or will soon be adequate to serve the proposed use. The board shall give consideration to the road system, sewage disposal facilities, utilities, fire and police protection and other services and facilities as are relevant to the proposed use. Up to now, what have you heard in terms of evidence that public safety is being protected with respect to traffic? I counted 19 witnesses thus far over two days who came to the podium and complained about existing traffic. You've heard it. I heard every kind of issue and complaint, including from horsemen who said, I cannot let my horse stay in a van that long because of gridlock associated with existing traffic. Now, this was started on June the 13th. There wasn't a traffic study done. There hasn't been a traffic study done since, despite the complaints. And so you have no basis to evaluate. adequacy of the road system, notwithstanding your obligation to do so. There's no evidence. There's no indication that this use, how much traffic it'll generate, will it be manageable? What will be the impact on the existing users who have complained before you over two different hearing dates? You have nothing. Zero. You cannot make the decision you're required to make under law tonight. I take that back. You can make the decision because the evidence hasn't been presented, and therefore your obligation is to turn it down. I mean, that's what it says. You have to make a finding, and you cannot make that finding. It's safe. It's adequate. Same thing with the wastewater sewage disposal system. 750 parking places and we're going to have some kind of sewage system on this agricultural property that is going to be a septic type system? I mean, I don't know because nobody said. But we got a lot of people coming to see these kids play soccer. They've indicated they want it big. They want a major regional tournaments from out of the United States. So nobody wants to talk about, well, where are you going to go to the bathroom and what happens next? Well, guess what? The conditional use requirements in this ordinance say you have to consider that. And what have you heard? How's that going to be handled? I mean, we're not under a $700 million consent decree because we did things the right way for 25 or 30 years when it came to stormwater and sanitary sewers. We did things the wrong way. And yet you all are supposed to evaluate the public safety as to whether this has been met based on what evidence? What testimony? None. Zero. You have nothing to approve this based upon the evidence. Same thing with stormwater runoff. No illustration of detention basin, water quality, where the water is going to go, where the water is going to go, what lands might be adversely impacted. You have adjoining farms. There's a creek nearby that this stormwater runoff is going to flow into. But what have you heard about how that water is going to be protected or if it will be protected? Nothing. You can't meet your obligation under this conditional use requirement to find in favor of this development tonight. It's simply not present. Now, we did save up enough money to have a gentleman from Shields Environmental Company evaluate anything potentially of concern to a septic-type system being used to handle all these people? And what happens with the stormwater runoff, any concerns? Just to give you a heads up, since we're not developing it, we don't know all the details, but you haven't been presented with anything. And there's been nothing presented to the public, which should be the case, not just, well, it's a condition of approval, and we'll let Division of Engineering take care of it, or we'll let the health department take care of it. No, I'm sorry, no. You have to make a determination based upon the facts tonight about what's going to be done. How is this new neighbor going to treat its existing neighbors? You haven't heard anything, nothing. So I'm going to ask Bo to come up. and if you'll turn to tab number four he's got a powerpoint that he's going to discuss oh let me first introduce yourself tell them tell the board who you are your educational background and what you do professionally and how long you've been doing it mr simpson uh do you anticipate your witness taking more than three minutes? Probably not. No. My name is Bo Fisher. I work for Shield Environmental Associates. I've been with them for 11 years. I'm currently a project manager there and I concentrate primarily on stormwater and wastewater compliance. Bo, and I ask you as I just shared to assess the appropriateness of the proposed wastewater treatment system as we understand it to be a septic type system and to assess storm water impact if any and you did that correct correct and what were your findings summarize for the board what you did and what your findings are so let me flip through this there we go so the property is located on the cane run watershed which you can see outlined in the teal color and it's difficult to see currently on this, but it also sits on top of the Royal Springs Aquifer. So currently, Cane Run is impaired. As you can see, there's an unnamed tributary that is close to the subject property, and then Cane Run is also impaired for aquatic life, primary, human use, and then secondary as well, as you can see with the photos. But the pollutants are nitrogen, phosphorus, and E. coli, which you can find from agricultural, but my concerns with this is at the facility, if they're going to use natural turf or artificial, and the amount of impervious surfaces that are planned to be built. So the issues with natural turf is it's going to be fertilized, there's going to be herbicides applied, you know, and they already have existing nitrogen phosphorus issues in this stream. And with respect to stormwater runoff, did you, I asked you to assess the potential impact, if this were to be approved, of the amount of additional stormwater runoff that might flow from the site under a typical rainfall event. Can you explain that to the board, please? Yeah, let me switch to that. So going off the drawings that were provided to me, a one-inch rainfall would generate an extra one million gallons of runoff that would be directed into Cane Run. And I haven't seen any plans for how that will be handled or if it's just me let loose and go straight into there. And typically with the artificial turf, it's actually acts as impervious because they usually put a drainage layer in there to shed the water off quickly. So even though it looks like turf, it doesn't necessarily act like soil, right? And so one inch rainfall happens fairly regularly. It happens, I can't tell you how many times, but then I wanted to give some different ideas. So for a two-year 24-hour rainstorm, which is three inches for this location, it would generate an additional 3 million gallons of runoff that's going to be heading down Cane's Run. And that additional runoff can cause issues farther down with erosion and everything else. And Bo, how close is the site to Cane Run? I'm not sure the exact distance, but the unnamed tributary is right there. Close. Very, very close. And it's a small unnamed tributary. but another thing I want to touch on, you can see, so just for a one-inch rainfall, here's pre-development and then post-development of how much water will be introduced into Cane Run if it's not managed. And I think our time's getting short. Can you summarize your concerns about the septic system? The septic system? So there's a large number of people that will be using this facility, and if the system's not adequately sized or installed correctly, I don't know what type of soils are beneath the topsoil, but you could eventually get a point source discharge of the septic system because that's known to be issues. Also, it's on top of the Royal Springs Aquifer, which Georgetown isn't the only user of that. You can see on this map there's multiple springs and multiple agricultural wells in the area that the farmers use. So they're not necessarily, Georgetown's not necessarily the only user of the aquifer. So even though Royal Springs Aquifer Committee may say, well, we don't see anything to need to add anything, the adjacent property owners because of the nature of the soils are vulnerable to adverse impact from this septic system if it's not properly installed and it maintains that correct that's correct another issue real quick is there is a known flood zone that encroaches on the phasic tipton property the introduction of this extra storm water from the impervious surfaces will expand that and my concern is that hasn't been evaluated and hasn't been brought up of what what will happen to this. Thank you Mr. Fisher. Thank you Mr. Chairman I'll be available for any rebuttal at the proper time. Thank you. I want to ask the board if the board has any questions of Mr. Simpson or his witness before you leave the podium we want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to ask you to clarify anything that might have come up. Any member of the board want to ask Mr. Simpson any questions about his presentation? You must have been perfectly clear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Engel, we will hear from you next. Jay Engel represents Fasig-Tipton. Thank you, Chairman and Board. As mentioned, my name is Jay Engel with Law Firm Jackson Kelly, and it's my privilege to represent. Mr. Engle, you have 10 minutes, I think. Is that right? Yeah. Thank you. It's my privilege to represent Faisig-Tipton, which, as you all know, and we talked about last time, is an adjoining property owner to the west. You heard some of my comments last time. I want to introduce to you today the president and CEO of Faisig-Tipton, Mr. Boyd Browning, who's been with the organization approximately 34 years and speak to you directly on some of the concerns Fasig-Tipton has. Thank you, Jay. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your service. One of the few relationships I've had on... Tell us again your name. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Boyd Browning. I'm the president of Fasig-Tipton. And as Jay noted, I've been with the company for 34 years. And one of the relationships kind of in generalities that I've had longer than 34 years with Fasig Tipton is with soccer. I was looking at it last night. I've had a 45-year relationship with soccer in Central Kentucky. From a player at Lafayette High School to a player at Transylvania University to a referee with Lysa. I'm the father of four daughters, three of which played competitive soccer here in Lexington. I've been a referee. I've been a parent. I've been a team coordinator. I've been one of those knuckleheads probably screaming on the sidelines and so forth. But hopefully I've also been one of those people that drove kids after they had a bad game to get an ice cream or a Coke or something like that to lift their spirits. And I understand the importance of soccer very, very, very clearly. That's been a big part of my life. In fact, my youngest daughter, who was the last one of her children, obviously, to play soccer, played at Transylvania, was actually an assistant coach this past year at East Jessamine High School as she was finishing up law school. So it's part of our fabric as a family, and it's part of my fabric as a human being. But honestly, this discussion really isn't about soccer or practice fields. It's about tournaments. And just last night when I went through some of my old notes as a coordinator, one of the first tournaments we would go to every year for most of our teams was at Meade Cup in Dayton. Not a huge tournament, but an average-sized tournament in Dayton, Ohio, and basically Labor Day weekend. And the last year at Meade Cup, there were 29 divisions in their tournament, of which generally each division would have four or five teams. So we're talking about approximately 150 teams playing in this tournament. And based upon the diversity of age groups and so forth, I would estimate that probably the average team would have had 15 players. So we've got, if you do the math, there's over 2,000 players that are participating in a similar size tournament in Dayton, Ohio. So there's 2,000 players that will be playing in these tournaments, similar size to Meade Cup. That doesn't count the mamas and the daddies and the brothers and the sisters and the grandparents and the friends that might come to the tournament also. Just to make sure I was in proper context, I also looked at another tournament that we went to virtually every year, depending upon the age group in the fall, and that was Columbus Cup in Columbus, Ohio, as you would expect. There were 37 divisions last year in the Columbus Cup, 145 to 185 teams in that range, generates approximately 2,500 players for that tournament. Once again, that doesn't include the mamas and the daddies and the brothers and the sisters and the grandparents and the friends. So we're looking at tournaments in the fall that are going to produce, if this club is successful in hosting major tournaments, they're going to have 2,000 to 2,500 players coming in on a weekend. Guess what? In the spring, it's higher. The tournaments grow in the spring because the high school age players are not generally playing in the fall. They play in the spring. They represent their high schools in the fall and play in their club teams in the spring. So those numbers will increase with the fall play. So the reality is it's not about soccer. It's about tournaments. And this is a commercial activity. It's an economic, Mr. Murphy said, this is about economic development. We're going to bring tourism into Lexington. There's going to be restaurant dollars generated. There's going to be hotel tax dollars spent. There's going to be lots of economic impact if we have major soccer tournaments in Lexington, Kentucky. And I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. However, it's a big however. It's not appropriate in an AR zone. There's plenty of real estate in this community. And in fact, in the stadium area that's coming up with this text amendment later next month, There's approximately 210 available areas, 210 acres available in the economic development zone, located quarter of a mile, half a mile, basically in the same area of Newtown Pike that's already zoned economic development. So we're not anti-soccer at Fasig-Tipton. We want to be a good corporate citizen. We've tried to be. However, we object to the placement and the change in zoning to allow this conditional use in an AR area, plain and simple. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Browning. Yes, sir, Mr. Engel. You still have some time remaining. Go right ahead. Yeah, I don't have anything further, Mr. Glover, but we'll answer any questions if there are any. I think Mr. Browning summarized Basics position of talking about recreational uses versus commercial uses. I understand. Anybody on the board have any board members have any questions for Mr. Engel while he's up at the podium? Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Now what we're going to do is to resume hearing from witnesses. We're talking about the three-minute testimonies from members of the public who wish to speak on this. And my suggestion is that you line up behind the podium, and we will give each speaker three minutes apiece. So at this time, we will hear the first three-minute speaker, and we will, and I recommend that you keep a continuous flow. I counted, I think, 22 people who wanted to speak. So we've heard from some already, but if you keep a continuous flow, the meeting won't run over as much as it might otherwise. Mr. Chair, before we begin with further witnesses and testimony, we need to swear in any witnesses that were not present in the room before. I think that's fair. If there are any witnesses who have not been sworn in, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right, thank you very much. I appreciate the staff reminding me about that. I'm sure there are other, we may have to be reminded again because people do come late in anticipation of testifying later. Thank you very much. So tell us your name, please. Good evening, board. My name is Adam Clear. I'm a resident of 985 Starshoot Parkway here in Lexington. You have three minutes. Uh-huh. I was born and raised in Woodford County. I attended here at UK Civil Engineering before getting a degree from Cornell in urban planning, and I've been a practicing urban planner since that time. I believe that there have been some misleading statements made this evening that I just wanted to first address. It has been implied that this project is here or nowhere. I don't believe that is ever the case. I think this is their preferred location for some reasons they've decided to disclose, and others which they have chosen not to. But it should not be construed that this is the only location that this project can happen. There are other suitable locations within the urban services boundary of Fayette County. There are hundreds of undeveloped or underdeveloped acres here within the urban services boundary. The other item that has been hit before but I would like to reiterate is that need is not under debate here. I don't think that the need of this project is something that is worth considering. while I do agree that there possibly is a very real need for this. The only debate here is on the impacts of this use on this property and the surroundings. It is also worth noting that while the economic impacts by admission of the development team are not entirely certain, the development impacts are. If you agree to this development, those development impacts will occur and they will be long-term, some of which are irreparable. The impact scope is also beyond the control of the developer operator. Just simply because of the nature of these impacts, it goes beyond what they are able to mitigate. So that is also worth considering when talking about this project. There have been some false comparisons made. This is a project of, what, 12 soccer fields designed to be a regional facility? That is in no way equivalent with a three-field facility for recreational use on nearby Ironworks Pike or with an intramural sports facility for a relatively small educational facility. This is a project of an entirely different scope with much larger potential impacts. It is also worth noting that this project is closely tied to items which you have been specifically requested by the developer to ignore. Ignore the man behind the curtain, so to speak. The larger projects in this case being the obvious stadium, as well as their uses that they wish you not to consider, such as overflow parking, which has the potential to actually be a conflicting non-permitted use, even with the conditional use permit. They have also expressed interest in the lighting improvements, but they don't want you to consider that currently, despite the fact that they're actively pursuing an exemption. It seems unconscionable that you would not consider that in this moment. There are larger impacts. This sort of development far enough away from the rest of the community necessitates automobile access, meaning expansion in the exits that have been mentioned and the Newtown Pike corridor. Those expansions will have much larger impacts and draw development to a much larger radius than simply this project alone. And that development pressure will yield consequences for years to come. Thank you. You're very welcome. Thank you. Wait, sir, real quick, what did you say your name was? Adam Clear. Okay, thank you. You're very welcome. Next witness. This is, my name is Frank Penn. Mr. Simpson has said enough about me today. I'm kind of like the wife that got up during the funeral and looked in the casket to see if that actually was her husband they were talking about. I'm walking a tightrope here today. And the reason I'm walking this tightrope is that I've been told by the law department, the city of Lexington, that what I say can and will be used against me. I'm a city member of the planning commission right now and served for a long time. But I have three loves in my life, my wife, land, and horses. And I've tried my best to work as hard as I can for all three of those entities. I will tell you that John Gaines made one of the most profound statements that I've ever heard. And I want to read it to you. And I quote, We live in the most beautiful, privately owned, privately maintained park in the world. And the reason for that is soil. We have, in the urban service boundary, most every time done the right thing. We've expanded south, not the good soil that we have in the crescent that Martha J. Mulhane was talking about. We've only really made two huge mistakes. One of it was cost us a consent decree. And the other one was that we put a sewer line through a water reservoir. And I made a statement one time that I got chastised for and I said, even a dumb farmer knows not to drill a well next to his outhouse. Now, we cannot make those kind of mistakes and keep what makes us unique. The other reason I can speak to you today is if this is appealed, it will be appealed to the circuit court. The Planning Commission will not hear the appeal of whatever this decision is. I want to talk to you about skillful neglect. If you love land like I do, and you like to see it taken care of, If Mr. Anderson took care of his commercial property like he takes care of his farm, it'd be condemned. There is just drive down the road to look. This is an economic development opportunity. In agriculture, there's one rule that says if you can't sell it, if you can't raise it, and you can't sell it, don't raise it. We're putting this behind where we sell a big part of our produce. And that's Keeneland, but mainly face of Tipton in this situation. Mr. Penn, your three minutes are up. Can I get somebody to give me three more? Do you need an addition? You need an additional minute. Do you think you can sum up an additional minute? Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Glover, I've said in your position on the Planning Commission, I've watched people rush through presentations just to make a minute. So can I have two more minutes? Yes, sir. Thank you. Let me get right to the heart of this. Some people talk slower than others. Yeah, I understand that. My mother said it was better to be thought of fool than open one mouth and remove all doubt. I hope I'm not doing that today. I'm going to get right to the heart of this. This is a commercial use. And this is also a land use issue. But what it really is today, Garvis Kincaid told me when I was a little kid, if you got dirt, you can't get hurt. If you mortgage property and you own property, whether you use it or you don't, the value increases no matter what you paid for it. That land that's been referred to 15 years ago has been Mr. Anderson a lot of money by doing nothing on it. That Victor Haven Training Center 505 that he bought, that he's let run right down to the ground, if this passes, he will be able to sell this for two and a half times what he paid for it or what he could get on the open market. This is economic development, and this is about land. The people that are involved in this, that own this land, this park that you live in, They donate lots of money to the University of Kentucky Health Care Center, to the arts. They just don't come in here and buy a piece of land and sit on it and hope it'll get worth more. Now, I haven't talked about the staff and I don't want to, but I will tell you that it's a short sighted staff report. And I am embarrassed by that because I've been on the planning committee for 18 years. And I really thought I'd taught them more than that. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Thank you. Hi, my name is Gina Ray Hogan of Hogan Forms LLC. Yeah, I think here you've probably seen all your past, but I'm your future. I've only been here less than a year. I did a demographic research of a horse property on the northeast coast or northeast area to get away from Texas where we don't have hay and my daughter is a professional dressage rider in Wellington, Florida and to get away from the hurricanes during hurricane season. We are the wave that will be coming to meet y'all and we want horse property and we're looking because in demographics I did a computer search. I'm a real estate attorney, a real estate investor and a real estate developer in Austin, Texas. I've lived there my whole life. It was when I was born, there was 30,000 people. Now there's close to 3 million. In that time, I've seen development, and I've seen how they've protected a city. And how you protect a city is you look at what makes your city special. What makes your city, why did I come here? I did a graphic demographic search. I know nobody here. I don't know anybody. I came to the horse facility a couple of times because my daughter showed there. But on my research, it showed here five years ago that this was the place to bring horses. I looked at only that around the Kentucky Horse Park because that has Olympic footing. There's more of us that are coming because there's not going to be hay in Texas. That, what they're talking about, that soil, I've been all over the world, and I've never seen grass like I've seen here. It blows me away. And I call everybody and tell them because it's unbelievable to me. It grows year-round. It's very, very unique. So you look at your city and what's the gym? I don't drive around the city and see a bunch of soccer balls. I see a bunch of horses. Horse statues showing that this is where horses are supposed to be. That your city is all about horses. Well, horses and children don't mix at all. That complex will have 1,000 children per tournament, probably. I don't know for sure. Look up the figures. I didn't. Somebody just mentioned that. This Faisal Tipton's been here forever. On my bucket list was to come to the yearling sale at Faisal Tipton. I've never been yet. But do you know how important that place is in your city? People come from all over the world, the world to here. That's why I bought here. That international world money is important to me, because I want to make money. I'm not here, I mean, I looked and I found that this place was the place to come. I think that the inner city thing, it's really sad. Put it inner city. If you want to help youth, and the crime rate's increased a lot since I did my demographics. Do some inner city youth here. Put it here, in the city where it belongs. Thank you. Hello, my name's Dr. Poole. I've spoken briefly, but I have a couple points that I think are very pertinent. There is a great deal of land left in this development. Before this is all done, there are going to be more economic development, more lights, more traffic that is not even being considered at this point. Newtown Pike is a dangerous road. I've lived there since 1991. We've had a death at the end of my driveway of a motorcycle wreck. My neighbor down the road has had a horse trailer rear-ended pulling into his driveway. And this weekend, we had a horse trailer cut in half by a semi coming off the interstate. Fortunately, the horses all survived. But it's just typical of what goes on on Newtown Pike. And I don't think people are considering that. The foot traffic, the dogs and the kids, they've put a sewerage pumping station behind my property with a road to it. I don't get to my garden until 7 or 8 o'clock at night, and I'm out every night until 11.30. And last night, here come people walking down the road behind me with loose dogs that jumped on my property. I don't feel safe leaving my horses out at night anymore. And that's the best time to turn them out because it's cool. I understand that the soccer players want a soccer facility here, but they have no idea what dangers the traffic on this corridor present to local residents and the animals. Economic development should not trump the safety of the residents and the animals associated with this area. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Poole. Dr. Poole. My name is Catherine Perkins. Excuse me just a second. Dr. Poole, did you sign in when you came in? Were you sworn? Yes, sir. Thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead. My name is Catherine Perkins. I did sign in. I have been sworn, and I have been given minutes of my neighbor, if that is permissible by you, Mr. Glover, to use her minutes. I want to let you know that I am a little disconcerted about the statement that we keep hearing, that these recreational fields will not have direct access to Russell Cave Road, but no mention is made about the indirect access that will be allowed eventually, And that's via Providence Place Parkway, which is not completed yet, but has been approved to run from Newtown to Russell Cave Road. So this traffic will indirectly access Russell Cave Road via Providence Place Parkway when it is completed. So that is an issue. It is especially an issue to me because I live on Swigert Avenue in the neighborhood directly across from the ED zone property. And we will be a cut through to Paris Pike. My whole neighborhood will be as well as my street that is considered a rural scenic road. So I do encourage that there be a provision that a condition that says either via indirect or direct traffic. We are seeing the same issues on Paris Pike that Newtown Pike is seeing. Never before have I seen backups and take 40 minutes to go from Swigert Avenue to the interstate to get on it. So that is one of my big concerns, and I ask that somehow that be more reassured through the conditions. Another thing is we've talked about the environmental issues. I don't believe anybody has mentioned what is existing on that farm right now, other than Mr. Penn talking about how the current farm is being maintained. But to my knowledge, and this is only because I live on Swigert and I have dump trucks going, not dump trucks, muck trucks from Mr. McPeak's farm going down our road regularly to empty manure. But manure has been stored on this farm next to the barn areas for at least five years in my opinion. That is only an opinion. But I just recently drove on the farm last week. and saw that right next to where the manure has been stored, where they dump it from the barns and it's piled up and piled up, right next to a whole field has been raised. It's the only place that isn't overgrown and in ill repair and is now covered with what looks to be composted manure. Now, this is rural. I know that a lot of people do dump their manure on the farms. But on the aquifer for Georgetown, thank you. Remember, I have Carol Whaling's three minutes, so don't forget that. Thank you. She signed in. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Before you told me to shut up. All right, and the other issue that nobody has mentioned is that the racetrack that looks like it will be raised for these parking spaces is a raised racetrack. It is not level with the soil. Why was that racetrack, when it was built, built so much higher than the topography of this farm? The hearsay that I'm allowed to give, because this isn't a court of law, is that this farm, before it was ever a training center, had some very serious wetland issues. And I don't know where on the farm. It came from Sam from the Jotum down. My husband told me that. So just so you know. And I believe that these are things that need to be addressed by you by requiring more environmental research before this is granted. Noise has not been addressed. People are saying horses and children don't mix. For me, it's more horses and noise. When these guys are playing past their time, 9 o'clock, when our horses are turned out in their fields, and you hear them screaming and yelling and cheering and all this and the horses are running through fences, who's responsible for that? And these are things that these surrounding farms will have to deal with. You know, the season is this month, this month, this month. Well, I have had a farm in Bourbon County and I was breaking yearlings during hunting season. And you know how dangerous it is when guns start going off or people start screaming next door when you're trying to lead a horse? It gets a little, so that is another thing I want to bring up. And I'd like to ask you finally that, you know, you have in the conditions that staff has asked for that there's no mention of RVs or campers. Will they be allowed in this parking area? Because we know how horse people, show horse people travel. They bring their RVs and put their kids in it and they live on the property and while they're at the camp and all that. So I think that needs to be addressed as well as parties. We know we're going to have professional players. We know that people like to party. Will they be going on at all hours of the night? And also, I do believe that 19 of your conditions is a viable condition that should be kept. If you decide to approve this, I think it should be conditional on only for this. Ask right now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Don Robinson. I live in southwest Fayette County on Military Pike. I'm a third generation horse breeder, but I have shared some of your duties. I was on planning commission for, I think, 10 years. And I've first, before that, raised