Dogs all are well, well taken care of. That's wonderful. Or we wouldn't have them out here. That's wonderful. That's wonderful. How has the fair grown and changed over the years? Oh, it's grown tremendously. When we first started back in 1961, which was before my time, of course, it started out over at the Red Mile trotting track in the middle of the track over there. So over the years, we worked out a deal with the city. We came out here to Masterson Station, built all the buildings out here, did the Finston area and moved out here, I believe it was in the mid to late 80s. And that just shows you how much we've grown right there. As we say, we have new rides every year, bigger rides, better rides. You name it, we've got it. It'll wake you up. These rides will wake you up. In our background here, you'll see a roller coaster called the Python. Now, it may not be a Kings Island roller coaster. It may not be a Cedar Point roller coaster, but I think it'll wake you up. You know, it'll get your attention. That's great. I love rides. I look forward to riding the crazy ones as long as my fear didn't get the best of me. Well, I want you to come out and ride the Alter Ego. That's one of our biggest rides. It's one that'll stain you on your head. It'll get your attention also. I'll just make sure not to eat before I get on that ride. Do not eat before you get on the ride. We've had that mistake happen before. Well, is there anything else special you want to share about the fair? and what folks can expect when they come out here? Just a good time, a good family time. That's what we're providing is just family fun entertainment, and that's what we build up there as is fun, family, friendly entertainment. And we just want everybody to come out and have a good time. Talking about the rides, there is an extra charge for rides. If you want to ride just one or two rides, you can buy a single ride ticket, or if you're unlimited, if you want to buy a ride bracelet, which is unlimited rides. There's different specials every day on ride bracelets. Some days there's a buy one, get one free. Some days it's called Mommy Monday. Mommy buys one and the baby gets to come in free also, ride free also. We have something different every day as far as rides, ride specials. Best thing to do is check our website, thebluegrassfair.com. So go on there and look at our events page. It'll give you all the prices, all the entertainment. It'll tell you about the sea lion splash. It'll tell you about the dock diving dogs, their canines in flight. And I think you'll have a good time. Come on out. Wonderful. Well, folks, you heard it here first. Come on out to the Blue Grass Fair. Well, I hope it was first, if not second or third. But come on out to Blue Grass Fair at Madison Station Park in the 2nd District. There's some fun things coming up on June the 8th. June the 8th. On June the 8th. And as you can see, the park is, they're getting set up already right now. So I'm eagerly awaiting to come out here and eat all of the good food. But brides and brides first, then eat. Now remember, we go 11 days straight in a row. So we start on the 8th. We go through the 18th. So if you can't make it on opening day, we've got plenty of time. Come on out. That is wonderful. I cannot wait. Thank you so much for joining me to talk about the fair and the awesome things that are coming to our community very, very soon. We appreciate you coming out. We want everybody to come out and have a good time. Thank you all. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Kathy Plumann and I represent the 12th District in Fayette County. What we're talking about today is something that was really important to the 12th District. That is back in the 100 plus years ago. It was home and still somewhat home to our rural settlements. Now, our rural settlements were black settlements that after the Emancipation Proclamation in the mid-1800s, the folks that were freed stayed around that area of the farms that they worked, and they developed settlements where they raised their families generation after generation. They raised their food. There was a church usually, school in some cases, but those were known as our rural hamlets. Unfortunately, most of them do not exist today. And the one thing that we don't want to happen is to forget them. So a project that came out of my office a couple years ago was a project to make sure that we recognize and we celebrate these historical hamlets. And that is what we're going to be talking about today. Right now I have with me Joanna Green, who is a member of our steering committee. We have 12 of us on the steering committee that have been meeting and talking about how we can do exactly what I said, recognize and celebrate these historical hamlets. So, Joanna, why is it important that we do this, that we celebrate and recognize these? It's very important that we do not lose the history of our black hamlets in Lexington. There's approximately about 20 of them, and Cagentown, where you're at right now, is where I have property. I think it's very important that we make sure our lost history become part of a new place what we call a sense of a place. I think that's what we tell it. That's our campaign, a sense of place. Right. And we are here in front of the Rosenwald School. The Rosenwald School was an initiative that went across the south and southeast and some of the southwest part of the country back in the 1920s. And there was a gentleman by the name of Booker T. Washington that approached a, actually he was the CEO of Sears and Roebuck, and together through a partnership, they decided, you know, we need to make sure that our black youth in America are educated. So they were able, through community partnerships, to build over, I think it was 5,000 schools throughout the country, mostly in the southern part. And Fayette County had five, and this is the only one remaining. and it was a schoolhouse back from 1924 to I think in the 50s and it did just that. It educated our black youth. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. He's ready, are you ready, Brandon? Okay, you guys ready? All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, good afternoon. We'll try to get through things expediently today. What we'll do, we do have some new members, some guests here, some of you guys I see all the time. But in any case, what we'll do first, we'll go through the agenda as it's printed. We'll start with the swearing of the witnesses, then I will sound the agenda. So we'll go through each case and see who is present, and we'll see if there's any opposition, and that'll decide how the cases are heard. Those without any opposition will be heard first. Those with comment or opposition will be fully heard in that order. Let's see here. We will start with the approval of the minutes. The board has had an opportunity to review the minutes. And I would entertain a motion if everything is okay as presented. Thank you. We do have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? good job chad i'll second i'm sorry miss tucker had the motion chad needham has the second any further discussion about the minutes if not we will take about two months two oh we have two Okay. Oh, that was for April Minutes. Okay. We'll just do them separately. Thank you, Mr. Clark. All right. The motion to approve April Minutes has passed, and I'll entertain a motion for May Minutes as well. Move approval for May Minutes. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, if there's no further discussion, we will take a vote. We'll have to do by show of hands because I've had them together on the agenda. Oh, okay. Can we do a friendly amendment to the original? Well, we'll just do show of hands. Okay, all in favor? We're good. Thank you. Sorry about that. okay if you are planning to speak today if i could have everyone stand who is planning to speak at this time and i will ask first that each of you have signed in in the back that's correct okay if not you could do that after you sworn in but if you could raise your right hand and repeat after me please i swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today or any day no i'm just joking yeah okay thank you okay now let's sound the agenda the first case is plnboa 23-37 that's glendale farm is the applicant present for glendale farm okay we'll come back to that one yeah oh okay you're present now okay okay I know Chad was like I think it's It says Glendale, I'm just reading from the page, okay? All those LLCs, I know. I have to check. Yeah. Well, good deal, so the applicant is present. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this particular case? Okay, well you will be heard first on the docket. And then the next one is PLNBOA 23-38, that's James and Anna Zirko. Are the applicants present? Okay. And this has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone to speak in opposition? Great, you will be heard. Second. PLN BOA 23-39, that's Van Meter Pettit. Is the applicant present? Okay. That has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Your number three. And then we have PLNBOA 23-41, that's off season LLC. That has been recommended for disapproval, the applicant is present. And the staff will present on that one, so you'll be number one on the HERD docket. PLNBOA 23-43-545, Euclid LLC, is the applicant present? Okay. And that has been recommended for approval. Do we have anyone to speak in opposition? We do have one, thank you sir. That will be number two on the herd docket. We have PLNBOA 23-44, Aaron Simmerman. The applicant is present. That has been recommended for approval. Do we have anyone to speak in opposition today? Okay, that's number four on the rocket docket. All right, cool. And I believe lastly we have a conditional use appeal, PLNBOA 23-42. Chris Pratt is the applicant present. Okay. That has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone to speak in opposition? We do have a few, okay. So that will be number three on the herd docket. Does it look like I got everybody? Sounds good. We'll go back to the beginning. PLN VOA 23-37 Glendale slash Spendthrift Farm. If you can come forward, sir. Oh, well. I've got to do my maiden name sometimes, too, and it's been a lot of years. Yeah, but they have it divided up in different forms, I think. The big heading is Spendthrift. I'm Tom Wilms of Wilms Architects, and I'm representing the client in this case. Thank you. Thank you. We have received this packet. Has the board had opportunity to review? Do we have any questions about the project? If there are no questions or concerns, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 23-37 Glendale Farm, also known as Spindthrift. request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 151 feet in order to construct an accessory structure, a gatehouse in the agricultural rural zone on properly located at 884-886 Ironworks Pike, based on the staff's recommendation and the five conditions as listed. Thank you. Mr. Clark, do we have a second? I'll second. Oh, Ms. Plumlee's already second. Thank you. Okay, if no other discussion, we'll take a vote. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Next, we have PLNBOA 23-38, James N. Anna Zirko. If the applicant can step forward, please. If you state your name for the record, please. Anna Zirko. Thank you. Now, the staff has recommended approval for this one. Has the board had an opportunity to review? I will just say we've seen several of these. I think we'll see another one before, but this was one that you have a pretty unique lot, right? Yeah. that's a great reason for a variance if anybody has a motion I'll entertain question oh yes please so I was curious about why you would need a six-foot gate and when I went by there it looked like there was an equipment trailer sitting like in the middle of that lot just recently yes yeah so we were just removing some branches with the trailer it's going to be moved away here soon okay so because I was curious about the six-foot gate too because that's a big gate it's gonna be the one that's right next to the garage yes we just wanted it to match the entire fence so it doesn't look a lot lower than that and with our kids growing up we don't want them you know touching the top of it or standing on it or reaching over it Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Okay. I'll entertain a motion if there is one. Thank you. showed as B I think um well so the gate itself I don't think it's going to be six foot but the space will be six feet just so we can keep it even down the drive like next to the driveway I understand yeah to answer your question Ms. Tucker okay oh sorry I didn't I guess I didn't understand that then yeah yeah when I looked at a little more closely I think she thought the six foot's the length of the whole piece of fence not necessarily the size of the gate Okay. Well, with that, I will move for approval of PLM VOA 23-38 James and Anna Zirko. All right. Request for a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence in the front yard from four feet to six feet. Property located in a single-family residential zone. Property located at 2944 Waco Road. based upon the report, the information provided here today by the applicant and subject to the three conditions set forth in the staff report. Thank you. Mr. Gross, do I have a second? Thank you, Mr. Needham. Any further discussion? I did have one question. So I noticed that it said we have to set it back 10 feet from the sidewalk. I'm wondering if we can bring that a little forward because initially I had three feet here and if that's a little close then I'm wondering if we can do five feet away from the sidewalk My apologies, I should have asked you first if you had reviewed the conditions and taken a look at it so the fencing shall be installed ten foot back from the property line can staff speak on that? Yes, so the 10-foot number comes from the location of kind of the adjoining fencing, and so staff, in making that recommendation, kind of found that as an existing element to kind of match, and so we found that it wouldn't be any more intrusive by matching that existing setback, but we would have some concerns on kind of moving it closer where it has more of an impact on the pedestrians and the right-of-way. Okay. So are we okay with the 10-foot? Yeah. Thank you, thank you. I'll slow down. Sorry. Okay, the motion has passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Okay, so we'll hear PLN BOA 2344, Erin Simmerman. I think you skipped one. Did it? You skipped- Van Meter Pettit? Yep, VOA 2339, Van Meter Pettit. There we go. Slow all the way down, it's Monday. Hi. Slow all the way down. Yeah, Van Meter Pettit, 160 East Belcourt. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. So that's on 242 Rand Avenue. that has been recommended for approval board if you had a time to review or do we have questions no i i've i've reviewed it that it looks um this is an interesting uh building you know right there on the end so it makes sense to give it a nice new porch. We'll take one. