# Board of Adjustment Hearing - November 13, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 13, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5960 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5960?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-11-13 - **Last revised**: November 13, 2023 - **Length**: 27,210 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Division of Planning Planning Services Section Board of Adjustment convened on November 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed 12 agenda items during the session, all of which resulted in approvals for various variance and conditional use permit applications. The meeting included consideration of requests from multiple applicants including individuals and businesses such as Shelby Marletta, Ricky Pope, Nicole Seals, Jessica Voigt, Glock Nicholasville LLC, David Hauge, Harmony HB LLC, Keeneland Association, LSC Facilities Holding Company LLC, Chris Fielder, 341 Sherman Ave LLC, and Calvin Andries. Throughout the proceedings, the board conducted 13 motions and votes, heard 5 public comments from community members, and successfully processed all applications with unanimous approvals across all variance and conditional use permit requests presented. ## Attendance **Present:** Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Carolyn Plumlee, Linda Tucker, Chad Walker **Absent:** Bob Sturdivant **Late:** None Six members were present for the November 13, 2023 meeting, with one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered 13 applications during the November 13, 2023 meeting, approving 11 items, postponing 1, and taking various vote types including unanimous consent and roll call votes. **Approved Applications:** The board unanimously approved several variance requests, including PLN-BOA-23-00064 for increased parking spaces at 324 Aylesford Pl. [timestamp: 03:00], PLN-BOA-23-00075 for reduced front yard setback at 159-161 Jefferson St. [timestamp: 06:00], and PLN-BOA-23-00071 for a circular driveway setback variance at 1929 Alexandria Dr. [timestamp: 33:00]. All passed 6-0 with votes from Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Carolyn Plumlee, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. Multiple short-term rental applications received approval. PLN-BOA-23-00069 at 3104 Leestown Rd. [timestamp: 09:00], PLN-BOA-23-00070 at 1859 Nicholasville Rd. [timestamp: 12:00], and PLN-BOA-23-00077 at 361-363 S. Upper St. [timestamp: 18:00] all passed unanimously 6-0. Three short-term rental applications required roll call votes. PLN-BOA-23-00076 at 103 Westwood Dr. [timestamp: 15:00] passed 4-2, with Carter, Clarke, Gross, and Walker voting for, and Plumlee and Tucker voting against. PLN-BOA-23-00079 at 341 Sherman Ave. [timestamp: 36:00] also passed 4-2 with the same voting pattern. PLN-BOA-23-00080 at 640 Declaration Ct. [timestamp: 39:00] passed 5-1, with only Tucker voting against. The board unanimously approved amendments to existing conditional use permits, including PLN-BOA-23-00078 for a religious assembly at 3330 Todds Rd. [timestamp: 21:00], PLN-BOA-23-00081 for a horse race track at Versailles Rd. [timestamp: 24:00], and PLN-BOA-23-00084 for outdoor recreational facilities at 250 Doe Run Trail [timestamp: 27:00], which passed 5-1 with Tucker dissenting. **Postponed Application:** PLN-BOA-23-00045 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC at 1535 Delaware Ave. was unanimously postponed 6-0 [timestamp: 30:00]. ## Public Comment Five residents addressed the meeting during the public comment period, raising concerns about two primary issues affecting their neighborhoods. **Soccer Field Issues** Charles Wisdom spoke about lighting and vegetation concerns at the soccer fields [timestamp: 27:00]. He expressed that the lighting and removal of vegetation at the facilities negatively affects the neighborhood's quality of life. Linda Pierson followed with additional concerns about the soccer fields [timestamp: 28:00]. She specifically cited issues with the brightness of the lights and noise from the soccer fields that are impacting her home. **Short-Term Rental Opposition** Three residents spoke in opposition to short-term rental proposals during the meeting. John Grimes addressed his opposition to the approval of short-term rentals [timestamp: 36:00]. He cited concerns about neighborhood safety and the commercialization of residential areas as his primary objections. Barbara also expressed opposition to short-term rentals [timestamp: 37:00]. Her concerns focused on the potential impact these rentals could have on neighborhood stability and property values. Van Vickers spoke specifically about opposition to a short-term rental proposal at 640 Declaration Court [timestamp: 39:00]. He raised concerns about parking issues and safety problems that the rental could create in the neighborhood. The public comments reflected organized community concern about two distinct issues: infrastructure problems related to the soccer field facilities and strong neighborhood opposition to short-term rental expansion in residential areas. ## Contested Items Two conditional use permit applications faced significant community opposition during the November 13, 2023 meeting. **341 Sherman Ave, LLC Conditional Use Permit** The approval of a conditional use permit for 341 Sherman Ave, LLC generated substantial