some very good horses. That is my passion. I, too, have a passion for the land in Fayette County, and it's the reason I chose to serve Planning Commission and talk about land use. I'm privileged enough to raise two Florida Derby winners, a Japan Cup winner, two Arlington Million winners, and probably one horse many of you have heard of, probably the greatest horse in my lifetime, a mare called Zenyatta. and she came off Fayette County, Maury Loam soil on my farm. In 96, I came on the planning commission, and we had done this extensive exercise that Mr. Simpson referred to for the expansionary master plans and the designated areas. I was the lone dissenter on that comp plan vote, and I spoke to my vote, it was because of this EAMP 3, which is Kingston Hall, the ED land we're talking about. We had the natural barrier of I-75, and we passed that highway is absolutely the best soil in all of Fayette County, all of Bluegrass, that crescent. And to have leaped the barrier, The reason we did it was because of a sewer deficit in Joyland neighborhood. It's the only reason at the 11th hour it was taken in. So I feel that was a major mistake in the community. Some of the planners agree with me. That being said, don't make the second mistake of adjusting the border. We just don't, two wrongs won't make anything but just real wrong. So I urge you to not make this decision, to not approve this adjustment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Good afternoon. My name is Chauncey Morris. I run the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association. Chairman Glover, in our letter to you and the committee on June 24th, We said we don't have a clear position on this particular project, but we know that the urban service boundary, the comprehensive plan, was made for many issues like this, the process that Mr. Simpson talked about. And so Donnie, one of my directors, just talked about the horses. The horses for here in Fayette County provide a $1.3 billion direct impact. That ag cluster, we know that. We know that. Those are facts that come by the University of Kentucky Cedic Center in an economic impact plan that they did for us in 2017. The horses that Boyd is selling there, it's $202 million. We know that. Those are facts. of the $824 million that were sold last year in all of Fayette County. Generally, these processes are for protecting one economic activity so it doesn't come at the expense of the other. And I know that this has been a very hard day, and I don't envy any of you guys that are members of this committee. but this is a process and this project, it's going to have a greater impact. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Jan Guy. Hi, Jan. How are you? How are you, Tommy? I've lived in Lexington on Swigert for the past 43 years. In the brief time I have, I was going to talk about traffic and things that have been talked about, But one thing I haven't heard addressed is Wild Health Field, the baseball stadium. Its seating capacity is 7,000. Add in lawn and standing room, 9,000. Concerts and special events, 15,000. This field is complete with stadium lights, loudspeakers, video boards, traffic congestion, noise, and fireworks. and it is approximately 3.5 miles from this proposed site complex and stadium. It seems very short-sighted that a similar stadium soccer complex is even under consideration within this radius. You've heard about the traffic problems, you've heard about the land problems, you've heard about the comprehensive city plan. I think we're at a Yellowstone moment here in Lexington. It's all about land and money. And you might ask yourself, what difference does this decision really make to you? You don't live here, I assume, not many people live in, many of you live north of Lexington downtown. You don't work in the area, you You don't have to tolerate the crowds. You don't have to tolerate the noise. You don't have to tolerate the lights. You don't have to tolerate the traffic. What does this decision really mean? Well it turns out it makes all the difference in the world to those who do live in that area. And I want to leave you with just a few statistics. 1.4% of soccer players who play at the college level go on to play professionally. Less than 1% who go to a club, usually by the age of 9, go on to play professionally. Three out of 50 Division I players who play in high school go on to play in college. Make your choices wisely. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Three minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Woodward. My husband and I have been neighbors to this property for 30 years. We live on Swaggart Avenue. I have a concern and an observation to share with you. My concern is that the condition number six, which speaks to Russell Cave Road, I do not think that it has been adequately addressed. It states there shall be no direct vehicular access from the recreational facilities to Russell Cave Road, except to gated access for emergency vehicles only. I have no problem with emergency vehicles. I have communicated with staff via email about this condition. It is true that the Expansion Area Master Plan calls for Providence Place Parkway to extend to Russell Cave. As land continues to develop, a connection will be needed due to public safety and traffic engineering requirements. So that decision has been made. The road will connect. It is planning staff's opinion that people that are going to these soccer fields will still use Newtown Pike as the primary access. I assume that's because MapQuest will probably take them there that way. I have no reason to dispute that as being true. What I do know as the parent of two grown children who have played athletics is that typically you arrive at a tournament at 7 a.m. and you leave at 11 p.m. And in between games, you get in your car and you leave. And when they type into MapQuest where they want to go for fast food, it's going to take them right down Russell Cave Road to New Circle where there's a Chick-fil-A, a Taco Tico, and a McDonald's. There is no fast food out Newtown Pike. So in my mind, if you approve this, you are saying it's okay for those 700 cars to be accessing Russell Cave multiple times during the day, even though staff has said it is a concern. So those are my comments about Russell Cave Road. As to the agricultural zone, I told you my husband and I have been in this area for 30 years. About 10 years into that, we had had two children and we had outgrown our house. So we took a breath and decided, are we going to do what a lot of our colleagues have done, which is to sell our Fayette County property and move to Jessamine County or Scott County. We chose to stay in Fayette County because we had certain expectations of what that agricultural zone meant. We absolutely did not anticipate this high-volume commercial use when we made that decision. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Woodward. And I want to compliment everybody who has testified so far about not repeating any of the issues that have been brought on before. When we hear it once, we typically remember it, and we're all taking notes up here. So I want to compliment you on not repeating issues that have been mentioned before. That's a big help to us. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, board members. I'm Mike Owens. I was here a couple of weeks ago. As you heard then, 15 years ago, I spent time where you all sit. And I looked at each plan the best that I could, as you all do, keeping the comprehensive plan, ordinances, regulations in mind. The staff, they do a wonderful job. I'll admit that. During my time there, I would say probably 95% of the time, I agreed with them and would support their recommendations. 5%? Maybe I didn't. This is one of those times. I've got four slides to show you. This first one is pulled out of the ordinances. You know it. I've cut and pasted my own version, but it's word for word. And the only difference, the AR is on the top, talking about commercial, non-commercial, recreational facilities. The bottom is agricultural urban. Again, the difference is what's underlined on the bottom. It's not shown in the AR as an intent to have outdoor athletic facilities such as baseball and soccer fields. There's a reason for that. The intent was never meant to be in the AR zone. I've got a couple of pictures I want to show you. We've talked about Fasic-Tipton. Sorry, but this is a leg on a horse, a yearling that was meant to go to Fasic Tipton. What's shown up and down in a little bit of yellow is its tendon. That's what holds that horse's leg together. This horse was turned out, as always, in a field. It got curious over a balloon. It spooked from the balloon, ran through a fence, and got injured like this. Unintended consequences. Here it is, same horse. Can you slide it up a little bit? Three weeks later, and that's three weeks later. Yes, it's healing. Five weeks after this, the wound had closed. However, the horse ended up with enough scar tissue that limited its range of motion, and it was not a viable horse to be able to go to the racetrack, definitely not to be able to go to the sales of Fasig Tipton. These are unintended consequences. The soccer fields being proposed is only a chip shot away, 50 feet, only 50 feet away. You know, a soccer ball can get over there. Soccer ball, balloon, once again, unintended consequences. Say your athletic complex has been mentioned. I drove out there. It has seven fields. and there's only one field that has lights. It is a private school. It is non-commercial activity out there. It's not commercial activity. You have one school that's playing out there on those fields. They bring in a second team. It's not 12 games going on at the same time with 24 teams. Totally different. We're talking about apples and oranges here. The surrounding area, if you look, this was done in 2000. The soccer was done in 2005. The surrounding area was subdivided before that into 10 acre estates. So the intent is totally different. It was meant to go that way. You need extra time, Mr. Owens. Probably 30 seconds, sir. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Once again, it's a private school. It's non-commercial. This is very much a commercial activity. With that said, I've got one final thing. You've seen it, and I don't mean to be repetitive, but it's important. Lexington has branded itself as the horse capital of the world with the big blue horse. It's our signature industry. We, and it's collective, we all have to protect that industry. I had a friend of mine just say a moment ago, I think you've got 19 conditions on this. That's probably a lot for Board of Adjustment. You probably need 19 more. Thank you, sir. I would urge you all, urge you to disapprove this. Thank you. Thank you. I also want to compliment the people who are testifying. Thank you for respecting the time limits that we've imposed. We've spent a lot of time on this, and it's important that people speak quickly and succinctly and not to recover ground that's already been testified to. But I think you all have done a great job on that. Okay, next. Thank you for listening to me. I'm Tommy Hearn. I live at 2300 Newtown Park. It's parallel with Providence Place. As you know, Providence Place is a dead-end street, period. It's going to be having 750 parking spaces. But my concern right now is the fact it says, number 18, traffic management services shall be provided. I'm not sure what that is. But it also says until an intersection is signalized. That means a traffic light. Well, that traffic light at Newtown and Providence Place is going to be, there's going to be four traffic lights. There'll be one at Providence Place, 2,000 feet down the road, one at Stanton Way, another 2,000 feet down the road. There's one stoplight coming with the exit off of I-75, another 2,000 feet. There's one for another stoplight that takes you up onto the ramp. So there's a lot of stoppage there. And as more people consider, there's going to be a lot more backup. So thank you. Mr. Hearn, before you leave, were you sworn in? Yes, I was. And did you sign in when you came in? No, I didn't sign. My wife says I did. And the reason for signing in is we want to make sure that everybody that has spoken, that we have a good record of who they are and the fact that their testimony is going to be on the record. If we don't know who you are, if you haven't signed in, we don't have any record of you having been here other than what we remember. That's why I brought my wife. Everybody should be so lucky. Before Ms. Clark speaks, does anybody on the board want to take a five, ten-minute break or so? So let's break. It's 5.07. Let's break for 10 minutes, and we'll be back at 5.17. Thank you. We want to make sure that we get through this as efficiently and quickly as possible, while at the same time giving everybody an opportunity to testify with any new materials about this case. So I appreciate your respecting our time constraints. Ms. Clark, you're next on the list. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. Nearly every month you review variances and petitions for things. You have three minutes. And I have been given, Laura Palazzolo has signed up. Sorry, before you. And given three further minutes. Have you been sworn? Yes, I was sworn. And you requested what? Laura Palazzolo has given me three minutes. She's signed up and present. Okay, thank you. Okay, it will be my ambition not to take all six. I'm here to ask you to save our bluegrass, in particular the equine enterprise very near this. I would first ask that if you choose to grant the use or even in reviewing the use, please specify clearly which provision of the zoning ordinance you're using to review and either grant or deny the use. The applicant asks for outdoor recreational facilities. Clearly, the accessory use in AR isn't meant because that's for non-commercial facilities. I don't think there's any insinuation that that's what's sought. But there are two uses in the conditional uses that would be 8 1 C 6 and I'm sorry 8 1 D 12 and 13. They seem to be asking for 12 commercial and non-commercial recreational facilities but their ZOTA under review by the Planning Commission would amend D13. So it's important for all of us that when you review and grant or not grant, you decide whether you're granting the use D12, commercial and non-commercial recreational facilities, and that's the one without outdoor lighting. Or D13, which has a locational standard they cannot today meet. It has to be near blue sky. The staff report doesn't seem to say which one. So I think that's actually very important. The other thing I wanted to bring out to you, and you do have a lengthy letter, I'm not going to go through it all on page two of the letter there is to be no more than one principle structure in any agricultural parcel any agricultural lot you have the sixty acres that is what they call the site and then the larger property of some a hundred and forty seven acres there is a house which apparently gives the address twenty five oh one russell cave fronting on russell cave that would be the principal residents the principal farm residents uh... the uses of the soccer field the recreational uses are clearly not accessory to the larger property, the larger farm. They're clearly independent of it. So their principal structure would be the largest structure on the lot, and the third page has bigger plans. It's characterized as a operations building, operations and toilets and so on. that would be a second principal structure for single lot and that's not permitted in our zoning ordinance except in very certain circumstances unless there's a development plan so what we need is like all in and his fellows the careful eyes of the planning commission and all that goes with it to review whether those Two uses can be allowed with two principal structures, two different uses. I want to say a word about tournaments. Tournaments mean concentrated events, traffic, 750 vehicles at once. For two days running, they go to and fro. The study done by Bluegrass Sports Commission for 2016 presented to council and council funded it in part, calculated 56 annual tournaments and this is in a multi-state region. This is highly intensive use of playing fields, sport fields. Someone has asked me to mention a concern about concurrent events at the horse park, which mean real traffic impact on Newtown and on iron works. Will there be any provision that games will not be simultaneous and further burden the traffic? I think of the whole thing as the tail wagging the dog. We have a mere 20 prospective acres of stadium claiming, asking, petitioning for a use of 60 acres of ancillary playing fields for both training professional as well as local amateur games and for professional training in this tournament play. There was something else someone asked me. I will finally say you have a special responsibility under four of conditional uses. If it's an environmentally sensitive site, if it's a rural services area site, with prime soils, you have a special responsibility to review, to seek information before decision to ensure that there is not adverse impact from the site. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Yes, sir. Hi, my name is George Pfister, and I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to express my views here. I live on a farm that's just past Brookledge, which is about maybe a fourth of a mile down the road from Fasig-Tipton. And from the back of my farm, if I look in the wintertime when the leaves are off the trees, I can see Fasig-Tipton back through there, I don't know, a quarter mile away or something. I thought I'd give you a little perspective from someone who lives on Newtown Pike. I see one of their big important things with their proximity to the interstate. Well, if you're coming from Louisville or you're coming from Cincinnati, you do not get off at Newtown Pike because you cannot turn left. There's no light. You have to cross two lanes. you have to cross these guys going 55 miles an hour going this way so that you can get to that side and turn left. So as a local, what I do, I get off at the horse park. Even if I'm coming from Louisville, I go up to the horse park and come around that way. And that's, you know, without a stoplight being installed on Newtown Pike, it's going to be a zoo. If there's a lot of people coming in from Louisville and Cincinnati, which seems to be like there will be. So, and then the other thing, anytime there's a traffic problem where the interstates are combined, like 64, 75, where they come together there, this spring, twice a week, we were getting, the interstate was blocked. Newtown Pike is a parking lot. ironworks is a parking lot everybody getting off trying to bypass that uh that section there where they're combined seems to be better lately but you know it's something to think about and and then And, you know, on this staff report, the very first sentence in 1A, in order to preserve the integrity of the urban service boundary, that seems to be like an important thing to keep in mind. and you know that's exactly what you guys really need to think about is preserving the integrity of the urban service boundary you know you're the only ones that can do that and I'm asking you to really look into it before you decide thank you thank you mr. Fisher Good afternoon, my name is Holly Groshek and I'm here to provide comment as a Lexington resident and also on behalf of my organization, Equine Land Conservation Resource. My organization is a national nonprofit based here in Lexington, Kentucky, which assists individuals, organizations, and communities throughout the country working to achieve balance between planned growth and protecting their local equine industry, culture, and heritage. In my professional capacity working with communities across the country, I've been extremely proud to have on so many occasions used my own community, Lexington, Kentucky, horse capital of the world as a model and example of best practices with regard to sound planning and managed growth. That not only appreciates, but works to protect our unique community brand. A brand based on spectacular rural landscapes and our signature agriculture industry, equine. Is the opinion of our organization that approval of this conditional use application would simply not be in keeping with the best practices demonstrated by this community in the past. This is a land use issue. Specifically, the request to permit a 12 field soccer complex, a large parking lot, bathroom, and storage facilities within the AR zone, is a request for an extensive commercial use in an incompatible location. Which would one, undermine the intent of our rural land management plan, the AR zone and our urban service boundary. Two, set a precedent for permitting similar intensive commercial uses throughout the AR zone. And three, would have significant adverse impact on the surrounding and future agriculture operations. In conclusion, it is the opinion of our professional organization that permitting the soccer field complex in the AR zone to function as an extension of the commercial soccer stadium is threat to the ar zone and as previously mentioned our unique prime soils and agriculture operations that this community has so long fought to protect for these reasons we recommend that voa not approve this conditional use application in order to continue to protect this community's unique brand and quality of life for the benefit of this and future generations of lexington and fayette county residents thank you for your time and consideration thank you miss groshek are there any other uh witnesses who wish to testify in opposition to the application and i'm saying this also to include the people who are in the overflow area in the mezzanine. If there are, would those people come into the room now so we can hear from you? They're all gone. They're all gone? Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Next. In that case, woo-hoo, last. We can all cheer. I do have a packet. to pass out and I didn't know you were going to be here so maybe you can share with Tracy. But here's one for the record. Tell us your name please for the record because the staff needs to have it on the record. I'm Gloria Martin. I live at 7416 Grounds Mill Road, Lexington, 40515. And I do have in your packet that I will pass out. This is put up on the screen. It is in your packet, but the reason I'm here is because this request specifically mentioned the rural land management plan and it cited multiple times staff report and in dick's comments as its source for approval i do want to tell you that the rural land management plan is being updated for the upcoming comp plan last time it was done in 2016 that's the one they have used for their comments and there are some updated things we're going to be doing Beth Overman, who's the director of the program of the Rural Land Management Board, and this program is here, was here. She may be back in our office. But we're working on that with GIS. What was in, just to set the record straight, some of what was quoted in what you have been given is actually done from a windshield survey. A windshield survey. So what we are doing now is actually from GIS. What I've asked him to put up for you, and you have it in the packets that I've passed out, is the reason I came was, one, they mentioned this, and two, it's significant that a whole code of ordinances ordinances has been written about the rural land management plan and the rural land management board. And there is a huge packet of information in the rural land management plan, some of which Dick has copied and has Mr. Murphy and I have known one another for years and Mr. Simpson. So we are not always on the same side of the fence, but we're always friends. And I'm not here as pro or con. I'm here to give you the facts that have to do with this. So I'm here because this ordinance that I've posted here for you very specifically, And I may have passed out another copy. Did everybody get one? We were short one, but I gave time to it. Okay. And then you can have one when I finish there. The ordinance is very clear that my board and I as chair are here to actually implement specifics of that plan. to make it clear. Go any further. Do you need additional time? Your three minutes are up. I will, and Mr. Tucker, who's president of the Farm Bureau, has given me his, as has someone else. And I would hope that since I'm not here to oppose, but to actually put some facts in the record, that that would be okay. Yes, well, I understand, but because this is such an extensive hearing, We impose time limits on every speaker, and that includes you. I know. So if you've had your three minutes, and so you now have three minutes from two other witnesses, is that what I'm hearing you say? There are several legal reasons. I'll take that as a yes. Why this is important. because what we are talking about here is a community-wide issue, and we're talking about community-wide stakeholders. I do want to tell you that I did not know about any of this until yesterday when they gave me Mr. Murphy's new letter, which is concerning because based on what you have there in your packet, we are responsible for the management of the entire rural service area. And I was concerned because our director knew nothing about it. And I have a 16-member board, and it is a very diversified board that represents, by law, the building community, the developers, the real estate. We have Visit Lex head on there. We have the thoroughbred industry. We have the regular Farm Bureau folks and regular farmers. It's a very large board. Dennis is actually on my board. We meet monthly. We've done it two years through COVID, have never missed a meeting. We could have been looking at this, and we could have been giving you all some really good recommendations prior to what the planning staff has suggested. I want to also note for the record, which I've placed in here, that there are at least 12 PDR working, these are businesses, working farms within that notification area within one mile. It's over 1,010, and best I could add up, 0.54. So 1,010 acres are right here that have the potential to be, as some of these people have told you, negatively impacted by this request. So there are 12 farms. The planning staff did not include us in any of this. And I'm hoping that it was an oversight that because everybody's been busy and this came about quickly apparently, that that's the reason. But I see this as all of us dovetailing together. Planning, you all know that you have to hear from your engineers, from the environmental surface. I would hope that we would all look at these projects, especially the big issues that are going to be community wide like this is together. I do want to say that this is the exception to the rule. It would not be a conditional use permit if it were not the exception to the rule. Because this is a conditional use permit and it requires you to look at it seriously. I do want to note, and I will give this to her to put up, that there's been much said about, thank you, about the Sayer School. I want to say as a fact that there are no commercial facilities anywhere in the AR zone in the rural service area as listed for those conditional uses in 12 and 13 as they will be putting up for you. And that's at 12 and 13 in the zoning ordinance of conditional uses. So this request is precedent setting. Let me say that again. This request is precedent setting. Sayer School, if you can put that up, is number 13. It is entirely different. Thank you. We're talking about, I guess, 12 here that we're going to be doing. 13 is Sayer School because they very clearly, where they're located, is like the ballpark that Scotty Basler once had that is now a city park, is next to the rural activity center of Blue Sky. They're on a 10-acre track. It is not-for-profit, and it is a private school. So we're talking apples and oranges here. I just want to clear that up for the record. Regardless of the zone, such a large use needs a special, very special conditions attached. 10 of the 32 in that list of conditional uses that the board's allowed to see, 10 of those 32 existing conditional uses in the AR zone have undergone very thoughtful, extensive detail planning. Jim will tell you I'm a detail nut. Sometimes that's very good. because in cases like this, if you get these conditions down pat beforehand, then it doesn't put you all, and I know I too was on the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Carter is sitting where I sat for two terms and I finished out Ms. Turner's term. So I know that if you get it right up front, you don't get appeals, you don't get sued, you're going to win, and it's a help. Because of that, all of those, and I've given you the list, half of those, and Dick knows about some of these because as a result of one of these on that list, one of his clients, 15, 23, and 24, has those special conditions written in the zoning ordinance. Because he and I had a committee for a year to get the conditions right, and I think it's probably 15 pages of stuff. Ms. Martin, your three minutes have expired. Has anybody else signed up? You need additional time. Thank you. And I did swear in and I did sign in and thank you, Kerry has signed in. Thank you, Ms. Martin. But all of those that you see have very special, they are uses, ag uses, even the ag uses have these special conditions attached. And here's why that was done, because it helps you, it helps the staff, it helps the applicants. Everybody is much happier when that happens. There's nothing in the zoning ordinance right now, specifically, that defines or lists conditions for commercial soccer fields of this scale and scope. Nothing in there talks about 12 fields or 750 parking spaces or A kiosk, which by the way is not even defined and you all don't know yet what they would even use a kiosk for. The buildings, the storage, those things you need to know that you need those things and have them well defined. There are concerns that I've had with the staff's conditions and that's just because I'm looking at it from your point of view. Condition number four, the staff did not include in the zoning ordinance, article 762 that tells you that the board shall find that the public facilities and services which will be needed are or will soon be adequate to serve the proposed use. Per 81E21, very clearly, it states that sewage disposal plants are prohibited. So if you've got a great big use and you're going to need something beyond a regular septic tank, your only other option out here is going to be extra porta-potties, which nobody wants. Number three, the stormwater management plan. Sitting here, EA Partners has worked on that. They have given you a new plan. I'm going to say that the staff should have very specifically have told you how that's going to be. Is that going to be impervious? Is it going to be gravel? Is it going to be paved of these parking spaces? 10 and 11, the landscape buffer and the fencing. For years, we went through planning, they can tell you, figure out the fencing between horse farm and residential. They tell you here there's going to be a fence, but they don't tell you, is it the wire fence? Is it a big privacy fence? Is it vinyl? Is it whatever? Those things need to be in up front. That's as good to help and protect the applicant as it is somebody else down the road. The 13 talks about the restaurants and the food service being prohibited. Concessions, are they going to be or could they be in the kiosk? 14 eliminates the gatherings that they're going to have. They don't talk about how the noise can be, that there are other noise things. So let me just say that there are a lot of things that they didn't put in the conditions beyond that that they could have. So I'm going to say that to have legal legs for everybody to stand on, it's good to have the conditions well defined upfront instead of after the fact. And here's why, it's because it's written in the ordinance very clearly that the division of planning shall review all conditions and conditional use permits on an annual basis. And we all know that the only way things are getting inspected right now is if somebody complains. This is complaint driven if you want inspections. So section 767 tells you that they shall do it at least once annually. So you need to know up front what they're going to be expecting and what they're going to be inspecting once they get there. So no matter whether this is where the suggested is now or somewhere else, you need to know those things. You need to know those things up front and not be able to, we'll never be able to reach the goals that we're planning on doing. Let's just do this right for everyone up front from the get go and from the get go and look at finalizing what the conditions should be specifically for this property or in the future. I would suggest that you put together a committee like we have those others that I listed for you and look at the details up front and post it in the zoning ordinance like those are already posted. so that everybody knows exactly where and why they stand. Thank you, Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin, you should have been an attorney. And thank you for the extra minutes. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, to testify, to put in the record their testimony before this board on this matter? I see no hands, so I'll declare the public testimony. I'm sorry. We do have a rebuttal from Mr. Murphy. I don't want to close you off, Mr. Murphy. You have some time to rebut. Ten minutes, I believe, is what we promised you. I didn't have one quick rebuttal witness during that time. It takes about a minute. That's fine. Sure. You want me to go ahead and start? Yes, we're ready. Thank you very much. We've heard a lot of emotion today and it's good we have emotion about where we live. It's good we're proud where we live. We have a lot of pride in it. But for everyone who testified very eloquently about the horse industry, we could have brought two or three people to come up to tell you how strongly and how important the impact of youth sports has been on them. We had one coach testify. We have a number of players here who were out there who couldn't stay. But for the stories I've heard doing this are young people who said how team sports has changed their life. As the coach was saying, makes you a part of something, makes you get places on time, makes you interact and act as a team and have teammates. We've had parents say, this has been wonderful for my kids. And we've had parents say, I've heard many parents say, I'm so tired of having a drive to Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis. Elizabethtown. We'd like to have some of these here sometimes. I've heard a lot of that. I've heard a lot of people talk. One person said it wasn't good that these soccer players are not going to play in the pros. Well, most of them won't, and most all players understand that. They're not there to play in the pros. They're there to play recreation. They're there to learn how to be on a team. A lot of them play high school, play college, and I did mention last time this pro team which wants to come here wants to have 70% of its pro players as products of this program. But when people feel very strongly and emotional, there are fears raised. Mr. Simpson has raised a lot of fears on this as he is good at doing. But you make the macro decisions about whether things can go here and your city staff makes the micro decisions mr. gross is going to come up and spend one minute telling you about what we're going to have to go through and what micro reviews we're going to have to have as we go through the process on this well Al is principal and EA partners and licensed engineer mr. gross for you this one sworn in and I am sworn in, yes sir. Tell us your name for the record. Al Gross, a founding member and partner of the firm EA Partners. It's been in business since 1979. We've done this work for a long, long time. And I'm here to simply address quickly the comments that Bruce and Shield Environmental raised relative to waste management and stormwater management. Related to the sanitary sewer situation, we intend to tie to the existing system that that crosses the property today. So there'll be no septic tank. There'll be no treatment plant. It'll be simply an attachment in connection to the sanitary sewer that exists on the property that was installed as a part of the consent decree process several years ago. Stormwater management will be extensively reviewed, processed by the staffs of this government. And trust me, they are very extensive, very deliberate, deliberate and very thorough. We have done preliminary designs. We think we have the ability to do the work required and necessary on site. If push comes to shove, we need more land. I suppose we could always remove one of the fields. But whatever the process requires, we will provide from a stormwater management quality and quantity wise. So any questions? I'm here. If not, I'll sit down. Thank you, Mr. Gross. I might add that those will be reviewed by your Department of Environmental Quality, your Division of Environmental Services, your Division of Water Quality, your Division of engineering, your division of building inspection, and your division of planning before we get a permit to start work on this property. We have very well educated and very experienced people in all of those divisions that will go over this. I wanted to put in one rebuttal witness. This is our, our, it's been, our, Fasic-Tipton was good to come here and we're glad they were here. We wanted to just show you what our relation physically is to Fasic-Tipton. We have about 130 feet of frontage along Fasic Tipton right here. This is Mr. Anderson's property. This is Fasic Tipton. We will be building a 50 foot wide landscape buffer along here with two fences and ironically it will buffer their road which is used for parking along with their barns there. That's the extent of our direct contact with Fasic Tipton. There's been discussion about the soil. I was talking to Mr. Anderson about that. The soil was stripped off of this property well before he purchased it in order to construct the six or seven barns on the property, the office, and the track on the property. The track had to be on a level service. They did a lot of leveling of the property before they built the track. I think the DuPonts built it many years ago. I want to mention the Royal Spring Aquifer Committee reviewed this. That is the representatives of both Lexington and Georgetown, and it's the people in Georgetown, the engineers, who are charged with keeping Georgetown's drinking water safe. They have reviewed this and sent it on with no further comments other than what is being approved by your staff here. The traffic issue. There's been a lot of discussion about traffic. I want to point out to you that, as I mentioned to you, all our traffic comes through the Economic Development Zone. Every bit of it comes up to this parking area we have for the 12 playing fields. That is about a small fraction of the traffic that is generated in the Economic Development Zone here. This is designed for large users that generate employment. And that traffic goes out by Providence Place Parkway to Newtown Pike, to the interstate, or to Lexington. What we're proposing on this field is just a small fraction of that. The roads are designed for it. And we have agreed to traffic management out at the intersection of Newtown Pike and Providence Place when these tournaments are in place. There's no better location for this near the interchange with both Interstate 75 and Interstate 64. There's been discussion about what the state of the property was that Mr. Anderson owns. Mr. Anderson leases this property to another individual, and as you know, when you lease something, the lessee gets to control the property. The state of the property right now is why Mr. Anderson has terminated that lease. We're going to, Mr. Anderson wants it restored back to where it was, and we want to use it for a good use such as this. There will be no RVs, no campers there. And this is not an urban service boundary issue. I'd like to mention that, again, that this is AR zone. I want to mention to you what the rural land management plan says about the AR zone. This is in the record. I had to submit this as part of the report that the staff asked for me after your other hearing. 60% of the parcels in the rural service area do not have an agricultural operation. That's page 37 of the rural land management plan. Wait, you said 60%? 60% of the parcels in the rural service area do not have an agricultural operation. The rural land management plan recognizes a wide range of non-agricultural recreational activities that exist today in the rural land management area, the RSA, including, I'm quoting from the rural land management plan, dog shows, cheerleading competitions, basketball, baseball, soccer, archery, indoor basketball and baseball facilities, golf, tennis, swimming, extreme sports, camping, yoga, dancing, playgrounds and play structure in tournaments. They note that the SARE school facilities are located in the rural service area. They also note that our proposed complex is similar to other non-agricultural residential uses in the RSA such as ball fields, tennis facilities, playgrounds, five golf and driving ranges, and event venues and campgrounds as noted on page 46 of the rural land management plan. The land management plan has recognized that there are many non-agricultural in the RSA. Your zoning ordinance recognizes that recreational uses are allowed in the AR zone in the rural service area. That's why we have applied for you. Now we've heard a lot of people say, hey, build it somewhere else. We want soccer. We want it somewhere else. Please put up this page out of my handout. that back but it's in the record here and if this this explains to you the issue we have land status summary this is inside the urban service do you need additional time i do there is a lot of issues raised and i'm trying to deal with them one by one i need about four minutes four or five minutes extra if i could okay five five extra minutes if you can thanks this is land in the urban service area everybody says well put it somewhere in service inside the urban service area. Agricultural vacant tracts inside the urban service area. This is the study that the Stantec was paid by this government to complete and was just completed here. 2,931 tracts, agricultural vacant. Acreage is 5,045 acres. Everybody says, oh, there's 5,000 acres vacant inside the urban service area you could build this on. Well, do the math. The math says this 5,045 acres is in tracks averaging 1.7 acres each. 1.7 acres each is the average size of a vacant track inside the urban service area boundary. This figure of 5,000 includes urban service area one, Overbrook Farm, which is 641 acres. So if you take out the 641 acres, that 1.7 acres goes even down. Urban Service Area 1 is not being developed. So when people say move it someplace else, that's what I hear from the soccer people when they say, we've been working for 20 years to find a location for this. And everybody says, yeah, this is great, put it someplace else. We don't want it near us. I have a group here today that has the financing, has the expertise, and is doing it all with no taxpayer funding at all to provide a youth soccer complex at this location. Somebody said, well, we ought to put it over on Russell Cave Road in the ED area where Mr. Anderson owns other property. The only uncommitted property he has is directly on Russell Cave Road. That would put most of the traffic on Russell Cave Road. Part of the part of this that we have been telling you about is that we are not putting any traffic on Russell Cave Road this time. We are putting it on Providence Place Parkway, which goes to Newtown, which has the interchange with I-75 and I-64. Maybe a couple other things I may need to mention to you about, but I think we're, Mr. Gross has mentioned that there's a gravity sanitary sewer line on this property itself. So that's why we're here. We're here because there is a great, great need for this in this community, and people have tried to locate it here for over 20 years, and this is the best possible site for this here in Fayette County. We're buffering it. We're bringing all our traffic in through the economic development area, so no traffic goes on rural roads and we finally have a group here that is committed to do it without public financing we we can fear about the fears but the reality is this is a greatly needed facility and it will be good for this community we thank you very much for hearing our case and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have thank you very much Thank you very much Mr. Murphy. Are there any questions to Mr. Murphy? I don't have a question, but go ahead and put on the record that Al Gross and I are no relation to one another just in case people would expect that. I can't imagine that. Yeah, well, now he's talking about my hair. Can't imagine that you would be. Yeah, I can grow as much hair on my chin as I can on my head, so I wish Al was my father. Thank you. If there being no further testimony, I'm going to declare that the public comment. Mr. Simpson, there's no provision for sir rebuttal in our bylaws. If you like, I can give you a couple of minutes to speak, but it would have to be new material. it'll have to be new material that we haven't heard before in one of the emails we received on the procedures that did reference both of us having opportunity for rebuttal I think five minutes but so I would like also and I will keep it as brief as possible if that's the case and I'll give each of you five minutes it wasn't an email mr. Glover so I'd say I don't I don't recall seeing it but i in in a sense of being uh overly fair we'll give you each five minutes thank you and i'll i'll be quick chairman um first and these are not two things i came here planning to speak about um first the sewer um mr browning at phasing tipton was told just the opposite of what we heard today when this plan was discussed he was told it would be septic because they couldn't have the reach to tap into the existing sewer system. I don't know the answer to that. We've had one person testify, which I think speaks to the larger problem. There's a lot being said here today without the studies. It was striking to me that Fayette Alliance had an engineer here on very short notice to present information, nothing on the other side. Same thing with traffic. not something I came to speak about, but the number of speakers that raise the issue with you is striking and attention-getting. I heard Mr. Simpson's comments. We can debate on whether a traffic study is required at this stage, but even if you could approve this without a traffic study doesn't mean you should. We've heard time and time again Newtown Pike has serious traffic issues already. I've also heard time and time again what type of scale tournaments we're talking about here, how many people are coming. I've also heard this is big business. These aren't practice fields. There are recreational practice fields available now. Masterson Station Park has 15 fields that are used for practice, for club-level soccer. Now this is about the type of tournaments that Mr. Browning and others have talked about, that also 100 plus teams, not at a small cost. Each of those teams pays an entry fee. This is big business. Which leads me to this is not appropriate for the agricultural zone, not for the AR zone. You just heard Mr. Murphy list a number of uses that are in the land use plan as examples. But what we're talking about here is Section 8.1, specifically the Agricultural Rural Zone. It lists SOCCER, which we're talking about here today, one place. It lists SOCCER as a permitted accessory use under C6. This is not an accessory use. They specifically, when they wrote the ordinance, said soccer is permissible accessory use. What we're talking about here is B12, which is a conditional use. And it allows outdoor recreational facilities without lighting, loudspeakers, retail sales, merchandise, restaurants, or food service. And then it lists the type of activities that go under B12. Zoological gardens, sportsman's farms, outdoor rifle and other firearm ranges, native animal game preserves, outdoor rodeos, hunting, trapping, and fishing lakes, including private clubs for only these uses. What is not there is soccer. those are outdoor hunting and fishing type agricultural uses that are in listed specifically in the type of conditional use we're talking about the drafters knew that they could put soccer in here it's put in elsewhere so this is not an appropriate use this is a commercial use in an agricultural zone and there is property nearby that is very available in the economic development zone i can have that put up and pardon my writing and i'll tell you this is from the pva's website and i'll close with this but if i the the green shaded property is the 2501 property we're talking about today the ft is phasing tipton in orange that i highlighted underneath it based on PVA records is property controlled or owned by Anderson related entities, which if I added correctly is about 250 acres. My understanding is the western portion of about 50 to 60 acres will be the soccer stadium, leaving at least 200 acres in the economic development zone immediately south of the AR zone we're talking about. I can't comment on what contracts might be under, but there's no evidence before you. I can say there's a for sale sign on Providence Parkway leading into the property, meaning at least