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, I move approval of BOA 2339 Van Meter Pettit for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 9 feet in order to construct an addition of a covered front porch to an existing single-family residence within the defined redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 242 Rand Avenue, Council District 1, with the three conditions recommended by staff. Two. Two. Two. Okay. I'll second. Two. I'm sorry. I read the wrong thing. Yeah. It's okay. Okay. Only two conditions. We have a first from Ms. Plumlee and second from Ms. Tucker, and we'll take a vote. The motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you all. Okay, now Mr. Simmerman. PLN BOA 2344. Aaron Simmerman, 1156-1160 Gentry Road. Thank you, sir. and we have already received the packet here. Do we have any questions or concerns from the board? Mr. Zimmerman, I'd like to know, for some reason, the diagram, I can't tell where the actual house is going to be. Can we get that on the screen so we can find the location of that? I also looked at Google map and that confused me even more. So. It can do that. So you're seeing 1156 and 1160, both to which I own, will be combined into one. They're not going to be two separate properties. But kind of where 1156 comes into 1160. And Mr. Summer, we have a, yeah. Laser pointer. It's a very top button. This one here? That's a sensor, one below that. This one here? There you go. So essentially right in here is where the house is going to sit. um so yeah it's what 38 by 56 something of that and and and gentry where does it where does it divide and based on that that picture i mean it it it turns a corner there somewhere does it not no so this here is kind of no man's land it's called an extension of gentry road okay which i put the road in it's i don't know who owns it so um but it's the access to my property okay and it's not owned by either party here the guesses uh or over here so your guess is as good as mine okay good got you that helps thank you any other questions All right, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 23-44, Erin Simmerman's request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 138 feet in order to construct a single family home in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 1156 Gentry Road based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Can I have a second? I'd second. Ms. Plumley, second. You do that quietly. I don't see that. I just see you pop up here. That's all that matters, all that matters. Oh. I think I'm missing one. Oh, Ms. Plumley, the vote. You need a vote. There we go. Motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. OK. We will go back to PLN VOA 23-41. That's offseason LLC. And Mr. Gross is already gone. Bye, see you. Mr. Gross will recuse himself on this one. It has been recommended for disapproval, so we will listen to staff's presentation first. All right. Good afternoon everyone, Daniel Crum, planning staff. The first item being heard on the full docket today is PLN BOA 2341. This is a request by off-season LLC. And it is a fence variance in order to increase the allowable height of a fence in the front yard area from four feet to six feet. This is for the property at 3013 Tates Creek Road, which is shown up on your map here. So this is a townhouse development that was developed in 2018, 14 units. So it's located directly across the road from Emanuel Baptist Church. Moving a little bit closer, you see sort of the layout of the property. The applicant is seeking to construct fencing around the perimeter of the property here. So the portion is essentially closest to Tates Creek Road. So they're proposing four-foot-tall fencing that kind of wraps around the edges of the property. And then the parts closest to the access point near the gate, they are seeking to increase this to six feet tall in order to construct a proposed rolling gate system. So this would be for both the entrance and exit points. However, because this is in front of the proposed structures, it is bound by the four-foot requirement. This is a pretty consistent requirement. And in the immediate vicinity, we had in 2016 a request to increase the height of fencing for nearby property. I believe 3001 Tates Creek Road in 2016. That was disapproved. So the applicant is coming before you today. In their discussion, in their letter of justification, they really touch upon kind of the way the property is set back. So that this is not going to be immediately adjacent kind of to pedestrian facilities along Tates Creek Road. However, there are a couple aspects of the application, the justification, that really were never touched upon. Namely, that in order to kind of justify a variance, there has to be special circumstances that are unique to the property. So whether this be shape, topography, some other feature or something unique about the parcel that lends itself to this variance being needed. The second part is that does this variance restrict the applicant's ability to use the property? The letter of justification submitted by the applicant doesn't really touch on why a six-foot fence is necessary in this area and what a four-foot fence or gate in this situation couldn't accomplish. So with that kind of information, staff recommends disapproval. Those kind of core elements of the variance that need to be met, those threshold issues, really weren't justified. Furthermore, staff has been fairly consistent about enforcing that four-foot-tall front yard fence within the residential zones. And so staff is recommending disapproval in this instance and would be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time. Thank you. Any questions from the board for staff? I do have one which may be a memory test. I feel like it was in the Red Mile area. Yes. You had to gate it. Can you remember which case that was? Yes, yes. So within fairly early of my tenure, so within the past two years, there was a front yard fence that was granted for the property and apartment on Red Mile Road. The applicant had, very similarly to here, requested six feet. However, in that instance, the board approved a lesser variance, I believe five feet, to match basically an existing element. So in that scenario, it was fairly similar, but the main difference being there was this existing fencing element there that was being matched. This is a newer development that didn't have this older existing kind of component to it. And if my recollection is correct, I believe staff also recommended disapproval for that last, for the Red Mile Road Board of Adjustment case, if memory serves. I think that, well, they rekt, but we approved it. Yes, the board did approve it in that for a lesser variance. What I remember what made me ask the question was I thought it was an equipment issue, that the gates only came in certain heights, that there was some limitation there. That was part of the justification. In that case, that justification was not made with this request. So the information on why this is necessary, any type of mechanical or how this would function, really wasn't provided. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. I'm looking at a drawing. I don't know if my interpretation is correct, but the gate is like 20 feet, and there would be a total of nine feet that is six feet tall. And the other, it drops down to four feet. Is that correct? Yes. So the gate design is, and I think the applicant may provide some visuals that kind of illustrate it. The gate component itself is not a straight line, so it kind of curves in after a certain port and it drops down. So the entirety of that stretch isn't at six feet. It's at its highest on those kind of columns and kind of the parts that support it. I think the applicant has provided some graphics that can illustrate that a little bit better than me describing it on air. So it is kind of limited portions. Only nine out of the 20 is actually six feet tall. I'm sorry? Only nine feet out of the 20 is six feet tall. I'm not entirely sure on the length. I'll ask the applicant. Any portion would require a variance, essentially. Let me ask this. This is a minor point, but the statute doesn't really say anything about gates and fences, does it? I mean, gates and columns. I'm just wondering where that language is. I mean, we're talking about fences, which I understand. Yeah, it's been our traditional interpretation that the gates, columns are all components of the fencing and or walls. So we've considered them kind of linked together and subject to the same height requirements historically. Good. Thank you. And the posts we see currently that have been built are at four feet or at six feet? The existing elements. So let me bring this back a little bit. So my understanding is that there's portions of the perimeter fencing that aren't including the gates. Those meet the height requirement to our knowledge. This is really concentrated on the portions that are going to be near the actual access point that's serving as the vehicular barrier. But the other is they're not seeking a variance for any of the other portions, so I assume that they are meeting the four-foot requirement. any other questions of staff before the applicant presents thank you dame can you just leave that up a minute if you will thank you madam chair and members of the board uh i'm darby turner uh representing representing the applicant in this matter. And as was indicated, this is a very de minimis request, actually. Let me point out over here. If you could speak to the microphone. You don't need to? No, you do need that. You do need it. Just do a test. Test one, two, three. Okay. All right. This is Tates Creek Road. The fence that we're talking about is here and here, and that is a four foot fence with four foot columns the area that we're talking about is a gatehouse right here and it sets back about 15 feet from the the frontage fence of 400 feet I mean of four feet and the two gates are right here and right here on either side of the gatehouse the gatehouse is approximately 10 feet tall and the gates are going to have to slide rather than swing so in order to basically aesthetically blend these two from a 10 foot down to a four foot what we've suggested is as you as As Pomey indicated, there's basically four and a half feet of fence that'll be of the gate that'll be six feet tall, coming down to four feet, and then on both sides. So there's approximately 18 feet plus the two posts out of about 300 feet of fence that we're talking about here. And it's done basically to aesthetically blend these two. Keep it in mind, following the staff's presentation, the staff indicated that they could not find any special circumstances. nor any unnecessary hardship, etc. But the ordinance in the statute, basically, that's not a required finding. Either of those two are not required findings. Those are only to be considered. The findings that you have to make are that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. One, will not alter the central character of the general vicinity. Two, and will not cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public. Three, and will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulations. So those are the findings that you are required to make. It also requires you to consider whether there are special circumstances or whether there's an unnecessary hardship. And also, if there's a blatant disregard for the zoning ordinance, that's also a consideration, but that's not here because nothing's built yet. So, I mean, as you consider, you can consider those issues to be de minimis, non-existent, or whatever. The question is the four findings that you have to make. So first, will the granting of the variance adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare? I can't imagine 18 feet to blend a gatehouse and the gate would have any hard impact, any impact at all on health, safety, and welfare. The gate is also, the fence and the gate are transparent. In other words, they're metal picket fence, wrought iron fence, if you will, although it's not wrought iron. So it's transparent. Next, will it alter the essential character of the general vicinity? Well, as a part of our justification letter, and I can put up the photos, if you will, along Tates Creek Pike, I call it Tates Creek Pike, that's what it was when I grew up, but at any rate, there are a number of instances of six feet fences, posts, gates, large, in fact, the church next door, it's part of the retention basin, but there's frankly a six foot wall. So this doesn't have anything to do, and I understand some of those were put in for different reasons. Some of them were put in before the four-foot requirement, but they represent the general character of the immediate vicinity of this. So this is not out of character with anything that is not there already. will it be cause a hazard or nuisance to the public again i can't imagine even coming up with how there would be a hazard or nuisance to the public you can see through the through the gate it's basically 20 feet off the property line or the building line, excuse not the building line but the property line. So it's there for the residents of the townhouse development. Those are private streets within and it certainly doesn't represent a hazard or nuisance to the public. Will it allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulations? Again, it's so de minimis, how could it? In fact, I would argue that it actually is consistent with the intent. Let me digress a minute. This development was approved by the Planning Commission with a rezoning for two single-family residential houses into an R3 zone to permit this 14-townhouse development. That was consistent with the comprehensive plans direction that focus should be added to underutilized property on the main corridors. And as you know, a number of the properties in this section, properties on States Creek Boat are set far back from the road on significantly large lots. Now, whether you agree with that or not, it really doesn't matter. But that's what the comprehensive plan focused on, and that's what this developer did. And it was approved, not without some objection and so forth. And if you reflect there, you will see the gatehouse, and that actually was depicted on the final development plan. Actually, one question that arises is, you know, the four-foot requirement is between the road and the building. That's what it says. The gatehouse is a building. This fence area is going to be in the middle of the building. So whether or not we technically need a variance, I don't know, but that's something to consider too. But it also mitigates what we're talking about here in terms of basically trying to do good design, aesthetically pleasing element to finish off basically a four-foot fence around the front of the development. And to blend it with the gatehouse, the 10-foot gatehouse, and so forth. So I have some, while the staff didn't offer any findings in favor, I do have some that I would like to present to you. Thank you. So this is a depiction of the gate. There will be two of them, and those gates will slide to the side. It looks almost from this that they are swinging gates in the middle, but that's the look, but that's not the function that they will have. And as Ms. Plumlee indicated, the two ends of each gate, 20-foot gate, are 4.5 feet of 6-foot high and then reducing down to the 4-foot. Again, to properly blend that gate into a 10-foot gatehouse. So the findings, as you'll see, we are not requesting a six-foot variance for the entire line. It's just these four spots on the gate. It will not adversely affect, and I don't want to repeat myself, but it will not adversely affect the public health safety and where welfare because it's a very very minor deviation from the four foot requirement and again is to be a transition between a permitted gatehouse the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as i indicated there are six foot gates all along this corridor starting at montclair and going on out past this property basically to Lanzown Drive so it will not change the basic character those kind of elevations and heights are consistent with what's in the corridor I've also indicated there are special circumstances that don't generally apply if you want to consider that and that would be the change in the comprehensive plan that promotes the focus on these densities. So now we have 14 townhomes in close proximity to Tates Creek Road, Tates Creek Pike and the aesthetics become much more important and so there is a there is a special circumstance, if you will, which is a change of density within this corridor. The direct application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant or would create an unnecessary hardship. And that simply relates, I mean, this is tenuous, as I said, But it simply relates to the aesthetic and the design and the plan to have this development be visually pleasing from the road and to be consistent with the height and mass of the structures that are there. So I would respectfully submit that the findings that you are required to make are very easily done. This is such a de minimis small change or request, whether it's necessary or not, and here we are, is such that it kind of decries common sense is why this wouldn't be an acceptable solution. This is what variances are for, for these types of situations where you can do something that's good, that doesn't hurt anybody, and is very de minimis in nature. So I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Once you started describing this, I think I had in my head what it was going to look like, and it doesn't look like that, and so I'm trying to figure out it. So the gatehouse would be in the center of these two? Or this is per side? Yeah. The gatehouse would be in the center of these two gates. Not these two. Not these two. Okay. And so you've got one way in, one way out on each side? Yes. Okay. This is one. The reason I'm asking, so the six-foot connector on this right side would connect to a four-foot side. There's going to be a step. It's going to connect to a six-foot post, which will connect to a four-foot fence. It was backwards in my mind. I thought I was thinking it was going for four up to six. No. No, we could. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. So really we're talking more about a six foot post than we are a fence. Six foot post and four and a half feet of fence of gate. one beside the post, one next to the gatehouse, one on the other side of the gatehouse, and one on the next post. That would be six feet. Mr. Clark, did you have? No, I have some comments to make, but I have to hear opposition. Thank you. Did you have anything, Mr. Needham? Any questions for the applicant? No, I think where I get confused is where, I mean, I'm not confused. I understand what you want, and I think it's a reasonable looking gate. I think it drops four feet. But knowing that you can only go four feet in the front from the get-go, why did you build a 10-foot guard shack, and then you have two six-foot columns? But I don't understand why a six-foot column was able to, if it's part of the gate and fence, why that was able to be built. It hasn't been built. It has not been built yet. It has not been built. Oh, okay. None of this has been built. I mean, there are four-foot posts out there for the four-foot fence. But at the gate, there's nothing that's been built. And the gate house has not been built yet. Is that correct? So all that can be adjusted down, essentially. Again, we're trying to fit with elevations that are behind it. And is that, but if I can think through that, driving by that, it does elevate itself off of the, from Tate's Creek anyway. It does. Yeah. Okay. All right, that's all. Anything else of the applicant? Okay. Do we have any public comment on this one? I don't think so. Would the staff like to come? Oh. Okay. Okay, let's go back a little bit. All right. So planning staff just had several items that they kind of wanted to address as far as this particular application. So the first, with regard for kind of the character, the vicinity, the variance that went through or was applied for in 2016 for 3101. So just to orient yourself, unfortunately, it got cut off in this image. but it's the property located here, so essentially one, two, three, four properties south. Part of the findings for the disapproval, and in that instance, they were requesting a five-foot fence with six-foot and seven-foot columns. That was denied. The board found that this was not in keeping with the character of this corridor. Essentially, they noted that many of the lawns and many of the front yard areas are unfenced in this area. These are larger lots that are kind of set further back, and they found and they highlighted some of the same properties brought up within the letter of justification by the applicant and found that that wasn't sufficient for a similar request, that it was requesting fencing that was actually smaller than the six feet requested by the applicant. With regards to the special circumstances, those are part of the required findings. So when you are considering the findings of this request, the zoning ordinance spells out these items for you to consider as a part of that. It's not something that can be discounted. And as far as whether the comprehensive plan is a special circumstance, that applies to all properties in the vicinity. So all properties along this corridor kind of have that same comprehensive plan kind of application. So it's not specific to the property. And so really the character and the kind of requirement to meet these findings, to meet that burden of proof, is something that staff just wanted to kind of quickly address. And then if you have any kind of further questions of staff, we'd be happy to entertain those. Any questions of staff? I did, Danielle. I had a quick question regarding the mention of the building, the gatehouse building. So does that, Mr. Turner made the point that that building itself could be counted as the front of the property, and so therefore this fence is not ahead of that? Is that incorrect? Our determination, I believe, was that the townhomes themselves were the principal structure to work from and did not consider that to be applicable there. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Comments, please. Mr. Clark. Go ahead, Mr. Clark. These are not questions. I just want to make a few comments about it. I'm, I think, counting, Mr. Turner, counting the get house as a house is probably not a functional argument. I'll just start that way. But it was a good chance. I'd also like to say that I think the staff has made the correct decision. Because based on what they're going by, I think they made the right decision. However, I think one of the things that we do is we make a decision based on what's going to be best in terms of the area, the look of the design. I've been by that so many times. And I am really concerned that the regulation itself would prevent this development from putting a gate that looks correct for this particular area. The area, if you drive down Tate's Creek and you can see all kinds of different things, But I think in this particular case, I really feel strongly that the six-foot columns and the fence as designed is appropriate for this particular development. I have no reason for saying that other than what it would look like architecturally and how it would fit into the project itself. Also, I am also concerned that a four-foot gate and a four-foot column would really not look good at all. I think it would be better to not have anything at all than to have that, frankly. And I'm not saying this. I don't know anybody here. I've been by there many times. I've seen all the properties along Tates Creek. I used to live out there. And I just see a four-foot column and a four-foot fence as not fitting the property or the area. Yeah, and it certainly doesn't detract from the neighborhood and the aesthetics of this particular neighborhood, I don't believe. And I think the fact that it's 30 feet from the sidewalk, is that correct? It's 30 feet from the sidewalk makes a difference as well. And so I don't know how the board feels about this, but I would be interested in some fact-finding that might make this an appropriate conditional use, a variance, rather, for this particular property. And I don't know how everybody else would feel about it, but that's just the way I feel. I'll just leave that on the table to see what kind of reaction we get. Thank you. Does anyone else on the board feel inclined to take a short break and take a look at some findings? Yeah. I think so. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. So we will take a 10-minute, is that appropriate? A 10-minute break, and maybe, Harry, you can go talk. Sure. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Music Megan, Daniel, are you guys ready? Is that okay? Staff is ready? Okay. We will call the meeting back to order. Is that a good bang? I've been practicing with my gavel. Nobody ever heard it before. Thank you. So we are back. If there is no further discussion, if there's a motion we would like to discuss, we're prepared at this time. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion. I move that we approve BLNO BOA 23-41 off season LLC. Their request to increase the allowable height of a fence in the front yard from four feet to six feet in the planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 3013 Takes Creek Road for gateposts and gates based on the following findings. Number one, the granting of variants will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, because the requested variants would result in only 18 feet spread between four gate portions of four and one half feet, over a 300 foot line of four feet fence. Number two, the granting of the variants will not alter the essential character of the journal vicinity, and not unnecessarily circumvent the zoning regulations, Because there are a number of gate structures and landscaping on other properties within the immediate takes great road corridor. Which reflects six foot gates, posts, and other large landscaping and structures. The modest request here will not be inconsistent with anything that currently exists in the proximate corridor. The granting of the variance will not cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public and will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulation because to the contrary, scaling of gate as requested by the applicant will add proportionality and scale to the gatehouse and townhouse development. Number three, the circumstances are not the results of action of the applicant taken subsequent to the adoption of the zoning renovations which relief is sought as the gates and columns have not yet been constructed. So move. Thank you, Ms. I normally second. Chair, sorry. I probably should have pointed out that we have two conditions we normally attach, and those weren't on that list of findings. They are that construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan, and all necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. If someone wanted to make a motion to amend his motion, you could do that to incorporate those conditions within the findings. Thank you. can we make a motion to amend for conditions sure i'd like to make a motion to amend uh adding the two conditions to the approval and then miss plumley seconds okay thank you with my motion second yes miss plumley second okay yeah the amendment was his did it need a second i think miss plumley did both you did both okay thank you my specialty yes you are a wonderful seconder appreciate that okay if there's no further discussion we get okay you need you need to vote on the motion to amend first and then you vote on motion to approve but you're amending his motion so you have to to vote on that first. Yep. Okay. Votes for the amendment. Oh, so first we take a vote for the amendment. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. So the amendment has passed, and now we'll continue with Mr. Clark as the main motioner and then Ms. Plumlee as the second. Again? Okay. And we'll take a vote for the original amendment. Original motion. Thank you. Yes, Donna, we'll probably need to update. Mr. Needham was the amendment. Okay. And then Ms. Plumley seconded. Yes. Yes. And then we'll go back to the original motion with Mr. Clark as the first and Ms. Plumley is second. All right, so due to the limitations of Granicus, we'll have to take that final motion by hand. All in favor of the original motion? As amended. We are all in favor. It has passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. It's heavier lifting than I thought. We'll go back to. Okay, we have PLN, PLN VOA 2343 545 Euclid. And we will have the staff present on this one first and then we'll have the applicants council present. Okay, and some other people have arrived. Do we have people here to speak on this particular case that have not been sworn in? I've got you. Is anyone else planning to speak on 545 Euclid? Can you please stand and be sworn in? You can stay there, Ms. Clark, we're just sworn in. Raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The whole truth. Thank you. Okay. All righty. Good afternoon. Megan Jennings with planning staff. PLN BOA 23-43-545 Euclid LLC is an application requesting a myriad of variances in order to allow for the construction of a second story addition to an existing legally non-conforming commercial structure. the property is highlighted there in red 545 euclid avenue i'll show it on the screen here too for the audience 545 euclid avenue we're located on euclid between campus and the euclid kroger kroger's just off screen down in the bottom right corner of some of the side streets to help you locate it are oldham and park avenue we've got kentucky up here the property is let me get this number right just under 3 500 square feet in size and it is zoned p1 you can see here this neighborhood has quite a few different zones going on and this small property is in fact zone p1 it is adjoined by b1 zoned property to the southeast and other p1 properties to the northwest and back behind it and kind of around it are a myriad of residential zones the zoning ordinance in the p1 zone states that the minimum required front yard is 20 feet the minimum required side yard is 12 feet and the maximum building height is limited to a three to one height to yard ratio with the building height being a three to one ratio the allowable height of the structure is limited by some of the existing side yards the non-conforming side yards which is why a building height variance is needed with this application this so this text is from the zoning ordinance and describing some of the required setbacks for the p1 zone this slide is describing how the zoning ordinance regulates non-conforming structures this text in particular is from article 4 of the zoning ordinance and gives guidance to staff from both planning and building inspection about how to review applications related to existing non-conforming structures enlarging non-conforming structures cannot be permitted without variances the very last bullet there article 44a states that non-conforming structures may not be enlarged or altered in any way that increases the non-conformity that just helps staff that's reviewing applications to catch those and make sure that they apply for the appropriate variances that they would need for their proposed project so i just wanted to review that particular chunk of text related to the non-conforming structures zooming in here to the subject property you can see that the existing structure is kind of up in the front corner and is smaller in size back behind there is a vehicular use area it's not striped or anything but it is kind of used for parking and this property does share a driveway with the adjoining property to that northwest prop along the northwest property line currently the the structure on the property is only 984 square feet it has a bunch of non-conforming structures i'm sorry setbacks because it was built in 1949 prior to current zoning regulations the zone required side yard setbacks just for memory are 12 feet the existing are only 10 feet on the west side. Let me confirm that. Yes, 10 feet, 9 inches on the west side, only one foot on this east side. And then the zone required front yard is 20 feet and the existing front yard is only 10 feet. And then back to that building height, three to one ratio, because the existing side yard to the east is only one foot wide the technically according to the p1 building height requirements the maximum building height with a three to one ratio is only three feet tall so they need the variance in order to allow for any additions to the structure the applicant is proposing to make an addition on the second story in order to provide a dwelling unit the existing structure is a retail use and the proposed future use for the ground floor is going to be an art gallery so it's still in compliance with the p1 zone the dwelling unit itself is also in compliance with the p1 zone so the only non-conformities on this property are the setbacks that I've covered so far. This is the structure from the street view. I believe this image was taken in the fall of last year. The applicant opines in their statement of justification that they undertook the project in order to improve the quality of the existing structure and to provide a dwelling unit in a walkable and bikeable area near the university. The applicant know pines at the structure neighboring to the west this white structure here on the image is a two-story building and they do point out that it has an architectural feature the peak kind of there that goes up above your standard kind of two-story height the other property to the east is a one story commercial structure but it is back farther from the road and is also zoned b1 so it's a little different from these P1 properties. The setback between this structure, the subject structure, and the B1 property here is only one feet, but as you can see on the aerial, the building on the neighboring structure is not immediately adjacent to the existing structure on the subject property, and so any proposed additions on the second floor of the proposed additions will not create a nuisance or impose upon the neighboring structure here at 547 euclid avenue this is the site plan that the applicant has submitted it kind of shows the existing footprint of the structure in the dark gray and then over top they have a hatched overlay of the proposed second floor there's an existing exit door from the ground floor there on that back and they're going to kind of can a lever over that corner with the second story addition highlighted in green they have kind of shown some potential green space and and in order to meet the article 20 open space requirements of the zoning ordinance i do want to state that as proposed this open space doesn't meet article 20 requirements but staff has been working with the applicant through this process to come up with an open space design that does meet article 20 requirements and so the applicant has been working on designing that and i will let them address any of those questions you may have when they're up here talking so first to kind of address the needed variances the subject property is zoned p1 and is quite small in comparison to other P1 zoned properties. It's only 36 feet wide and the zone required side yard setbacks are 12 feet wide, leaving only 12 feet in the middle for a structure. The property itself is only 100 feet deep and the 20 foot front yard and then there's a 10 yard rear yard limits the structure even more to only about 12 feet by 60 some feet long. So even if this structure was demolished and someone came back in with a new structure that tried to meet the setbacks, the zone required setbacks, they would probably also require variances in order to have a usable structure on this kind of smaller P1 zoned property. So the applicant is trying to use the existing structure and make additions and improvements to it and in order to provide a livable dwelling unit on that second floor they are proposed or requesting variances in order to match the existing footprint and provide enough space on that second floor for a dwelling unit and a part of the front yard variance justification the applicant explained that the property used to have a 20-foot front yard from euclid avenue but that roadway was expanded in a project and took about 10 feet of their pre-existing front yard kind of creating their now existing non-conforming front yard so their justification is it used to be conforming but then a road widening project came through and took up some of their then conforming front yard and the height variance request staff finds that granting the building height variance would be appropriate because if the proposed additions did meet the 12-foot side yard setbacks, the allowable building height would be 36 feet due to that 3 to 1 ratio and their proposed height is less than what that 36 feet is. And so staff finds it appropriate to grant that height variance as well. So staff is generally supportive of this application. While the proposed addition creates a dwelling unit and that second floor exceeds the P1 zoning requirements, the additions will improve the character of the existing structure and will be compatible with the surrounding properties since it's a pedestrian-oriented corridor within the defined infill and redevelopment area. Staff believes that granting the variances allows the addition to be consistent in appearance with the rest of the structure, the existing structure itself, as it will utilize the setbacks of the rest of the structure. and the proposed additions are consistent with properties in the general vicinity which do feature two-story configurations throughout the neighborhood so we are recommending approval and we don't believe that this will allow for unreasonable circumvention of the requirements as their the intent of the infill area is to allow for new construction that is compatible with existing development patterns while also acknowledging that some of the infill properties have these non-conformities that need to be addressed with variances without creating an unusual hardship and make sure it's compatible with the existing pattern of the neighborhood. So along with our recommendation of approval, we have listed the following four conditions the first of which is our standard site plan and then acknowledging the fact number two that the site plan needs to be amended in order to provide that required open space from article 20 and then we've also included a condition number three just to address the vehicular use area back behind the structure on the site plan it's not striped and so we have included this condition in order to allow for that parking whenever it is striped to be reviewed and approved by the division of traffic engineering and of course number four our standard all necessary permits and approvals be obtained i'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have at this time thank you do we have any questions of staff before the applicant presents I think you did a great job. Thanks. We'll let the applicant present. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy and I'm pleased today to be representing a company called 545 Euclid Avenue And the owner of 545 Euclid Avenue is Mr. Anthony Humphress, who is with me today in the second row. And our designer is with us, Jace Burris of JCB Architects, who's with us as well. Jace is an award-winning architect. He's won awards for the design of Southam Christian Church in the old Lexington Mall property. So we're pleased to have both of them with us today. Ms. Jennings has gone through the background of this very well. This is a very small lot on Euclid Avenue. It's only 36 feet wide. It's only 100 feet deep. It's currently, there's a building that has 984 square feet on it, a very small building. It was a hair salon in the last use. Mr. Humphress purchased this property less than three months ago with the idea of putting an art studio in here. In getting into the building, it was determined that the building is in poor shape. There's structural problems with the building, so they're going to have to get in there and take out part of the inside, part of the floor so they can get to the foundation and fix the foundation up. And in doing that, it would be possible and very desirable, we would feel, to put a second story on the property. As I said, the first floor will be an art studio, will be a light source gallery, which specializes in paintings, abstract paintings, portraits, and wide range of paintings will be available. we think it's a real good place for it right right up against the sidewalk so pedestrians would be encouraged to come on in and look at the paintings and hopefully buy some of the paintings in the gallery as well we're in the infill and redevelopment area as Miss Jennings bench to you which does encourage additional redevelopment and additional residential units we would propose one residential unit on the top floor probably three bedrooms on it and without the variances we could not do it as miss Jennings mentioned there would only be 300 square feet of space available without the variance I want to emphasize that we are not asking for an expansion of a non-conforming use on this property we're asking for a variance to do the new construction which will be attached to the existing building but the the second floor will be new construction we do need the variances for that but we're not asking for we have not applied to you for an expansion of a non-conforming use as miss jennings mentioned the euclid avenue has been widened a couple times through the years i recall it i am told it was once a two-lane road i recall it being a very narrow four-lane road with with a white stripe down the middle, no turn lanes or anything like that. You probably remember that. It was very narrow. Lanes were very narrow. Then they redid it with the present configuration with much wider lanes, a turning lane, bicycle lanes, and that sort of thing. I found one deed, going back through the title on this in 1960, where they gave some additional right-of-way. At that time, I think it was only a few feet, but I think it's been widened two or three times over the years. But nonetheless, we're requesting the variances because the existing building is where it is. And we want to stay within the envelope of the existing building but put the second floor on it. We have had a number of discussions with the staff about the open space issue, and they pointed out a better solution for us for our open space, which would be right behind the building. and we have sketched that out but we haven't been able to do that as in a final drawing form and so we agreed with the staff that that would be a condition of approval that we come back to them with a plan in final format showing the the additional open space right right behind the building the i do want to point out we do have a letter of support from i think the resident and separated us by one property at 380 Oldham Avenue. Mr. Ross Boggess, who I'll pass this out, he says that he lives in the... You already have a copy of that in your notebook, I understand. So I won't pass it out to you, but I'll just say that he states that Mr. Humphress purchased the property at 541, which is at the corner of Oldham Avenue and Euclid Avenue. He has redone that. That was in the picture which Ms. Jennings showed you. And he said, what Anthony's group has done with the White Corner Building has been welcomed by the neighbors and has brought life to the Corner Building. And I was excited to see the 545 transfer that's this property to similar ownership. And I would point out too, as Ms. Jennings mentioned, that what we're proposing is appropriate along the Euclid Avenue corridor. Along that corridor, as you know, we have right next to us the two-story building that you saw the picture of, which has a three-story sort of triangle architectural feature on it. Right across the street from us is the Fifth Third Bank building, which technically is a one-story building but also has a similar triangular-shaped feature, which reaches up to three stories on it. There's the Paul Rosa Paul architecture office, which is a two-story brick building. There's the Euclid Kroger, obviously, which is a two or higher story building. We have most of the properties on our side streets. They're residential. They're not zone P1. They're residential, but most of those buildings are story and a half buildings as well. So we feel that this use is entirely appropriate for the area. We agree with the staff's recommendation, and I understand we'll have some people voicing questions or concerns about it, and I would just like to reserve time to respond to them as they come up. But we think this will be a very positive addition to the area. Having an art gallery here, this is really, we feel, an ideal location for it. And to be able to have one additional residential unit in the university area within walking and biking distance of the university and all the cultural amenities in that area is very appropriate. So thank you very much. We'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Do we have any questions before we open for public comment? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We'll have you back in just a moment. If anyone would like to speak in public comment, what we'll do, I think we have a few people. So if you come to the podium, state your name, and everyone will be allowed three minutes. My name is Phil Latham. I live at 384 Oldham Avenue, and I share a property line with 545 as well as 541. and I like to object to the proposal. I've lived in my house for 44 years and I've seen the transition of how things have gone in the area. When I first moved in, the house 545 actually was a single-family home. Someone lived there as was at 541. Since then, things have changed. It is now zoned for professional as a P1. The building is 984 square feet. There are four parking spots for that site. There is no more room for additional parking. My understanding is that typically for professional and commercial property, that you should allow one parking spot for about every 200 square feet. So it's noncompliant both for parking and for the size of the building on the lot. The doubling that by putting a second floor and having double the square feet in the building is going to make it almost impossible for parking to be accommodated. Half the houses on Oldham Avenue do not have driveways. So we are already having big parking problems on that street. And if they're something like an art gallery or even a professional office where there are going to be people coming and going, then it's going to put more pressure on the residential streets around there. The noncompliance is a fact, and I've lived with that for a long time. But to willingly double that is not appropriate. And also there was some comment about the landscaping border. When I first was there, there were two trees and there was landscape between the parking lot in my backyard. The previous owner cut the trees down and has removed the plantings. So now there is, the parking is now parallel, excuse me, it's perpendicular to my back fence. So anybody that's going to back into those slots could hit my fence and damage the fence. So in increasing ways, everything is, this noncompliance is making things worse in the neighborhood and worse for me individually. So I certainly do not want to see a more non-compliant building than is there already. And this non-compliant landscaping potentially is going to be more of a problem even than it has been. The parking for the building, the one story building that they were talking about is appropriate. They have enough parking lots, slots for the size of that building. But that is not the case. It would not be the case for 545, and it's just going to make things worse. There are some pictures, I think. I've taken pictures of the parking lot. We have pictures. We have to wrap it up. We're at the three-minute mark. Okay. So that's the picture from 541 looking. The 545 is in the distance. Can you show the other pictures? It doesn't transfer very well. Okay. so three minutes and i've got to go all right yes just is that your yard with the white picket fence yes it is okay so that borders both uh both buildings correct i'm sorry it borders both the corner building and 545 or 5 5 45 my my yard is behind 541 and 545. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I'm glad you did. What I indicate? That's. This is yours. Well, it doesn't matter. Sorry, it's fine either way. Okay. Good afternoon, my name is Amy Clark, I live at 628 Castle Road, which is in the very near neighborhood. And like Mr. Latham's property, immediately behind the subject property. What you're seeing in the overhead is the, you see 541 labeled. And Mr. Latham's property is that very long, very skinny house right behind it. And as he said, he's lived there half a century practically. And next door to it is the subject property 545 and his yard is behind 545. Like Mr. Latham, I live in an R1E neighborhood. Also historic, Mr. Latham's property and the whole property to the north on Euclid is an H1 overlay. And we are advised to take that into account as we think about adverse effect in general. I believe there's an evident tautology in finding three recommended by the staff. The special circumstances which apply to this property and which do not, I'm sorry, that's not C. That's the applicant's version of it. The size of the lot and the existing configuration of the structure are special circumstances. They are, in fact, the nonconformity. The lot is just over half the size. That's the minimum requirement for P1. and the frontage is barely over half. And so, of course, there are going to be problems getting a yard and a structure in there. So the finding reads, the size of the lot and the existing configuration of the structure on the property are special circumstances that justify the need for the variances. Granting the variances will permit the applicant to provide a dwelling unit and allowable use while utilizing the existing structure on a lot of constricting size, a lot of non-conforming size. In fact, complying with the required setbacks would create a hardship for the applicant as the allowable building area would not provide a reasonably functional building addition. I don't believe that the board is authorized to grant variances that circumvent that portion of the zoning ordinance in Article 4, that says you cannot enlarge a non-conforming structure. And you will find in your letter there the quotation from that, and I'll put it also in the record. Okay, I think it has a real adverse effect on this neighborhood behind, where things are mostly cottages, one story, barely a story and a half. And I would add that as the applicant acknowledged, the tiny lot is in common ownership with the corner