some of it is available, which would be a much better zone for the proposed use. Thank you, Mr. Anvil. I do have a question for you, though. I think we're all in agreement that this application falls under 81D12 instead of 13 commercial and non-commercial outdoor recreational uses. One of the uses that you read was a sportsman's farm, including outdoor rifle and other firearm ranges. Would you prefer to have an outdoor rifle range on this piece of property? Is that what Fasig-Tipton is proposing? I don't think that's the question before you. Nobody has proposed that. And I think if somebody did… The argument was soccer fields are not specifically permitted under the conditional use, but the conditional use that, I mean, the facilities that are mentioned seem to be much more adverse to the interests of Fasig-Tipton than a soccer field. Yeah, but Mr. Chairman, as you know, it's a two-step process. The quest somebody comes before this board with a conditional use, And so the first question is, does it fit the ordinance as a possible conditional use? The second question is, okay, what's the impact? Is it appropriate? Here, a soccer tournament complex is being proposed. It doesn't fit B12, so you should never get to the second question. if a hunting or rifle range was proposed it would meet b12 and then you would move to the question of is it appropriate i haven't seen any such application my guess is we would have serious concerns with it and those would be addressed then but here you never get to that because the threshold question is is it included in what's contemplated by b12 and soccer is not where it is specifically listed in other parts of this same ordinance and of the other conditional uses i think it was mr owens pointed out in his overhead when he was testifying thank you thank you wait don't go anywhere jay i got a question for you yes sir and this is in relation to number 17 the conditions the conditions tell us a little bit more about your sales events when they occur and some other items to give us a little bit better reasoning of why 17 exists yes I'll be glad to and mr. Browning I'm sure will correct me and I spoke to some of this when I was here last time which is why I didn't present it earlier but the on-site sales at phasing Tipton there's a February sale the February winter mix sale there's the July sale which is actually two sales a horses of racing age and a yearling sale the yearling sale kicks off the yearling sale season that is in July coming up in about two weeks then in October there is the October fall yearling sale which is is a four day four day sale that'll have yes 22 that are already scheduled yeah so the here's from one for we've already got the february sale yeah so the july sale is july 11th and 12th horses of all ages on the 11th yearlings on the 12th then the october sale i just mentioned is a yearling sale that is a four-day sale that'll have probably 1500 to 1600 horses mr. Browning says 1600 that's October 24th through 27th you remember last and that's the one we talked about when when you have one of those sales the activity really starts three probably three days before horses will start shipping in the Friday before we raise that concern with staff which I think is why it's written that way so for a Monday sale horse a few horses will ship in Thursday most on Friday and then potential buyers are looking at the horses in the barns the horses are being led out of the barns shown to potential buyers Saturday Sunday throughout the rest of the sale so we're are we looking like one weekend for each of these three months um october yeah october i believe also has a standard bread sale earlier in the month um yeah go ahead yeah and sorry to interrupt but in addition to the i want to give you all good information in addition to the sales that we conduct the facilities under a long-term lease to the lexington standard bread sales company and they'll sell, actually they sold roughly 800 standard bred horses. And those dates, I'll give you the 2022 sales dates here in one second. It'll be early October. in 2022 their yearling sales dates will be Monday, October the 3rd, through Friday, October the 7th. And they'll have approximately, well I'll tell you exactly what they had last year. So it is possible for you guys to have your sales and the soccer field to have tournaments, potentially during the same month of October, if you guys coordinate your weekends. Does that sound right? It's potentially possible, yes. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Hey, I just wanted to make sure it was on 17. They can't have events when you have events, but I wanted to make sure that you didn't just extend your events so that October is just gone. No. I just want to make sure it was practical when I was looking at this. We've got a schedule, we haven't really changed our sales in the sales schedule here in Kentucky in many, many years. But in addition, our biggest sale of the year in Kentucky is generally the first weekend in November as well. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Gross? Thank you, Mr. Angle. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, five minutes. Five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, I won't need five minutes. First, this board has no obligation to consummate what obviously is perceived to be a good land use deal between Dennis Anderson and the investors in this soccer complex. There's land available. It's a matter of the price being met. Let's be real about what's taking place here. Probably got a good price buying on a contingency because he knew the kind of difficulty he was going to have trying to get this board's approval to put an urban use in agricultural rural land. And if that could happen, the price was great. Let's be realistic about what's taking place here. There's land all over Fayette County. It's a matter of how much can be paid. These gentlemen have a passion for soccer. That's wonderful. They have a passion for making money. That's wonderful. They can make a little bit less by paying some other landowner in a more suitable location than the richest farmland in Fayette County to put their soccer field. They're destroying agricultural use for an urban use. That's inconsistent with the plan. It's inconsistent with the policies that the people who came here tonight and served on boards of adjustment and the planning commission and the council for years have framed that we now all benefit and we take pride in. Please do not undercut all these years of effort and precedent at keeping and protecting the rural services area. This is an urban use. 7,500 parking places. My gosh, I don't think Fayette Mall has 7,500 parking places. I don't think they're proposing that much. I'm sorry. I told you I'm a little bit too passionate. 750 still. Name one other land use that you all have approved in your time ever on this board that had 7,500 parking places that was also... What time is it? Oh, my gosh. 750 parking places. There is none, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. You see this as an urban use. It's everything. It's going to serve a stadium. They're going to have lights. They're telegraphing. This is going to be a major urban complex. Don't fall for it. You don't have to give Dennis and these other fellas a blessing on a good deal. They can make some other deal, make less, and put the soccer complex where ultimately it's a judge to be approved. Finally, under the law that you're obligated to consider, you're required to find, as I have said many times, that public facilities and services, which will be needed, will soon be adequate to serve the proposed use. Now, we asked staff, well, how's this, bathrooms, how are they going to treat sewage? We were informed, septic tanks. Tonight, I hear for the first time, they're going to put it in the sewer. Great. Why wasn't that disclosed? We raised, long before tonight, numerous witnesses about traffic. I would have thought it would be highly foreseeable that traffic was coming up again and they would have had a traffic study done just to demonstrate to their fellow neighbor, we're not going to do you any harm. All the complaints that we heard on June 13th, we're not going to do you any harm. Let me show you what the traffic impact will be. Where's the concern? Where's the traffic study? Where's something? Nothing. You got nothing to base your decision on that this is going to be safe for the motoring public and the people that live around this area, the farmers that are carrying, traveling with horses and vans that can't afford to be in that traffic very long. And then finally, stormwater. We brought an expert in that was subject to cross-examination about stormwater and what we were led to believe was going to be the wastewater treatment plan. Now, nobody cross-examined him. Seemed very credible and reasonable. And Al Gross is a good engineer. If he'd been engaged to submit and do the homework that he's required to do, if he'd been directed to do it, paid to do it, we might have a different view. But what is a stormwater management plan? Now it's going to be handled behind closed doors. Well, the staff will take care of it. There's a process. No. Tonight is the night. you all have to see demonstrated by the applicants they're conforming to this regulation. How are you going to deal with stormwater and the discharge into Cane Run Creek? How? Nothing. Thank you. Thank you. And now the first shall be last. We go back up the chain to hear from the staff. All right. So Daniel Crumb, planning staff again. Staff feels like we need to go on the record to sort of clarify and correct some of the statements that were made tonight. And I sort of want to start with the intent section, so I'm going to go to the slide here. So, within the AR zone, going back to the intent. again it's mentioned that this is to protect the rural agricultural areas by discouraging all forms of urban development except for a limited amount of conditional uses. A specifically enumerated use within the zoning ordinance is non-commercial outdoor recreational facilities that has been identified by the urban County Council as a conditional use that can be appropriate in this zone. The question of whether this constituted a commercial use or non-commercial use there are definitions of these in the zoning ordinance and it's shown on screen here. Specifically recreation non-commercial, non-commercial means that any recreational activity facility which is available at no cost or is available as an amenity for members, employees, residents or other special populations. Under the current definition this is a recreational non-commercial use that is specifically permitted within the AR zone as a conditional use. There was some notice that was made about the Rural Land Management Board and its purview over this. You are the only board, the Board of Adjustment, that has purview to act on these conditional use requests specifically enumerated within the zoning ordinance. There was some talk of this use being unique or precedent setting. As stated earlier in the presentation by Mr. Murphy, the Rural Land Management Plan notes over 50 non-commercial, recreational, non-agricultural uses throughout the county. Are you talking about within the agricultural? Yes, within the the rural land management area, yes. There were some questions about the how this use could change in the future. What happens if lighting is introduced? What happens if speakers are introduced? What happens if this use fundamentally changes? Well those are all aspects of the conditions of approval. When you, the board, act on this item, you are approving it with these specific conditions. Even in the event that a zoning ordinance text amendment was passed by council to allow certain aspects, in order to change the nature of this use, would require you to go, require the applicant to come back before this board to review any new impacts of these proposed use. Staff has reviewed this under those conditions and find that with no lighting, with no speakers, under these conditions, this use can be appropriate at this location. There was some mention of stormwater runoff. I'd like to go on the record stating that the stormwater management manuals have a requirement that any post-development runoff has to be equivalent to the amount that is available before development. And that is reviewed by our respective divisions. It is a condition of approval for this request. If they cannot get the approval for the stormwater management facilities on this site that meet all of the stormwater requirements and that don't have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, then this use would not allow to be established. The same can be said for any of the septic systems. It is a condition of approval in this request. Any septic on site has to be approved by the appropriate bodies. Now, we've got Stephen Parker on staff that can speak to some of the traffic concerns. is my understanding that a traffic impact study is not required at this site based on the number of trips generated. But Stephen can speak to some of the concerns regarding access to the site, the roadway capacity for these respective roads that are handling the traffic at this site, and some of the other options. Soils were mentioned in this request, and undoubtedly soils are a crucial part of our environment. This site was particularly appropriate in staff eyes because this has been partially developed. This portion of this site has been used for a use that was not utilizing its soil potential, that had some development on it, and that wasn't prime farmland that had been used for agricultural purposes that were now suddenly being changed. This was for horse racing training and stables and other uses that weren't necessarily using that. Staff would also like to address the parking issue. Mr. Murphy came before you and asked that the condition regarding cross utilization of parking be lifting. Staff is not approval of that. Parking is not a principally permitted use in the AR zone. Parking is only permitted as an accessory to an approved use. So in this case, this is parking for these non-commercial recreational soccer fields. In addition, this would be a utilization across the urban service boundary of a more intense use and zone to a less intense agriculturally used zone. And that distinction needs to be clear and needs to be separate. Furthermore, it exceeds the difference to be counted under a joint parking agreement. And as such, any finding that would be related to any stadium use has not been yet approved. So this is a use that hasn't been approved as of yet, and so waiving that requirement for such a use would not be appropriate. Let me make sure that there isn't anything else that staff needs to address at this time. Once again, we've got representatives of other agencies, including traffic management, that can kind of speak to any other questions the board may have. But staff just wanted to correct some of the misconceptions about this, and I'm available to answer any questions you have of staff. I have a question, and I'll start it off. There may be others. The conditions for this application parrot the language in 8.1.D.12. In other words, the language that's in the ordinance itself is restated in the conditions for this application. That seems redundant and unnecessary. Would you agree? So this, the conditions of approval are, so that is a restated condition. However, this is capturing what staff is reviewing at this time and what could be appropriate in the future. It may be that the ordinance changes in the future to allow such use. This offers protection for the adjacent property owners, and it basically keeps the scope of this review to how it was approved by the Board of Adjustment at that time. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Crum while he's at the... Yes, I'd like to ask a question. Have you determined, you say it's not a commercial use, and I'm not sure I know the answer to this, If the staff knows, is there a fee of any kind that is charged for the use of these fields? Do you know one way or the other? In other words, somebody comes in to use it or there's a tournament. Is there a fee to be used for these fields, whether it's local, tournament, or whatever? So as far as the fee structure or whether anything's been charged, This is being operated by the soccer entity. What is the name? Yeah, the Lexington Sporting Club is the operating body that kind of organizes this, whether or not they have a fee structure for their organization. But as the organization that is operating this, it meets the definition of the recreational non-commercial as it's available for its members, employees, or other populations. So you're saying they're not charging? I think it is a commercial. The aspect of charging fees in the commercial aspect of the recreational use is for tickets to events. Within the non-commercial definition, it includes that these are recreational uses available to members. So that implies that there may be a membership fee and that is different than selling tickets to a commercial event. Are they charging for use of these fields? No, it's a part of their use as the soccer league. For a soccer fee? I think she's saying it's a private club. You say it's a private club? Is that the... So everybody that uses this field is in a soccer club. Is that correct? Even tournaments? That is our understanding. So when a team comes to participate in this tournament, they don't pay a fee for the tournament to enter the tournament. I can let the applicant answer that specific question I'm not currently aware of. Well, I'm just asking you if the staff has looked at this carefully. Because now we're talking it's a non-commercial use. Well, just along those lines here, you're making that distinction, but the zoning ordinance that you referenced in the staff report actually states that commercial and non-commercial outdoor recreational facilities are acceptable. I don't think the distinction matters. So it doesn't matter if it's commercial or non-commercial, they're both acceptable uses under the ordinance. I know they're highlighting the distinction there, but both are acceptable uses under the Article 8.1.D.12. Well, I'm suggesting it's not a non-commercial use. And I don't think we can agree on that. I don't think the staff really has looked into it to say it is not a commercial use. I think we're talking about money here. Conditional use number 12 states that commercial and non-commercial outdoor recreational facilities are permitted as a conditional use. Do you reference that it's non-commercial in your report and I've overlooked it? I don't believe in our staff report. We explicitly list that this, or clarify that this is a non-commercial recreational facility. because it is stated in number 12 that both commercial and non-commercial recreational facilities are permitted as conditional uses. So if we approve this, we are agreeing that it can be a commercial use. Could you ask the last part of that question again? I apologize. Yes, if we approve this, then we are approving a commercial use of these soccer fields. It would be clarified as a commercial recreational use, commercial or non-commercial. But only as permitted by the language of the ordinance. And the language of the ordinance is what we look at to decide whether we approve or disapprove this application. That is correct. Do you agree that this is an 8.1.D.12 application? It doesn't say that in the staff report. We do include that at the very beginning of our staff report. We excerpt Article 8.1.D.12 at the very beginning of the zoning ordinance excerpts. That is in the staff report. It is not included on the agenda. Okay. It's on the tan piece of paper that you guys have back. Maybe I'm overlooking it. All I see is requests for a conditional use permit for outdoor recreational facilities. Is there a reference to 8-1-D-12 somewhere on there? I'm going to throw up my personal copy of the staff report, which you guys do have a copy of it. It's on brown paper. At the very top there in the Zoning Ordinance section, we highlight 81D12. Oh, gotcha. Okay. On the second sheet. Okay, I got it. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Crum? I have one. An issue has come up regarding the parking. I understand your distinction on, oh, for both, two questions, for 13 and 14. Neither one of those are uses that are permitted even with this conditional use. But we're prohibiting them. I'm like Tommy, I don't like when we add things that people have to do anyways in here. But in this instance, if the rules were to change at the zoning ordinance, the applicant could just come back and ask for a modification of its conditional use if we were to approve. Is that the staff's position? Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then I'd like to hear from Mr. Parker, too, since traffic has come up. I would, too. There's been a lot of – any other questions for Mr. Crum? Okay, Daniel, thank you very much. We would like to hear from Mr. Parker because there's been a substantial amount of testimony about traffic, specifically traffic on Newtown Pike. I'm Stephen Parker. with traffic engineering i'm also serving as a fill-in for josh design he's with the division of engineering and he had to step away my qualifications for his role is i served as a senior municipal engineer in new development engineering for the division of engineering from 2005 until 2016. have you been sworn in yes okay at which time i moved to the division of traffic engineering and have served in that role. I'll let you all start with questions. Brandon you had questions for Mr. Parker and Steve speak up if you would. Yeah I just wanted to clarify for the record that no traffic study was needed for this application. Based on what has been applied for that is correct. That's the only question I had. Well, condition 18 is part of the proposed conditions that says traffic management services shall be provided at the intersection of Providence Place and Newtown when tournaments are hosted. Does that have to be coordinated with you all? Newtown Pike is a state route. They would probably coordinate with the transportation cabinet and the LFUCG. I can imagine that it would be probably the Lexington Police Department that would be contracted to maybe direct traffic out there. I'm only guessing, again, Division of Traffic Engineering has not received any information regarding this application. We have not received a traffic impact study nor any proposals of how they plan to manage traffic during these tournaments. Is a traffic engineering study appropriate for this application or not? Given the testimony that occurred a couple of weeks ago, I anticipated some type of information being provided to us, but we were not providing any information nor contacted for even a meeting or discussion. Well, how is that process going to work? I mean, are they going to contact you? Usually we – Is the applicant going to contact you? I mean, this is all assuming that we grant this application. Typically, we do prior to a zone change or even text amendments, these kind of applications. Anything that's controversial, usually there's a meeting to discuss a proposal, and details are often clarified for this kind of scenario. when I'm called up to answer questions, I can provide clarification for those questions. Would such a meeting be appropriate for this application? It has been done in the past for other applications similar. But I believe in number five, though, you have a sign-off, do you not, in condition five? Yes, we would sign off on the application itself. Even if we approve this today, you've got to say in making sure traffic and circulation works. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I don't think that allows me to ask for a traffic impact study, though, just for clarification. This type does not reach the threshold of that requirement. The condition that Mr. Gross is referring to, number five, the design of off-street parking, internal circulation, and access to the site shall be subject to the review and approval by the Division of Traffic Engineering. That's you. Yes. And I would like a point of clarification. I know this application does not provide for a connection to Russell Cave, but that will happen. That will occur. It is planned. It is known, there was testimony that that was part of a master plan, and that connection will occur to Russell Cave. That's just not part of this application for this soccer complex. So there will be a connection out from Parvidence Parkway out to Russell Cave Road. and I think we heard testimony to that effect earlier earlier than day any other questions for mr. Parker while he's here speak now nothing else thank you mr. Parker all right that closes the public comment portion of the review of this application what's your pleasure board chair can i make a quick statement just in regards to all this Even with Mr. Simpson, I appreciate everyone's passion that we're showing and everyone coming out in this space. We've done hours and hours and hours of testimony now. So it is great to hear everybody's view. I do just want to take some exception, and I know Mr. Simpson knows this as well, that some of the issues that we've heard have to do with the process. And the process is already in place. And the implication that we haven't dug enough or done enough studies or done enough outside research for this part of the process, I just want to take exception to that because, as mentioned by staff and traffic, these applications will continue to go through their process and through building and through traffic and through sewer management, and all those things will still occur. and to imply that we haven't done our due diligence as a board or as the staff under this particular request, I just want to take exception to that. You guys have worked very hard, and so has staff, and so everyone takes it very seriously up here and takes our job very seriously. So I just wanted that to go on the record. And I think that's well said, Ms. Carter. If you look at the conditions, for example, quite a few of them say that a portion of the application will be subject to the review of the various bodies and other administrative agencies that review these things, and the use can't go into effect without their approval. One of them is traffic, but there are several others that are mentioned in the conditions themselves. Thank you. I think Mr. Clark had said he wanted to make a comment or comments. Yes, I would. And this is a very important issue to me for a lot of reasons. And Mr. Simpson, I do get emotional too. So I've spent a lot of time thinking about this before our first meeting, after our first meeting, before this meeting. I spent a lot of time reading, going back into history. And I don't have the skills to compete with good lawyers like Mr. Murphy or to challenge super smart developers. like Dennis, but I have concerns that I would like to express. It goes far beyond some of the comments that we've made here for the last few minutes. This issue goes far beyond the 12 soccer fields. It just does. Or a professional soccer stadium. It goes to the critical issue of land use in the bluegrass. horse country if you will an issue that has been debated over and over again to approve a conditional use in this case on land currently used for the training of horses and a stone's throw from facing Tipton North America's oldest Thoroughbred auction company, and would set a dangerous precedent and would open the door to a great deal more commercial development in the Newtown Pike area. It represents, it truly does folks, it represents a serious encroachment on the precious farmland we hold so dear. and threatens the urban service boundary our city has painstakingly devised and maintained. I admire Mr. Gabbard for his interest in promoting soccer and youth sports and the value it holds for our children. And I can say that I certainly agree with that after 15 years coaching little league baseball. I approve of that. It's good, it's good for our kids. And I say to Mr. Gabbard and others, it's a great idea. It's a great idea. But not here. But not here. And how does the intrusion of 750 parking spaces, more than 400,000 square feet of asphalt, relate to our children? The idea of a, quote, large regional athletic field complex, end quote, in the comprehensive plan to which Mr. Murphy refers, makes no suggestion that it should go into prime agricultural land. It just doesn't. Related to that, it should be entered into this discussion that the plans of Lexington Parks and Recreation for Cardinal Run Park North is described exactly as such a sports complex. 192 acres, including a bunch of soccer fields, with regional tournaments anticipated. These plans are in an architect's hands as we speak at an estimated cost of $10 million. There are forces in our community and well-intentioned, I say that very seriously, well-intentioned, who would like to see major modification in the Urban Services District in order to have more land to develop. I understand that. Can Lexington expand the urban services district? Of course it can, and it has done so, but carefully, but carefully, and not into prime agricultural land as this conditional use proposes. There are alternatives to development and sustained growth, but the approval of this conditional use is not one of those alternatives. How closely the conditional use application is related to the request for a zone text amendment to build a soccer stadium is a matter of conjecture. I would guess that it is inextricably linked, but I don't know that. Whether the Planning Commission will approve the stadium in its amenities is questionable, perhaps for many of the same reasons I expressed today. Wrong place, wrong land usage. I speak not only on my own behalf, not even on the behalf of many of those people who have spoken today. I speak on behalf of the welfare of Lexington, Kentucky. its identity, its character and personality, its reputation, its standing as a symbol in the eyes of the world as a city, county that cherishes its land and its use. Our precious identity says to the world that we do not value growth for growth's sake. Rather, we value the special land we have been deeded by history. We have been conscientious caretakers of what is known as the bluegrass throughout the world. We are famous for how we have maintained our agricultural land, that magic crescent of amazing soil and rock that provides unprecedented nourishment. And here we are again, considering our precious land so famously represented and protected by the boundaries of the urban service district, brilliantly established by those who recognize the extraordinary value of that land. This appeal for conditional use seems small and inconsequential in the larger picture. But I appeal to the good sense of this body to realize that it is a major threat to all we hold dear as Lexington, Kentucky, and the county Fayette, and to the reputation of the bluegrass. I repeat, to accept this conditional use would be a very dangerous precedent that leads to serious encroachment of the land we value so much and jeopardizes this national identity that is the indelible landmark of Lexington, Kentucky. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Anybody else? Mr. Chair, if I could, if Mr. Clerk's prepared remarks, I'd like to know whether the chair and legal consider that evidence or opinion. There were a lot of facts set forth in that, and I want to know whether or not we need to possibly have anything on the record on rebuttal. Well, what I did was to close the hearing to further testimony, so the comments by the board members are are what they are their comments by board members of course and they certainly go into the record of course just like all the comments of the board members and i and i think we uh understood and accepted it for that uh tracy if you have any other comment about that i'd be glad to hear it since you've closed the hearing it's really just any comments you all make or anything like that as part of your determination process Yeah, thank you. Mr. Needham, did you have comments? I mean, I'll make a few quick comments. I don't have anything prepared. I mean, I've listened to the testimony. I've listened to everyone, and we do try to give everyone that says something a fair listen, and this is not easy. I feel like I have a unique perspective just because I grew up a son of horse farmers, and I grew up on Russell Cave Road, and, you know, I grew up playing soccer. So this is about as close as it gets. You know, I'm from the north side of Lexington. I played at Bryan Station. I went on and played at Trancy, and I even played one year of semi-pro at the Bluegrass Bandits back in the, you know, back in the early or mid-'90s. 90s. But, you know, I do believe that horse farms, neighbors, even soccer fields, I do believe that they can coexist. And, you know, I've thought about this, and I just, I feel like it's important for them to coexist. Growing up on Russell Cave Road, you know, I've gone past that farm, you know, with the bus from Winburn Junior High every day of my life. And, you know, this farm from the 80s has been in, I don't want to say disrepair, but it hasn't been in great repair. And this is going to continue, in my mind, to be as it is. I think if someone were to have, protect a piece of land in this crescent, and they feel as though that is important, someone would have bought this land, put in fancy barns, perfect paddocks, and fantastic horses. No one has done that. So I think that over the years, this farm has fallen in disrepair. I think there was a lot of land grab back in the day when the urban service boundary stopped. Those with the means, those with the abilities were able to purchase the land just outside of that. This is, I think the time has come for something to happen here. It seems to be stalled. Yes, we'd all love a stadium downtown. Obviously, that's not happening. So where is it best next? I think it's important for soccer, for the competitiveness of Lexington to have some type of facility. I feel there's a traffic impact study that was done back during WEG and during, you know, when the horse park got developed and the games, the tournaments, the housing, a possible stadium. I think it can be worked out. I think it would be less of a burden than a benefit. I also think the fields in an AR zone will have an impact that will be manageable. And I've thought a lot about that, but that's what I think. I think the neighbors can work out being good neighbors. I think that's important, and I think conditions are good. We set those to protect everyone, and that gives me the ability to make decisions moving forward. And I think Lexington has a number of concerned citizens, alliances, farm owners that fight the good fight to protect the land, and that is important. And I do believe that the process will be professional through the engineering and the traffic and the environmental with the city of Lexington. so that I feel good about moving forward, making a decision that is positive, I think, in a way where we can all be good neighbors. So I would be for this motion for approval. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Anybody else wish to comment further? Ms. Whitman. Yes, I would. I commented at the end of our session two weeks ago. I have not heard anything today that changes my feelings. I think about the number of youth that will be served. I hope and I think it will happen that there will be conditions. There already are conditions, a lot of them, more than we normally see. that this project will be a good neighbor. I think the land was purchased, as Mr. Needham said, for development, for future development. Mr. Anderson has not farmed the land as we would normally think of horse farm country. And I think this will be a good addition. to our community and to surrounding communities. I hope it will. I hope everybody will get behind this if we approve it. I think it could be a great addition. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Any other comments from any other board members? Round Robin. Sure. I'm totally neutral in this. I didn't play soccer, and I'm too big to ride a horse, so that puts me in a perfect spot. Mr. Walker, I bet you we could find a horse at Clydesdale. They're too expensive. You know, I've got two properties in the PDR program myself. I'm about conservation. But in this particular case, you're talking about a soccer complex that's only going to use about a third of the overall land that's proposed. And, you know, me personally, I'd like to see the residual go into the PDR program. That kind of stops that particular growth. but overall it's a way to allow kids to enjoy the bluegrass and I know the Herald leader had an article about specifically a PDR program saying what's next can we actually come out and access those sites can we use them and we can't right now so this lets kids come out and enjoy the bluegrass state and on another personal note it's hard for me to hear the arguments of conservation and things like that when phasic tipson is involved because we've got a lot of structures there a lot of impervious surface and things like that and i think this is a good usage of um like i said just being able to able to allow youth out to that particular site there's possible problems with that but there's problems with any air quote development so i'm personally in favor of this as well thank you mr walker i don't think we do i don't think so but we can anybody else on the board wish to wish to comment let me say this uh the hour is late and uh the fact uh we need to resolve this i think in some fashion today whether it's approval or disapproval if there's a motion made that that doesn't preclude our our ability to discuss among ourselves board members the the merits of that particular uh motion so if there's no further comment you have a question and procedural there are so many conditions yes there are and that's why i said what i said because if there's a motion made that doesn't preclude our discussion of any particular portion of that motion if you'd prefer to discuss it before a motion is made we have the flexibility to do that as well in fact i want to make the first one it's been it's been suggested to us that an additional finding in addition to the three proposed by staff that an additional finding be all public facilities and services will be adequate to serve the proposed use and I think that sounds like a reasonable addition for this application it should it be approved so that's that's one that's one comment on the conditions so do you think we would have someone make a motion with the conditions that they were comfortable with and then we discuss the ones that we aren't because there's some in here you know that i think each of us may or may not have issues with some of them are redundant as we mentioned um the the months the the restriction of the tournament is a concern you know i think once in my personal opinion once we approve it as a as a use then i don't in turn want to restrict i mean aside from the conditions to come you don't want to handcuff people into certain things that may not be the way that it operates and i don't know that we have enough information to to determine that so some of those things have just I don't know, I think we got a little too much into the details of that type of thing that I wouldn't be comfortable with accepting. So what do you think? I agree. And, in fact, one of the conditions that I may have mentioned earlier, the last condition about the null and void provision, I don't think should be limited to the operator. I think it should be limited to the owner of the property. So that's, you know, one issue that I had that I think I was the only one that made that comment about that. But that was one of the concerns of mine. This is the phase that we're in right now, people. We're discussing it among ourselves. So if there's a provision that you want to discuss individually besides the ones that Raquel and I have mentioned, what are your thoughts I agree with the comment that you just made that very definitely should be changed we talked about hours of operation I think we need to look at those again what Raquel said are we limiting the operation should that be left perhaps until later with more information. Adding March onto the months in number 16, we've talked about that. I think those are my main comments, except for we don't we're still back and forth on parking and I'm not sure where where that should be I don't know that we've had any real specifics on how staff feels other than that we may not have the the right number there I know know it's not 7500 though Bruce I have to say that but is it 750 is it 400 is it 600 I mean where are we on that and do we do we really want to get in I well restricted at this point I'll say miss Whitman at the plan calls for 750 and so we would be approving 750 I understand that today in the staff has signed off on. I understand that. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. The other issue, Brandon, if you could help with the 13 and 14, when we were asking about those in particular, were there actually conditions that are also just restating what the ordinance says? If we approve those conditions, if that's what we say, Tracy, if we're approving these conditions, then if the ordinance changes, then we are limiting them to the conditions that we approved? Yes, the reason I understand that those were put in there is because, as you've all heard, there are separate text amendments moving through the planning process at the Planning Commission. so they could in fact what's in there is a statement of what's in the ordinance but should those text amendments should you approve this and should those text amendments move forward and be approved then you would still have these protections in the conditional use so in order to change that they would have to come back to you and ask to have them modified, removed or whatever It's sort of the flip of when you all have a conditional use, and maybe it says it can include X, Y, Z, and you all put a condition on there to be sure that something is addressed a certain way, even though it might be addressed in the ordinance. So that's why it's in there. And so in short, which that wasn't, to answer your question, if you leave those in, then they will be the conditions on this conditional use permit if it's approved. And they can only be changed by this board whether a text amendment changes them or not. Because you can condition conditional uses all the time and things have to come back to you to be modified or changed. I think that's, having heard Daniel and Ms. Jones, I think that's the appropriate take if this were to be approved. Since these items were not fleshed out in the application, I think we should keep those restrictions. If the planning commission and the city council decide to allow those, then the applicant could come back and we could discuss them at that time with the more detailed plan on how they would do the lighting and other things of that nature. For me, my specific concerns had more to do with that parking piece, that off-site parking piece. I know it would be tied to something else. Just as a mother of kids that play lots of sports, we spend a lot of money in concessions. So, at some point, there has to be. And I think, I mean, personally, I think, you know, I was back and forth on the off-site parking. At this point, I think we should keep it until the rest of the plan is fleshed out. This is a use for this particular property, and if they, like I said, come back and they get approvals and they want us to look at it again in the future, I think we can look at it at that time. The one thing that concerns me, Brandon and Raquel both, is the additional of the last three words and the like. That is awfully open-ended. It's an awfully open-ended restriction. I understand the concern about off-site parking and the like sounds unreasonably broad as a restriction. I think the like opens yourself up to arbitrariness, but that's what the zoning ordinance says. But we can always say something different or substantially similar uses. I don't like the word and the like either. i don't either but i could live with substantially similar um yeah i don't i could live with that too any other comments or questions or any discussion i we're going to have to have a motion on the table in order to proceed and like i say we can we can discuss the motion once it's on the table so we can amend it or alter it as as we please because we're the board and i want to i want to remind you in addition to what rachel said about the comprehensiveness of our review we are only the board of adjustment we're not all things to all people there are many things in the in this particular application as there are in other applications that are fleshed out by other administrative agencies within the within the government and its and its and its agency so we don't we don't need to get down into the nitty-gritty of most of the things that we approve because of the fact that there are other entities that will look at the application and determine how it'll be implemented so I'm comfortable with with that explanation and if there's a motion to be made we can hear it now. I'm willing to make a motion and I'm gonna go ahead and throw in some of my edits to the conditions at the same time which can I'm not at that point we can discuss whether or not the board wants to modify those. I guess Ms. Jones keep your pen ready perfect okay mr. chair I hereby move for approval of the conditional use permit for an outdoor recreational facility soccer fields on property located in the agricultural rural zone on property located 2501 Russell cave Road for case number PLN BOA 22-2 6 Anderson communities Inc based upon the staff's recommendations all of the testimony that was presented to us on our prior meeting and at this meeting. Subject to the conditions of the staff provided, however, for condition 14, I move that we strike the term the like and substitute substantially similar uses. On 15, I will want to strike 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily and replace that with 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. daily. On 16, I would like to strike after the first per month so that the language and tournament shall be limited to the months of April, May, June, September, and October be removed from the condition. On 17, I would like to strike the sentence, no tournament shall occur during horse sale events or for three days prior to the first sale date of the event. and I personally would strike number 19. So moved. I second the motion. Motion's been made and seconded. Motion by Mr. Grove, seconded by Ms. Whitman. Let me ask you to clarify a couple of things that you said just to make sure that we know what we're voting on and I want to propose that you amend your motion to include a finding that all public facilities and services will be adequate to serve the proposed use. I'll accept that modification. Thank you. Now on 14 you're striking the language after the last and and substituting substantially similar. Is that correct? Uses. Three words. Yes. So we now read and substantially similar uses. Uses, thank you. And the hours of operation in 15, you propose changing to 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m.? Daily, yes. Daily. And number 16, you went by that off a click. Read that again to me. 16, the condition would read. It would be easier. There shall be no more than two tournaments per month, period. Okay. And did you have an amendment on 17? The entire second sentence. And 18, you suggested that that be deleted. No, 18 will remain. 19, I struck the entire condition. 19 you rec you move that that be deleted yes okay thank you does everybody understand the motion any discussion about it any further discussion about it other than what we've heard i do in particular on the number 16 there shall be no more than two tournaments per month um i just think during soccer during sports seasons we often have they have tournaments every weekend during that limited time where we're limiting them to four months of operation that time period i'm just more familiar with there being regular sports i mean every weekend being busy was that by request of the applicant i think my recollection was the staff said that's what the applicant put in their materials okay um i'm not married to it if you want to strike 16 i would accept that modification to my motion. I would just as soon strike 16. Will you accept that as a... I accept that. Do you need seconds on those? Do what? Do you need seconds on those changes? Oh, I don't know. Tracy, do we need seconds on those amendments? If Mr. Gross is accepting those amendments as friendly amendments, no. But if there's going to be any discussion about that, then you would have to have seconds. I've accepted those as friendly. Okay. Fair enough. Are you ready to vote? Yes. All right. Please indicate electronically your vote. Grant, this is just a little slow. Just give it some time. i understand we're subject to the yeah we got plenty of time we got nowhere else to go we accept the uh we accept the limitations as well as the benefits of technology and that's what we're doing The motion is approved with one descending vote. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. And the next meeting of the Board of Adjustment will be on July 11th. There being no further business. Is there any other business to be conducted by the board? There being no further business, the Board of Adjustment is adjourned. Thank you.