lot, the 541 lot next door. And there are strictures that are in the letter I have given you that say you can't monkey with just everything in a nonconformity when the lots and the frontage are, the lots are in common ownership and the frontage is. Thank you, Ms. Clark. The applicant would like to rebut, please. I'd just like to place in the record, just having the record, the fact that you all have a policy. We are not requesting a change in the non-conforming use whatsoever. We have applied to you for a variance, not for a change in the non-conforming use. and in the past you have certainly, certainly that's allowed by the law. Certainly the staff has recommended, and I just want to put in the record three cases you've had in the last year where you've granted variances to people who wanted to do some new construction on a lot where there was an existing non-conforming building. I'll pass those around. Get back to the microphone. I think the one I'm passing out, I think we're also in the infill and redevelopment area just like this property is on 7th Street, 5th Street, and I think Ballard. And like those cases, you granted variances to allow new construction on some of the lots within the infill and redevelopment area. I want to emphasize we're not in the H1 overlay. We do have parking on our property. Mr. Latham mentioned some of the properties on Oldham do not have any parking at all. We have parking. We have five parking spaces on this lot which will serve the art gallery, which is some, we hope there'll be a lot of people there, but it's a low traffic type use at an art gallery. We hope we'll have walk-ins. We hope we'll have people who ride their bikes as well as drive their cars. then we will have one residential unit on the top. We think the five spaces will be sufficient. But if they're not, there are additional spaces available right next door on Mr. Humphress's other property at 541 Euclid Avenue, which has more parking on that lot than we do here. So we have sufficient parking here. We can redo the parking spaces if needed. I think behind this building, we're adjacent to the backyard of Mr. Latham. You have a condition that we have agreed to on the conditions of approval. I think that is condition number three, that the vehicular use area to the rear of the structure must be reviewed and approved by the Division of Traffic Engineering. So we feel very strongly that we comply with the reasons for granting a variance just as you have with other properties in the past in the infill and redevelopment area. Anthony bought this because he and his wife had a vision for this property as an art gallery. we think that having the residential above will be a good support for that we'll have somebody there all the time on the property as well as supplying one additional residential unit in this area which is near UK so Anthony is here and can discuss his vision for the art gallery more if you'd like to hear that he is available for that as well but we feel very strongly this will be a very positive addition to the area thank you very much Mr. Murphy, just for the record, all four of the conditions the applicant is comfortable with? Yes, we are. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gross? Yeah, Madam Chair, I've got a couple questions for staff. First one is currently the building's nonconforming, but is the effect of if we approve, won't that building now be conforming since it'll have the variances? That's correct. Okay. And then my second question is, is the applicant will still have to comply with zone-to-zone screening? Is that going to be required since we've got a P1 backing up to an R1E? We didn't discuss that in our review of the application. Will that come up when he pulls his permit? Okay. All right. So just so the applicant realizes that he'll have to comply with that zone-to-zone screening requirement. And then with the building as expanded, will it comply with our parking counts? There's no required parking anymore in the zoning limits. Well, that's right. I keep forgetting that. So, yeah, so it's easy to cross that bar, isn't it? I'll say there's no required parking counts. There are required parking design and interior landscaping, but specific number of spaces, no. And they're going to work on that with the condition with you guys. Okay, well, I'm, okay. That's all the questions I have. I just wanted to make sure I was following along. Sounds good. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? No, Ms. Clark, are you, public comment is closed for this part? I believe there's rebuttal allowed. No, not for public comment. No, no, thank you. So do we have other questions from the board at this time? I have a question. I don't know if this is on. i guess for the applicant um so your footprint is just going to be like 39 square feet more is that correct and it's going to go out the back and then it's going to go up it looks like a thousand twenty two square feet yeah it'll be exactly on the same footprint we have now except currently there's a little notch in the back and we're going to cover that notch with a cantilever to so you can come in the back door without getting rained on on that so but otherwise it'll be exactly the same footprint as the existing building okay so you're just going up just going up yes thank you any other questions from the board okay i'll entertain a motion at this time madam chair i object to not being regarded as an objector i don't see what would not recognize me as an objector an objector has the right of rebuttal by your bylaws thank you the record will be noted i'd like to move for approval of pln boa 23-43545 eucalyut llc's request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, 9 inches. Two, reduce the western side yard setback from 12 feet to 10 feet and 7 inches. Three, reduce the eastern side yard setback from 12 feet to 1 foot. And four, increase the allowable building height to 23 feet and 6 inches in order to construct additions to an existing non-conforming structure so that dwelling unit may be provided on the proposed second floor within the infill and redevelopment in a professional P1 zone on property located at 545 U.S. Avenue. Based upon the staff's report and the staff's presentation and provided the evidence given to us today and subject to the four conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. Can I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Anything further from the board? If not, we'll take a vote. Thank you. Your motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Okay, our next item is PLNBOA 23-42. That's Mr. Chris Pratt. we do have a recommendation for approval however we do have some opposition today so we will allow staff to present first All right. The last case today is our only conditional use on the agenda, PLNBOA 23-42, Chris Pratt. The applicant is requesting a conditional use in order to establish a riding stable with the intention of stabling and training horses for hunter jumper shows. And the official wording states that it's a request for an outdoor recreational facility, which a riding stable is considered an outdoor recreational facility which is why we just wanted to provide some clarification there in that purpose of appeal the property is located at 166 swigert avenue it is in council district 12. it is about the property is highlighted here in red and i'll show it on both screens since we have members of the public in attendance Paris Pike is located in the bottom right corner here and then Swigert kind of jogs up to Russell Cave Row which is located off the top left corner of the map. The general vicinity includes a variety of both residential and agricultural uses. Here is a zoning map of the surrounding area. The subject property is zoned R1B as with much of the other surrounding properties. You can barely tell in these projectors it's a slight color change. There is a slightly darker yellow color along Wanda Court here because they are zoned R1C. So they're just a slightly more intense residential zoning. the zoning ordinance defines a riding stable as a structure or land use in which equines are kept for boarding riding or stabling and article 8-6 which is the r1b zone refers to the r1a zone which allows for outdoor recreational facilities as a conditional use in that r1b zone so the subject property is zoned r1b and the surrounding properties are also zoned r1b or r1c and this application is not changing the zoning of the property we've had some public comment requesting more information about the zoning and i just wanted to be clear that the zone for this property or for other properties are not being affected and that the requested use is an allowable conditional use in the R1B zone. Conditional uses do not change the zone and also are not zoning variances. They are allowable uses that just require additional review and approval in order to assess their impact on the subject and surrounding properties to ensure that they are compatible and do not create any nuisances. So zooming into the subject property a little bit closer, it is just under five acres in size. Up towards Swigert Avenue is the principal residential structure there. There is a detached garage just behind, and then there are some other agricultural structures that exist on the property. There's a six-stall barn here, and then there is a run-in shed here that's around 240 square feet. The six-stall horse barn is 2,500 square feet in size and the principal residence is just under 1,200 square feet. The applicant is proposing to operate a training facility for hunter jumper show horses and they have stated that they have existing training operations which are based in Florida and that the subject property would serve as their summer training location here in Lexington. They state they would utilize the existing residents on the property as their personal home during the summer months when their training is in operation and this is the site plan that was submitted the applicant is proposing to construct a 120 by 200 foot outdoor and unenclosed riding arena located here, which totals just over 24,000 square feet in size. And I do want to be clear, it is unenclosed. There's no roof on it and no walls. And I'll go back one slide just to give a little bit more context on the property. The riding arena is going to be located back here, kind of in the rear third of the property there. With their application, the applicant has stated that they will not be installing lights or loudspeakers with this arena. And I just wanted to be clear about that as well. And since it was kind of formatted funky, I rotated it. So throwing you off a little bit there. But the applicant states that their training services will only be for the horses being stabled on site and that additional horses will not be brought in for training the applicant indicates that they expect to stable and train about seven to eight horses using that six stall barn and the run-in shed on the property and they state that a mix of those horses will be both applicant owned and client owned they state that clients who stable or train their horses here may visit the site during training hours but that it would not be more than two clients a day and the applicant states that the utilization of that arena would be for training and would only occur from 8 a.m to 3 p.m during the day and that not more than two horses would be ridden in that arena at one time the applicant is proposing to screen the proposed arena in order to buffer the neighboring residential uses visually and they are proposing to regular regularly irrigate the arena in order to mitigate the dust it is a sand based arena the applicant states that they do all of the transporting for the horses and so there would not be a lot of in and out traffic with horse trailers the staff initially had concerns about where the trailers would be parked on the site and and how how they would be able to be turned around in order to backing out onto Swigert Avenue and the applicant states that they will be paving an area between the detached garage and the six stall barn so I'll highlight it on the site plan and then so it'll be here next to the garage and I'll go back to the aerial just for a little bit more context here's the garage this is where that paved parking for the trailers would be and I'll do it up here as well that's the detached garage and the paving for the trailers would be here in order to get the trailers to that parking spot the applicant will have to make sure that this section of the driveway is paved but the applicant has stated that they will not be utilizing the rest of this section of kind of an existing gravel grassy driveway for vehicular use it'll just be kind of getting the horses back to that backfield and so staff is not requiring any part of this driveway to be paved only the parking area for the trailers and the driveway to get to that parking area oh I'm so sorry it's okay the public does too so All right. So back to the driveway. The parking area for the trailers will be here by the detached garage, and they will be required to only pave this section of the driveway. The rest of this will not be regularly utilized for vehicles, and it is existing kind of gravel grassy access back to that back part of the property. Are we good on that? Okay, sorry about that. All right, I brought up the contour map from GIS because there's been some concern about water runoff and potential sinkholes on this property. The yellow lines depict a two-foot grade change on the site, and as you can see, well, they're not labeled with numbers, But the ground kind of lowers from the southeastern side of the property to this northern side and then also back to this back corner. So in general, water kind of flows into this low spot, which you can see kind of everything's coming together on a neighboring property. within the lfucg environmental gis data there are no sinkholes located or known to be located on this property and on site water runoff should not be affected by the proposed writing arena as it is open and unenclosed there's no roof and it is filled with a pervious sandy material so water should not be affected on the site. The only increase in the pervious surface that's being proposed with this application is that parking area for the horse trailers and the driveway extension to get to that parking area. Staff did have concerns about on-site waste management, but the applicant has clarified that they will collect the manure in a dump wagon and will have it taken to the thoroughbred center, which is located conveniently on pears pike to be emptied once a week so staff is recommending approval of the requested conditional use we do not believe that it should have an adverse influence on the subject property or surrounding neighborhood as horses several horses have been present on this subject property prior to the application and the applicant is not proposing to increase the volume of horses present the operation of equine training facilities in a riding arena should not create a nuisance for surrounding properties as the applicant is proposing minimal hours no lighting no outdoor speakers it's not increasing storm water runoff and the applicant is proposing to screen that arena with landscaping they are also proposing a dust management system with irrigation and a waste management system which i just detailed the proposed use should also not result in an increase in traffic as the applicant will be doing all the transporting stabling and training for the horses on site the applicant will reside on site within the principal structure and will only operate the riding stable during the summer training session season so we are recommending making this recommendation of approval based on these conditions which clarify the site plan specified the paved parking area for the horse trailers and the driveway extension and then of course our standard all necessary permits and approvals be obtained I can ask her at well answer any questions the board may have at this time thank you any questions of miss plumley thank you yes megan did you allude to any lighting for the potential arena yes I stated the applicant is not proposing any lighting thank you that's a good question all right we have it any other questions for the for staff okay we'll give the applicant an opportunity thank you hi thank you for uh thank you for hearing us my name is with your name for the record please my name is chris pratt uh thanks for listening to us today um i think it's important that that you realize i'm a trainer for two of the major hunter jumper stables in the area of Lexington for Spy Coast Farm and for Long Road Farm which is up on Carrick Pike. My wife and I stayed in the area around Swaggart last summer so we're very familiar with the neighborhood there and the quietness and we're looking for a residence where we can live through the summer months and saw this this little five acre parcel with a with a small stable and saw that it would fit our needs for our own personal horses and possibly a couple of horses owned by investors or outside clients that we can produce these horses for the for the hunter jumper circuit the only thing this property was lacking was a place to ride the horses was a riding ring so in looking at the at the the land use it's there's an ideal place to put that riding arena just back behind the stables for a it's it's not a huge ring but it's sufficient that we can we can do the training that we need. It's just my wife Jennifer and I and possibly one person to help care for the horses. It's not a commercial riding facility by any means. It's I think the only thing that makes it business oriented is the possibility that a couple of the horses horses might be owned by other people that would be paying us for the training. Does the board have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Pratt, let me ask you this. Could you give us a comparison between how the property is being used now and how you will use it, just to give us a picture of the differences that we might have? I think there's six or seven horses on the property now. The only difference will be we're going to create a square, a flat land, 120 by 200, and put a sand material where we can actually ride the horses and exercise the horses and do our training of the horses. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Tucker. So you don't actually own the property? No, we will own the property. It's owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler at the moment who are with us. And if we do get this approval, then we would purchase the property. And this would be our summer home, our summer base. Thank you. Thank you. The rest of the year, so you're summering here, would the property be vacant, or would it still have horses on it? It would more than likely be vacant. Possibly if there were a couple of horses that weren't in training or weren't being exercised, we could possibly leave them there through the winter months. But there wouldn't be training done. We're based in Wellington, Florida for the winter months. And so all the training would be done down there. But if there were a couple of horses that wouldn't go down to Wellington for the show circuit or for the training months there, potentially they could be left in good hands. But they could be left. I think we're just trying to gauge intensity. So the intensity possibly would reduce significantly to what it currently is under your ownership versus what it currently is with six horses year-round. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. To look at it that way, to just think that we would be there seasonally, yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Questions? Anything else from the board? Thank you, Mr. Pratt. We'll give the public time to make comment as well, and then we'll allow you back up to do any rebuttal if necessary. Okay. Thank you. We had a few people that wanted to speak. and i just like to make sure again in case anyone came in late that everyone is in fact sworn in so okay we will and if you will you'll state your name for the record and you'll be allowed three minutes each person will be allowed three minutes my name is catherine perkins i live at 258 swigert avenue and i'm amy clark and i'd like to yield my three minutes to miss perkins thank you I'll put six minutes for Ms. Perkins. Thank you, thank you board for listening to this and taking the time and for your service to the community. I first would like to make it clear I am not in opposition of this use. I am here with concerns not only for myself but the neighbors that I have talked to. And that certain things we feel from previous experience dealing with conditional uses is that they need to be in writing conditioned in this application by you. So the applicant has said he does not want loudspeakers, outdoor lighting, a roof. We feel that those need to be in writing in this application so that if this property is sold, if this application goes with the property and the property is sold, that a future owner cannot put those things on this outdoor arena. So we're very concerned about that, and we would like to ask you to put that in writing, that it remains outdoor with no roof, no loudspeaker sound system, no outdoor lighting. We're also very concerned, the applicant has said also hours of operation, that that be conditioned in, that he can operate from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., whatever. but that that be conditioned in. You granted a conditional use to another property on Swigert that is on the north side, an ag property, and you did condition in hours of use, so I know that you can do it. We're also very concerned that this is a very vague definition, this recreational riding facility. It does not have, even though the applicant is using it for private use, nowhere in this application does it say private use. So that if this property were to be sold after this arena is built, or if the applicant decides to make it public use, they can. We feel that that needs to be in the conditions, that it has to be stated either as non-commercial or private use. There is also, let me make sure I've got all this covered. We feel by doing that condition, you putting in the conditions that is private use, that that will help ease any concerns that the neighbors have from traffic, potentially down the road. We're not saying that the owner will use it any other way than for private, but if it's in writing, he can't, and no one else can. We also feel that because this applicant is not the owner of the property, that the application should be for this applicant only, that it shouldn't stay with the property. It's not the property owners asking for it. We also, I am vice president and have been on the board of the Joyland Neighborhood Association for years. We struggle, Joyland is under a consent decree. LFUCG has spent a lot of money, Division of Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff are in their beginning, I think their fourth and final phase of trying to alleviate water problems in the neighborhood. This is not just sand dumped in the back behind the barn. This arena will require some topographical changes to the land, building up. There will be a base, probably two or three layers, to allow the water to drain through the area where they ride into the base and then out into the land. So we have neighbors that are very concerned with water issues flowing to it, as well as LFUCG should be concerned, because most of the water from this property flows south and west. South would be towards Mary Todd Park, so the property on the backside of it has water that flows into Mary Todd Park. Mary Todd Park has been part of the LFUCG's consent decree water mitigation problems. So we feel that this, or I feel that this needs to be a sign-off, condition sign-off from engineering and the vision of water quality and stormwater runoff to make sure that that doesn't happen. And I think you've gotten letters from people with the concerns for the lighting, all the things I've mentioned. So I'm just asking that you put them in writing in conditions for the property. And my discussion with the applicant is that they are not opposed to this. They understand my reason for doing it, and that's to protect us. what happens after, if the property is sold with that arena, they buy it, then they sell it two or three years down the road. Someone comes in and opens up a public riding stable and puts a roof on them, right? It can be done, and I think that might be it. So are there any questions for me? Are you allowed to? Yeah. No, thank you. Oh, also, I did not mention, but you do have one letter from Elizabeth Woodward that mentions maybe some legal action that was taken by a neighboring property, 156 Swigert. And that was, there were two things. You denied a BOA to 156 Swigert Avenue to run a commercial business from that address. That's also the BOA that you granted for the nursery across the street, very near this property. You made it so that they could not, you conditioned that they could not make it public where public could come on and buy things from them. So the 156 was sued by 166 for water damage to their property. I believe got a sizable settlement is what I was told. So I just wanted to give you that so you know that these properties have been before you before. Thank you. Thank you very much. Who else would like to speak? And sir, were you able to be sworn in in the beginning? Were you here when we swore the whistle? Yes. We did our swear name? Okay. So please state your name for the record. Oh. Come on. My name's Andrea Martin, and I would like to yield my three minutes to Steve Martin. Then they can have more time. Oh, can you give one to staff as well? There should be nothing enough to support me to give them to staff. Yeah. Any one of them. Yeah. collectively their staff. Thank you. I would like to state for the record that my name is Steve Martin and I am opposed to this proposal. I reside at 2452 Wanda Court. What you are seeing on screen now screen now is I'm not sure how the pointer works let me see if I can figure it out this one yes okay so my home on 24th this is the property in question on Swagger Avenue this is the low point back here my home maybe maybe here yes here so there is storm drainage from this entire street that floods this way and drains this way and empties out into the back corner of my lot here and empties on to 166 Swaggart Avenue. So water is of the utmost concern. I'm thankful that the points that were brought up were brought up. I agree with every single one of them that was brought up by the woman who spoke before me. I'd like to go on to some other pictures. First of all, I also would like to say that I have no personal grievance with Mr. Pratt or the current owners. The current owners have done many things to beautify their property. which is wonderful. I'm sure they spend a lot of money and their own personal time and effort. Mr. Pratt and what he does, we have a great appreciation for horses. My wife, former rider, had a horse for over 30 years and rode and used arenas for her training and showing as well. So great appreciation for what he does. My main concern is this, what you're seeing. I know that the topographical lines were shown, but this is the reality of what happens on Swaggart and Wanda Court. So this is a drainage ditch, and that's a head wall right there. There's an 18-inch pipe that comes off of Wanda Court, and it flows onto their property. Now, water flows downstream towards Mary Todd Park in this direction, but there is often water a great amount of water after a heavy rain it's flowing from upstream so this water does not flow under the property and then flow upstream it flows downstream from there just as a stream would that enters a river so the head wall is barely visible here and it is maybe so far above the 18 inch pipe so it's fully submerged at that point so the current the current storm drainage system for the street of Wanda Court is is grossly inadequate. I wish I had pictures of the street to show you that when it is in a flood condition it looks like the Elkhorn Creek. It looks like a river. So this here is standing water again on 166 Swaggart Avenue. This fence that you're seeing here this is the fence line on my property and on occasion it encroaches onto my property now i'm this is my property i'm not filming everyone else's property upstream or downstream but that is my property and the head wall would be in that area right there but all of this is current conditions there's been nothing to improve storm drainage on the properties of 166 or on wanda court so to flatten ground there and to divert groundwater from her because an arena is not meant to be like a swimming pool. They don't want that water standing in their arena. That's going somewhere. It's not going to percolate into the ground. It's going to flow off of a flat area. So currently there are 13, I thought 14, but actually 13 houses on Wanda Court that properties are adjacent to 166. Their roof, square footage of the roofs of all the homes on Swaggart would be eclipsed by the size of this arena. And that's not to include the paved surface that they are proposing to put on the property as well. We can go to another slide and see what we can see. There's a video or two. Maybe you can show a video. So this, again, this is looking upstream for my property. These are properties upstream for me that butt up to, so 166 Swaggart's on this side. And that's 160. So you can see that's an upstream river coming downstream. You can see the flow. You could throw a kayak in there. Kayak, we've jokingly said that before. Not that that would be a wise thing to do. But that is all flowing towards Mary Todd Park. At this point, my head wall, again, fully submerged. And the water is flowing. It's so, there's too much flow. So it actually is flowing upstream, just a hair right there. But you can see that's the main flow right there. Out towards Mary Todd Park. Joyland neighborhood has a history of water issues. In my mind, I'm not an expert, but at the very least, I would request that there be some extensive studies done by the city of Lexington as to what impact the construction of this arena and the additional paved surface of a drive would have on the watershed in this area. Just judging from that current condition, it would be pretty detrimental. Again, I'm not the expert. I would hope that you all would engage experts to study that case before this approval would be given any further consideration. Again, I thank you for your time. I'm going to stick with that point because all the other points are moot if this cannot be remedied. All of the lighting and stuff, again, I think it would be beautiful to be able to see horses being trained, those type of animals. I'm not opposed to watching that. It's a beautiful thing to see, but this is not, and that is going, in my opinion, going to grow much worse. I thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next. Sir, can you confirm, had you been sworn in earlier? Yes, I have already. Yes, ma'am. My name is Michael Garrett. I live at 2456 Wanda Court, which backs up to the farm property that we are talking about. I've lived there for 23 years, and some of the stuff that Mr. Martin was posed out, the houses across the street from us, like the drainage, is downhill. So you've got water running from that side of the street across, like what he's talking about, on the street. I mean, it's been above the curb coming up into our front yards. and plus the drainage where it goes down through his drain, because the drain's right in front of his driveway, or beside his driveway, below his mailbox, and where it goes all down in there, when we get torrential rains, it's 10 feet up in my yard too, like he said, the way it flows upstream and downstream, because the property there, to level that up, I don't know how much it would take with the engineers and stuff to allow the water to drain underneath the arena and stuff, because it's already downhill slant at a certain degree. I don't know what the actual degree angles because I'm not an expert, but I worked with horses. I've launched horses, store reds way back in the day. So I know what he's talking about as far as training. I've had horses come off the track that I've had to train at a farm that I used to work on. But I understand it's a business. He's wanting to make it. I'm a horse person. I love the horses, and I'm an outdoors type person. But as far as the water drainage and stuff, I think really we need to get somebody to look at it to see if they can widen it, do something to help the water drain off. I think that's the biggest, the most concern is what's coming up in our yards where our animals are, like dogs, whatever, and it's putting it to a limit of how far they really go down because the water comes up and starts just getting on the property right there. It's just tremendous that you see all of that stuff. You're like, how is this backing up so far? I mean, the water runs into the Mary Todd Park when it comes so much, it is all the way upstream the way the angle of the properties are. I mean, there's nothing we can do about the way the properties are made except how much excavating is it going to take to level it up and what kind of drainage is going to be added to help the water flow down to where it don't back up six or seven houses up. And as the first video showed, there's a kid's toy up there. He can't even go play on his toy because the water's all the way up underneath of it. If you could show that very first video where he was streaming up, it had a big inflatable, like a trampoline and stuff. Yeah, see right there how far up into their yard it is? That's where the water is running down like that. As you can see, it on up towards Swagger. That's going towards Swagger because that's like my backyard. That's the house and stuff over there. But the water where it all ran down through there is what kids can't even get out there to play on their stuff. We just need to know, have somebody maybe look at the drain, see what can be done to improve it towards the Mary Todd Park area, the way it's supposed to drain, and allow him to have what he wants. And allow the people that have been there for 23, 30 years, 40 years, whatever, that's lived on that street, like that. So, I mean, that's just all I'm saying is let's figure out a way to drain the water better for this to be able to happen. Okay? Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Kaye Hawley and I live at 2421-1. Ms. Hawley, were you sworn in? Were you sworn in already? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Okay, I'm sorry. My name is Kay Hawley. Kay Hawley, it's H-O-L-L-E-Y, a little bit different than Christmas. And I live at 2421 Wandaway. And the, most everybody here is on Swigert or Wanda Court. And I live on Wandaway, so the water comes from where they are, and comes past me to Meritot. Okay, the first thing I'd like to say is that I grew up on a farm with horses. I moved to Kentucky in 1965 due to the horses, I wanted to come here. I married a guy named Robert Holly. We were together for 48 years before he passed away, and he was in the horse business. So obviously, I am not opposed to horses. And I want to maintain the horse industry in any way possible. Okay, I do have a few concerns. My main concern is that I think we should have a continuation and not just make a decision today so that we could look at the water and see how it flows. What can be done to solve the problem? And any other problems that the residents have brought up. One of the things I was wondering about in particular is the road on Swigert is very, very narrow. And because my husband's in the horse business, I'm familiar with horse trailers. And I think it may need to be wider. And I was wondering about the cost of this. who is going to have this cost. So I wanted for you to look at that, think about the road. Also, I was wondering about Kentucky utilities. It keeps getting higher all the time. And I was wondering if the rate would change in our neighborhood for us as well. So I wanted you to look at that. Of course, our taxes will go up, but on the other side, our property value will go up. So that counterpoints that. Also, I was wondering about, do you have a five year plan, a 10 year plan, or even a 20 year plan for what is proposed for this area? This is, of course, as you know, the last street in Lexington. And so we always wonder about what is proposed on that area. And another thing I wanted to bring up is, as you know, and I have heard that DC promotes a 15 minute city. And of course, the 15 minute city, as we all know, is having the areas that around, yes, it's supposed to be 15 minutes. And of course, the 15 minute city is two miles. So consequently, are there plans in this, our Lexington for the 15 minute city? And for example, over on Russell Cave Road, there's a complex over there. And I look at that every time I go by and I think, is that a part of government owned by the federal, the state, Lexington? Is that going toward the 15 minute city? Because I'm concerned about that because I don't want my house to be taken away or any other property. I'm not for that 15 minute city. So my hope is that you- Ms. Holley, if you could wrap up please. Just wrap, go ahead and finish your statement. Your time is up, but you can finish up your statement. I'm concluding, okay? Yes. Okay. So anyway, my hope is that you'll make a continuation. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time. I'm Debbie Aminoff. I live at 232 Swigert. Not at all opposed to this. I would just ask, reiterate what Ms. Perkins brought forth that some of the contingencies be put in writing. So that it's not made commercial. The traffic on Swigert is an issue. We don't want a commercial. What's proposed seems to be well within what works for Swigert. have any issue with that but lighting an enclosed arena unfortunately we don't suffer from the water issue that they do on wanda but if you could put some of those things in writing if it's approved that would be appreciated thanks thank you she would like the rest of my time i forgot to mention that i did have a conversation with mark sanders with stormwater runoff he's We've been working with him with other issues in the neighborhood. And I asked him if he was aware of this flooding on Wanda. And he said no. And I didn't think that he was because I wasn't aware until this came up. Many of our neighbors don't report things. They've been experiencing a lot of stormwater runoff coming through there over the years and just think it goes with living there. But they are now getting more and more knowledgeable about that you need to report things, but they still, I guess they're used to water running through. And he was not aware of this. And he's told me that he would like to look into it as well because this is something that he's been working so hard with in the neighborhood to stop the flooding and diverting more water if this would divert more water. So again, conditioning in the sign-off with the water quality and engineering would be some sort of water retention, because that's what we're getting ready to put in now over near the FEMA property, our water retention basins, because too much water is being diverted to Dr. Cummings' farm, which is on Faulkner. And I think there's a lawsuit there with how much water Lexington has diverted in that area. So we're doing retention basins. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the audience to speak? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Buck Wheeler, my wife Karen over here. We own the property on 166 Swagger. We purchased this property, it will be three years in November. And our nice neighbors that have talked this afternoon and everything, we've had a good relationship with everybody. We have put extensive amount of money trying to bring this place up to code and helping out and everything. I noticed watching this, the pictures you have on there on the letter that was sent out, if you look on that date, it says 2015 on it. This flood is showing the exact pictures and how I know that for sure is where it's going down there on the end. Okay, and when we get done with this, now not quite, it shows it going off into the south. Okay, just hang on, bear with me a second. And that's swirling up out of the culvert that it comes out of right on Steve's house there. Anyway, it goes straight south down there into that deal. Now, we took, I brought in two 40-foot containers. I rented the skid loader myself, the one with the tracks on. And my wife and I are both full farm kids, so we know how to run everything. We hauled two of those 40-footers out of there, plus everything else we cleaned up around there was five dump loads on the truck, with the trucks. There was a great big huge, It was just filled with everything, stopping this water from going into the creek that's behind us there. So if you could put that first one on. And we've been there now, well, over two and a half years. This shows Steve's house. They're right there behind us. And there's the culvert that was bubbling out of all that water. That water is coming through from Wanda Court right there. And our property line, now that fence you see there, we were another three feet on this side of it. I tore all that stuff out. We have completely redid our whole property with four-board fencing, and my wife and I did most of it as the neighbors have seen us get done. Next shot, please, picture. Now, besides that, and how I know when those pictures were taken because none of this fencing was there, that fence was put around here, so the water that does come in here, and you can see that swale, I cut that in there too for extra drainage, and that goes right into that south fencing down there. And so, next slide, please, picture. Okay, I shot this this morning at 745 when I fed my horses. And it shows the culvert right there. And this is all the water. And we've rained pretty good last night. But it comes right on to our property there. And there's a little puddle sitting there. That was this morning, and then it just dissipates. It's going down there because I've cut the swales to help with the drainage and everything else. And this whole area was grown up with vines, and we cut all that stuff off the trees. We completely ripped out all the fences on both sides, and this is what it looks like now. On that next picture, please. as soon as we get up okay so that's what it looks like this morning right now so we've completely done we did the whole area I reseeded everything we brought in we had southern states come in I know how to take care of property we built this thing up you should have seen what it looked like before we bought this property So one other aspect that I want to say, Mr. Pratt is a world-class horseman. I trained for 45 years myself. He's the top of the game. He's been trained in one in four continents. This is such an asset. We've really helped this place on Schweiger, set it up to what it is. All it's going to do is help. So I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. and I recommend you approve it. Thank you. And Megan, just in particular, and you may already be addressing this, but we already have some questions about options, about continuous or studies or what actually would be in our purview. So if some of those could be addressed in your rebuttal, that'd be appreciated. Sure. So first, I would just like to cover some of the suggested conditions that were suggested especially by Miss Kathy Perkins. A lot of those have been conditions that we add to other conditional use approvals, and so we do kind of have some standard language for those. I think that adding a condition to prohibit the lighting and outdoor speakers has been used in the past and could be appropriate if the board sees so. There could also be a null and void condition added to the approval of this conditional use for future owners of the property if the board thinks that that is appropriate we have added a condition limiting hours of operation as well if the board would like to add that as another condition and then we could also add a condition that a storm water plan be approved by the divisions of engineering and water quality as well if the board would like and if the applicant is amenable to that and i wanted to briefly cover some of the concerns about changing the structures if there was a roof added to the arena or if things changed on the site without review and approval the approval of the conditional use is subject to be enforced by the conditions and on an annual basis conditional uses are inspected by zoning enforcement which is in the division of building inspection they look at the approved conditions and make sure that the conditional use is operating under those and in accordance with those I believe that any changes to the site condition number one on the staff report which states the writing stable shall be established in accordance with the submitted application materials and amended site plan which shows the paved parking area. I believe that that covers a lot of the concerns about it being a public arena. I think that the scale of the operations would change if it were to operate more in a public capacity, and so it would not be operating in compliance with their approved conditional use. And so that would be something that could be enforceable and be made to come into compliance with. So I think those concerns about it operating in a more public, more intense capacity would be covered by the existing condition number one of our recommendation of approval. Law was working on some verbiage for some of those suggested conditions that I just reviewed, and so I've got them drafted up here for your review, but also for the applicant's review to see if they would be amenable to that. I would be happy to answer any specific questions board members may have. yeah megan real quick when um this is related to the storm water when the applicant takes our conditional use permit he's got to submit his drawings for his permit or like the construction of the arena at that point to get his land disturbance permit as other permits that won't the division of water quality it aren't they involved with that review um they It might be. Those are permits that are handled by the Division of Building Inspection, so I'm not 100% sure of every single division that's tagged into that. So if you felt more comfortable adding a specific condition stating that a stormwater plan be submitted to the Division of Engineering and the Division of Water Quality for their review, that could make sure that a stormwater plan is, in fact, reviewed throughout the permitting process. Is there something less than a full plan that we could put in? I think that the divisions of engineering and water quality could kind of determine the extent of the plan that would need to be submitted for this application. Okay. I'm a bit confused about how we can put something in a conditional use having to do with a very serious water quality situation. It is very serious, and we've heard this before in this particular area. And I think it is very important that the right people hear this. What I'm saying is I don't think these are the right people to hear that kind of problem. Because the Board of Adjustment is, we're going to look at the conditional use, and we can't say, okay, in order to approve this, you've got to have a full-blown water quality plan. That's just more than we can ask an applicant. But it is very serious. I don't want to say that's not serious. It is very serious. But there are probably better avenues to find people that can really do something about it and to ask an applicant to come up with a full-blown plan about these serious water quality problems, as I guess they do indeed exist still, is probably more than we can ask the staff to do or this board. That's just my feeling about it. I couldn't agree more, Mr. Clark. This appears to be a systematic issue that's well bigger than Mr. Pratt's application that's before us. And so hopefully them talking with the Division of Water Quality and Mr. Martin's department will start looking into that to try to address that issue. But I am, you know, at the same time sensitive. If there are reasonable things that we could possibly look at, I'm open to those. And I will say there is no official mapped floodplain in GIS on this property. It kind of is down further in Joyland and then over on the other side of Parris Pike. But it does seem like Mr. Sanders has been made aware of the existing flooding issues. and so I'm sure that there are other avenues to address those problems at the larger scale. But for this application, we're only able to address the stormwater that's happening on this property. But real quick also, my recollection is that you can't make it worse when you do a new building in the city. So he won't be able to push water onto other people's property. He's got to capture it on his own when he does this. That's correct, and that applies to every single development. That's our standard. You can't increase the runoff. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to say anything additional, maybe rebuttal? I've got the copy of the conditions that were drafted up by law just for your review, if you're amenable to the language. Okay. yeah with the discussion of the water i don't see any there for sure won't be any additional water because maybe with the exception of the small area where we're going to pave to park the horse trailer will be the only place where water wouldn't percolate through to the ground but there's not going to be any more water coming from the property by building this this this riding ring the water always has to flow through drainage through the through the riding ring as well and can be captured and also the way we intend I've had three different quotes on the on building the ring and just to the to the east of the property it's a little it's it's higher ground coming from the neighbors and then it comes it comes down on to 166 which goes down and then name goes to the neighboring houses on Wanda there would be a swale built along the east side of our property to prevent water and debris from entering my nice riding ring with the with the sand that I like for the horses so it's very easy to divert at least the water coming from the neighbors to go down towards the back of the property and that in essence would keep it away from the questionable area down by the the neighbors on Wanda and then also the the water that we capture from the arena that we build could potentially well it has to be diverted somewhere as well but it could potentially be diverted right to the back right into those streams that go down towards Mary Todd Park and alleviate a lot of the congestion of the water by the neighbors there so and by looking at all those pictures all the flooding is occurring on on on this proposed property that I'm looking at for the horses so it's I think we can we can improve that that water situation actually by putting in this riding ring thank you do we have any further questions of the applicants if not I'm going to propose a few minute recess five minutes oh yeah I would like to ask you a question so one of the recommendations if it does get approved is a paved parking area for horse trailers shall be provided between the garage and the stable the paved driveway shall be extended to this new paved parking area yes how much pavement are we talking about adding to this property it's maybe a 20 by 40 foot foot patch just an area where we I was told that we would need if we were going to park a trailer there a horse trailer there then it would need to be a paved area to put the trailer on would it have to be paved as well I know that they have that is one of the conditions or could you use like a rock I think it that's a staff question I believe they were requiring it Megan yes within the zoning ordinance there are material options they could use brick pavers that's a bit more permeable than a solid concrete pad does that answer your your questions efficiently okay you have questions of the applicant at this moment okay we'll take a five minute recess to discuss maybe some additional conditions sounds like it's what would be wished to happen okay all right five minutes Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. We'll wrap it up here. We'll call the meeting back to order. Okay, we've had some discussion. We would like one point of clarification from staff, if we could, just regarding the requirements for the water quality plan that would be put into place. So with this application, the applicant will have to submit a land disturbance permit with the Division of Building Inspection. And we pulled up the rules for what's required to be submitted with land disturbance permits. for disturbing an area of land that's between 5,000 square feet up to an acre of land, which this application would qualify for, those rules or that permit then would require that an ESC plan be prepared in accordance with the LFUCG stormwater manual. There are some vegetative buffer things, but in review of these requirements with that land disturbance permit, we believe that the stormwater manual would be reviewed during that process and should, like the appropriate divisions of engineering and division of water quality, should get pulled into the review of that land disturbance permit and look at the stormwater issues on site. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I understand we may have a motion with amended or additional conditions. Yes, Madam Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 23-42, Chris Pratt's request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor recreational facility, riding stable in a single family residential R1B zone on property located at 166 Swigert Avenue. Based on staff's three reasons and subject to the three conditions outlined in the report plus an additional four. And I will discuss those four. So number four will be no outdoor amplification shall be used on the property. Number five, no outdoor lighting shall be used on the arena. or at the arena. Number six, hours of operation shall be no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 3 p.m. requested by the applicant. Number seven, this conditional use permit shall be null and void if the property is transferred. And that is that. Okay. And I'm sorry, I should, at this point, should I make sure the applicant's okay? The applicant, those conditions were suitable for you as well? I'm sorry. yep and I'm sorry I should have we should have done that so my understanding if the property is ever sold with the the riding ring already constructed the new owners would have to come and apply for a conditional use permit as well yes okay and okay it's fine thank you Could I ask one thing? So since the applicant is not the current owner, if the wording on that last condition with it being sold would be problematic since technically it has to be sold to him first? Should we say if it's not owned by the applicant? I think that's appropriate. Real quick. um two things number one is um i'd like to make a friendly amendment to change your motion to include that change if that's okay chad sure then we don't have to go through a whole bunch of motions right i think motion has to be seconded first before you make a motion just point that out all right and then also um i'm not sure he actually are you comfortable with those conditions i'm just I'm just a little bit concerned if I purchase this property, spend the money to build the arena, and for some reason decide to sell the property, if the new owner is unable to get a conditional use permit, even if they want to do the same things that I want to do with the property, Maybe it's a different board or different situation. It could greatly affect the value and the situation I'd be in going to sell the property. How much is this arena going to cost to build? It would be between $150,000 and $200,000. Okay. I think the question is how consistent have we been with putting this condition on? Real quick, Mr. Needham. Should we go ahead and just second Mr. Needham's motion and then start talking about making the amendments? It would be appropriate for someone to second it, yes. Okay. No one seconded it yet. And can I second it and still vote against it? Or do I need a vote in the favor? I don't see any rule that restricts you from- Okay, I just couldn't recall. Then I'll second your motion, Mr. Needham, so that we can start. Now we'll have some discussion. Now we can start discussing it and our commitments if we want to. Okay. Who did? Oh. She's the whisperer. She's the motion whisperer. I'm sorry. She gives the signal. Okay. Okay. Sorry. All right. Well, obviously, on the Nolan boy, you know, generally speaking, I usually vote against those. is I think if people are putting in a substantial amount of money into a project, they should be able to sell it and not take a loss. I think if you build a writing arena and you can't write it except for your own private personal uses, I think it just diminishes the investment that they've made into the piece of property And, you know, I think it discourages people from making those investments in our community and in the property. So that was one. And then we can discuss. The second one is on the outdoor lighting. I don't know if we want to. I know we've done this in other applications where we limit it, for example, you know, or we clarify. Something to clarify, like you can't make it higher than six feet and it's got to be pointed down for safety reasons because you don't want necessarily, you know, I'm sure, Linda, you probably have lights on some of your barns potentially. You know, and so for safety, you know, I don't, at least I don't want to be trompsing out during a, yeah, you know, to direct pathway, for example, lighting or something to where it's not overwhelming. but you can get down the path without walking in the dark with a flashlight. But why would we need lighting on this property? Why would it be a problem to say we can't have lighting? And we do that in other things because lighting is a problem for the neighborhood, and I don't think it's going to affect the applicant because the hours are 8 to 3, so, you know. Well, I'm not saying it's going to be lighting necessarily for, I don't think the lighting will interfere with his enterprise. My question is do we want them to be able to walk from their house to the barn potentially at night without having to have a flashlight or a lantern? Is there some kind of minimal lighting that we could do to make sure you can't have any lights out there, period. I'm not talking about floodlights. I'm talking more like you've got a light above the doors. There are lights in the stables. That's right. In an example, the stables have some lighting. But I just want to make sure that our restriction isn't you can't have a light bulb anywhere. That's all I'm talking about, Mr. Clark, on that issue. The other question that I have with your first comment about the arena and the conditional use permit, but if somebody purchased that, would they have to come get some sort of permit or something to put a roof on? I think they would. Yeah, a roof of walls or anything. Yeah, I think any change to what's being proposed here, they'd have to come back to us. My only concern is what if you find someone else who's going to operate in the same manner that the applicant's going to operate it. i don't see why we wouldn't just let him sell it and be done with it but that's just my opinion but i think the neighbors might be concerned that it won't be an upscale project like this one would be so we want to protect the neighbors too with what's your last one chat i i'm feeling good yeah so no outdoor lighting or this is what how it currently reads no outdoor lighting shall be used uh at or on the arena that's it that's what it states like to change the wording that's what that was your original that that's the um that's the condition is that read does that sound okay i mean i guess mr platten you need yeah i don't need lights on the arena at all okay that takes care of that one okay that's a fair condition then i don't care okay And then what we also read, and we took from here, is hours of operation shall be no earlier than eight and no later than three. Is that okay? Because we took that from what you submitted. I would prefer more business hours, like if it was- And we would be open, I think, to that. From seven to five? I mean, I don't want to be stuck between- Yeah, okay. Why not? Yep. I don't think that's the total amount of work per day that's going to happen in this arena is probably two three hours maybe maximum so the dissension may still be regarding the null and void terminology I mean I would agree with that I don't like to see that I would like to see if he's going to spend a couple hundred a couple hundred thousand that you know he gets the ability to uh let's just sell that let's do these i guess one at a time does someone want to make a motion on the hours of operation do we need to vote i think we need a motion to amend you would need a motion to we have a motion on the floor that's been seconded you need to make a motion to amend if you want to change what um mr needham has proposed and we'll do each one i think that's No, you would make a motion to amend before you voted on the original motion. Yeah, I think Mr. Clark. I'm sorry, but when we make the motion to amend, do we vote on each amendment? Yes. Okay. Okay, you're talking, Brandon. So we're going to make a motion for each one? Well, I think only if we want to change one. If we want to change one, for example, like the hours of operation. Yeah. I would move to propose an amendment to make the hours 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Seems reasonable. 7 a.m. I'm sorry, it's just no earlier than and no later than to make sure that that's consistent. Yeah, okay, no earlier than 7 a.m. or no later than 5 p.m. I'll second that motion. Don, are you keeping up with all this? Yes. Yes. Tell us when we should vote. This is. I'll write this down. We're amending condition number six. Is it? Right. And then number six. So it's an amendment to condition number six. Condition number six. Mm-hm. So now you're voting on the hours. Okay. Just there. I just noticed it. Look at that. They put it right up there. Does it always say it up there? Now, the next one, before I make any motion, I just want to clarify from staff real quick. It's my understanding. It's your understanding. And the applicant, I'm going to ask you to understand this, too. What has been submitted is how this thing is going to operate. And so if it gets transferred to somebody else, they are limited to no roof, where the parking is, on the site plan, the hours of operations, et cetera, in the testimony that was given here today. Correct? Yes, that's correct. Mr. Pryor, you understand that? I'm comfortable with that. Okay. So with that being said, and I understand I may lose this motion, which wouldn't be the first one I've lost. I'm going to move to amend Mr. Needham's motion, and I'm going to have strike the Nolan Boyd provision as my amendment. Do we have a second? I'll second. Whenever you're ready, Ms. Donna. Needham. He amended. New owner has to start over. they're just limited to they can't do anything more than we're allowed okay okay that motion to amend has passed and now we have the original motion in place and we take a vote on that at this point in time with the conditions as amended Mr. Needham and Ms. Plumlee, right? On one through five. Needham? Mm-hmm. And Ms. Plumlee was second initially at the original motion. We need Ms. Plumlee and Mr. Clark DeVocco. Thank you. The suspense. Well, no, I'm thinking. Your motion has passed with the amended conditions. I know there was a lot going on. We'll have those documented to get to you. So we appreciate it and good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Mr. Pratt, sometimes this is hard, but usually it works out. And I would echo what Mr. Clark said earlier. I really would speak with our council member regarding the ongoing problems in that area. I mean, it does seem to be a larger problem than one property and the flooding and the water drainage in that area. It's a major issue. It's not something we can deal with, but that's a council thing. And your council person should be able to deal with that if they're not already dealing with it. And I've been involved in water quality fees board, as a matter of fact, and so I know how complicated these things are, but I think it has to start with council. Thank you. Ms. Plummer. Thank you. I just wanted to thank the neighbors for coming down because this is an example of what can happen when neighbors and applicants work together, I think we get happier planning and zoning. So thanks again, everybody. Thank you all. Okay. Let's see. I'm not adjourning because Chad's never leaving. Just checking. No, we do have some additional. Yeah, hang on. We have a couple additional board items. Just one additional staff item. Okay. to announce and celebrate that our very own daniel crumb has accepted a promotion in the division of planning he will be the new senior planner for zoning congratulations daniel well deserved you're on your own again megan maybe okay madam chair it could be condolences yeah i could be yeah At this point, is that really important? Absolutely, absolutely. Good job, good job. And then we'll celebrate Mr. Needham next month, is that correct? But this is your official last, who are I? Thank you, thank you for making it go long and detailed. Well, thanks everyone. All that jazz. Yay. Okay, if nothing further, our next meeting will be July 10th at 1.30, same place. Same people, let's adjourn it. There you go, there you go. Thank you. We'll be right back. Would you, ain't you gonna, if I ask you, would you gonna be my baby tonight? Yeah, would you, would you, ain't you gonna, if I ask you, would you wanna be my baby tonight?