community pushback. Several residents spoke against the proposal, expressing concerns about the negative impact of short-term rentals on neighborhood stability and local property values. Community members argued that allowing short-term rental operations would disrupt the residential character of the area and potentially affect long-term housing availability for local residents. **LSC Facilities Holding Company, LLC Conditional Use Permit** The conditional use permit application for LSC Facilities Holding Company, LLC also drew community opposition. Residents raised specific concerns about the proposed soccer fields, particularly regarding lighting and noise impacts on their quality of life. Community members expressed worry that the facility's operations would create disturbances that would affect nearby residential properties, with particular emphasis on the potential for bright lighting and noise from games and activities to disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Both items represented typical land use conflicts where proposed commercial or recreational developments faced resistance from neighboring residents concerned about impacts on their community's character and livability. The opposition in both cases focused on quality of life issues, with residents advocating for protection of their neighborhood's residential nature against what they perceived as incompatible uses. *Note: Specific timestamps and final outcomes for these contested items were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Approval of Variance for Shelby Marletta [timestamp: 03:00] The board considered a variance request from Shelby Marletta to increase the maximum number of parking spaces from two to four at 324 Aylesford Pl. Marletta presented the request to the board, seeking approval to exceed the standard parking limitations for the property. The variance would allow for double the typical maximum parking allocation, increasing from two spaces to four spaces total. The board approved the variance request, allowing Marletta to proceed with the increased parking capacity at the Aylesford Place location. No significant concerns or opposition were noted during the discussion of this item. The variance approval enables the property at 324 Aylesford Pl. to accommodate four parking spaces rather than being limited to the standard maximum of two spaces. ## Approval of Variance for Ricky Pope [timestamp: 06:00] The board considered a variance request for Ricky Pope regarding property at 159-161 Jefferson Street. The variance sought to reduce the required front yard setback from ten feet to zero feet for a proposed addition to the existing structure. Ryan Clark presented the variance request to the board. The specific details of the proposed addition and the justification for eliminating the front yard setback requirement were discussed during the presentation. The variance represents a complete waiver of the standard front yard setback requirement, which typically ensures adequate spacing between structures and the street right-of-way. Such variances are generally considered when unique property conditions or hardships make compliance with standard setback requirements impractical or unreasonable. The board approved the variance request, allowing the property owner to proceed with the addition at 159-161 Jefferson Street without maintaining the standard ten-foot front yard setback. This approval enables construction to extend to the property line adjacent to the street. The approval of this variance allows Ricky Pope to move forward with the planned addition under the modified setback requirements rather than the standard zoning regulations that would have required maintaining a ten-foot buffer from the front property line. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Nicole Seals [timestamp: 09:00] The meeting addressed a conditional use permit application submitted by Nicole Seals for an un-hosted short-term rental property located at 3104 Leestown Road. Nicole Seals presented her application to the board, seeking approval to operate a short-term rental at the specified address. The permit would allow the property to be rented to guests on a temporary basis without the owner being present on-site during rentals. The board reviewed the application and considered the proposal for the Leestown Road property. Following their deliberation, the conditional use permit for Nicole Seals was approved, allowing her to proceed with operating the un-hosted short-term rental at 3104 Leestown Road in accordance with applicable regulations and conditions. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Jessica Voigt [timestamp: 12:00] The meeting addressed a conditional use permit application submitted by Jessica Voigt to operate an accessory dwelling unit as a hosted short-term rental at 1859 Nicholasville Road. Jessica Voigt presented her application to the board, seeking approval to use her accessory dwelling unit for short-term rental purposes. The permit would allow her to rent out the unit to guests while maintaining her primary residence on the property, qualifying it as a "hosted" short-term rental under local regulations. The conditional use permit was approved by the board, allowing Voigt to proceed with operating the short-term rental at the specified address. This approval enables her to legally rent out the accessory dwelling unit to temporary guests while complying with local zoning requirements and short-term rental regulations. The approval represents the board's determination that the proposed use meets the necessary criteria for a conditional use permit and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and zoning requirements. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Glock Nicholasville, LLC [timestamp: 15:00] The board considered a conditional use permit application from Glock Nicholasville, LLC for property located at 103 Westwood Drive. The request involved approval for an un-hosted short-term rental operation along with a variance to increase the number of parking spaces on the property. Jason Taylor served as the key speaker presenting information about the application during the discussion. The conditional use permit would allow the property to operate as a short-term rental facility without requiring an on-site host to be present during guest stays. In addition to the primary use permit, the application included a variance request to modify parking requirements. The variance would permit an increase in the number of parking spaces beyond what would typically be allowed under standard zoning regulations for the property. The board reviewed the application and associated materials for the Westwood Drive location. Following the presentation and any discussion of the proposal, the conditional use permit for Glock Nicholasville, LLC was approved by the board. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with operating the un-hosted short-term rental at 103 Westwood Drive under the conditions specified in the permit, including the approved variance for additional parking spaces on the property. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for David Hauge [timestamp: 18:00] The meeting addressed a conditional use permit application submitted by David Hauge for an un-hosted short-term rental property located at 361-363 S. Upper St. David Hauge presented his application to the board, seeking approval to operate a short-term rental at the specified address. The permit would allow the property to be rented to guests on a temporary basis without the owner being present on-site during rentals. The board reviewed the application and considered the proposed use of the property at 361-363 S. Upper St. for short-term rental purposes. The conditional use permit would establish the regulatory framework for operating this type of accommodation business at the location. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use permit for David Hauge was approved. This approval allows him to proceed with operating an un-hosted short-term rental at 361-363 S. Upper St. under the conditions and requirements established by the permit. The approval enables the property owner to legally rent the space to short-term guests while ensuring compliance with local zoning regulations and operational standards for this type of business use. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Harmony HB, LLC [timestamp: 21:00] The meeting addressed a resolution to approve an amendment to an existing conditional use permit for Harmony HB, LLC. The request involved modifying a conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly to allow construction of a detached accessory structure at 3330 Todds Road. Jon Strom served as the key speaker presenting information about this agenda item to the governing body. The proposed amendment would authorize the construction of an additional structure on the property that currently operates under a conditional use permit for religious assembly purposes. The detached accessory structure would be built in conjunction with the existing religious facility at the Todds Road location. The resolution was approved by the meeting participants, allowing Harmony HB, LLC to proceed with their plans to construct the detached accessory structure as part of their religious assembly operations at 3330 Todds Road. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Keeneland Association [timestamp: 24:00] The council approved an amendment to an existing conditional use permit for Keeneland Association's horse race track facility located at 3801-4081 and 4251 Versailles Road. The proposal included both modifications to the conditional use permit and a variance to increase building height at the property. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the council. The request involved changes to the existing conditional use permit that governs operations at the horse racing facility, along with provisions to allow for increased building height beyond current zoning restrictions. The properties affected by this permit amendment span multiple addresses along Versailles Road, indicating the substantial scope of Keeneland Association's facilities in the area. The conditional use permit amendment and height variance were presented as a combined request to the council for consideration. Following the presentation and any discussion, the council voted to approve both the conditional use permit amendment and the building height variance for Keeneland Association. The approval allows the organization to proceed with their proposed modifications to the existing horse race track operations and any associated construction or facility improvements that require the increased building height allowance. The successful approval of this agenda item demonstrates the council's support for Keeneland Association's continued operations and development plans at their Versailles Road location. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for LSC Facilities Holding Company, LLC [timestamp: 27:00] The meeting addressed a resolution to approve amendments to a conditional use permit for LSC Facilities Holding Company, LLC at 250 Doe Run Trail. The proposed amendments involved outdoor recreational facilities and included a variance for lighting height requirements. Charlotte McIlwain served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the conditional use permit amendment request to the governing body. The application specifically sought approval for outdoor recreational facilities at the Doe Run Trail location, along with a variance that would allow for lighting installations at heights that exceed standard municipal requirements. The lighting variance was likely necessary to accommodate the operational needs of the outdoor recreational facilities while ensuring adequate illumination for safety and functionality. Following the presentation and any discussion that may have occurred, the governing body voted to approve the conditional use permit amendments as requested. The approval allows LSC Facilities Holding Company, LLC to proceed with their planned outdoor recreational facilities at 250 Doe Run Trail under the modified permit conditions, including the approved lighting height variance. The successful approval of this conditional use permit represents the completion of the municipal review process for this development project, enabling the company to move forward with construction and operation of their outdoor recreational facilities at the specified location. ## Approval of Variance for Chris Fielder [timestamp: 33:00] The board considered a variance request from Chris Fielder to reduce the required front yard setback for a circular driveway at 1929 Alexandria Dr. Chris Fielder presented the request to the board, seeking approval to modify the standard setback requirements to accommodate the proposed circular driveway design on his property. The variance was approved by the board, allowing the reduced front yard setback for the circular driveway project at the Alexandria Drive location. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for 341 Sherman Ave, LLC [timestamp: 36:00] The meeting addressed a resolution to approve a conditional use permit for 341 Sherman Ave, LLC to operate an un-hosted short-term rental at 341 Sherman Avenue. Seth Hillenmeyer served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the conditional use permit application to the governing body. The permit specifically covers authorization for an un-hosted short-term rental operation, which would allow the property to be rented to guests without the owner being present on-site during stays. This type of rental arrangement typically requires special municipal approval through the conditional use permit process. Following the presentation and any discussion that may have occurred, the governing body voted to approve the conditional use permit for 341 Sherman Ave, LLC. The approval allows the applicant to move forward with operating the short-term rental business at the specified address, subject to any conditions that may have been attached to the permit. The successful approval of this conditional use permit enables 341 Sherman Ave, LLC to legally operate their un-hosted short-term rental business in compliance with local zoning and regulatory requirements. ## Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Calvin Andries [timestamp: 39:00] The meeting addressed a conditional use permit application submitted by Calvin Andries for an un-hosted short-term rental property located at 640 Declaration Court. Calvin Andries presented his application to the board, seeking approval to operate a short-term rental at the specified address. The permit would allow the property to be rented to guests on a short-term basis without the owner being present on-site during rentals. The board reviewed the application and considered the proposal for the Declaration Court property. The conditional use permit process requires property owners to obtain specific approval for short-term rental operations, which are subject to local zoning regulations and operational requirements. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use permit for Calvin Andries was approved. This approval allows him to proceed with operating an un-hosted short-term rental at 640 Declaration Court, subject to compliance with applicable local regulations and any conditions specified in the permit. The approval represents the successful completion of the conditional use permit process for this particular short-term rental application. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-23-00064** — passed (6-0): Variance to increase the maximum number of parking spaces from two to four at 324 Aylesford Pl. - **PLN-BOA-23-00075** — passed (6-0): Variance to reduce the required front yard setback from ten feet to zero feet for an addition at 159-161 Jefferson St. - **PLN-BOA-23-00069** — passed (6-0): Conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental at 3104 Leestown Rd. - **PLN-BOA-23-00070** — passed (6-0): Conditional use permit to operate an accessory dwelling unit as a hosted short term rental at 1859 Nicholasville Rd. - **PLN-BOA-23-00076** — passed (4-2): Conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental and variance to increase parking spaces at 103 Westwood Dr. - **PLN-BOA-23-00077** — passed (6-0): Conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental at 361-363 S. Upper St. - **PLN-BOA-23-00078** — passed (6-0): Amend conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly to construct a detached accessory structure at 3330 Todds Rd. - **PLN-BOA-23-00081** — passed (6-0): Amend conditional use permit for a horse race track and variance to increase building height at 3801-4081 and 4251 Versailles Rd. - **PLN-BOA-23-00084** — passed (5-1): Amend conditional use permit for outdoor recreational facilities and variance for lighting height at 250 Doe Run Trail. - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — postponed (6-0): Variances for Red Draw Delaware, LLC at 1535 Delaware Ave. - **PLN-BOA-23-00071** — passed (6-0): Variance to reduce the required front yard setback for a circular driveway at 1929 Alexandria Dr. - **PLN-BOA-23-00079** — passed (4-2): Conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental at 341 Sherman Ave. - **PLN-BOA-23-00080** — passed (5-1): Conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental at 640 Declaration Ct. --- ## Full transcript A person who might be living in a vehicle or in an outdoor space like a park, we can connect them with a street outreach team which can provide global-based services to make sure that people have access points to things like permanent housing. There might be slightly different issues if we're dealing with a homeless encampment that might involve some issues of public health and public safety that we need to address. And sometimes issues are not a literal homeless situation. Sometimes it's someone that needs advice about a landlord that might be willing to work with a previous eviction on someone's record. Or maybe someone just needs information about how to apply for income-based housing. We might not handle all needs in-house, but we can definitely review a situation and point people in the right direction. So you manage both the homelessness prevention piece of it and intervention. So on the prevention side, how do we engage, how do we typically engage those people? Yeah, so a lot of times with prevention efforts, we try to navigate people to what resources already exist within our community, like financial assistance programs that might be able to help them with past due rent or maybe legal advice if they have issues or questions about things like tenant rights. But we also look at those who are experiencing literal homelessness in our community, and we identify risk factors that are associated with that so that we can build systems and strategies that specifically address those risk factors and try to prevent additional households from entering our homeless system. Okay. So typically for someone to engage with your office, if it's a constituent that sees something, do they use the 311 system? Or if it's an individual who's having an issue, what's the best way for everyone to engage? Yeah, so 311 can definitely get a call to us. If it's an issue like reporting an encampment, that's a perfect way to reach out. If it's something where someone really wants to review a situation or a need with us, they can reach out. We have staff that can direct them to basic resources like shelter within our community or connect them with someone like myself or Marissa Webb. We can talk to them a little bit more in depth when there might be a more complex situation that we need to try to facilitate a solution for. But persons can also just reach out when there isn't a specific need. If they just want to get involved or want information, they can reach out to my office. Or even better, they can attend a continuum of care meeting and get to know more about the providers and the strategies here in Lexington. Great. Is there a web address that they would go to typically to engage with you guys? Or is there a phone number? What's the best way for that to take place? Yeah, so calls from my office go through the Department of Grants and Special Programs. They can be reached at 859-258-3070. People can also go to the Continuum of Care's website. Locally, our Continuum of Care is branded as the Lex End Homelessness Continuum of Care, and that's going to be located at lexendhomelessness.com. Well, that's great. And then lastly, some of my constituents would like to be more involved and maybe play a more active role. So how could some of them engage to do those things? Yeah. So as a small office that doesn't do a lot of direct services, most of the time we're going to be looking at opportunities that people can connect with that live with our community partners. This time of year, there is a need for donations to help people who might be in an unsheltered situation stay safe. things like hats, gloves, scarves. We're definitely happy to connect them with the organizations and help them figure out what the needs of those particular organizations might be. Additionally, we're going to have some opportunities coming up in the near future, such as our LexCount event, which happens in January of each year. That's our annual census count of persons that are experiencing homelessness. We use volunteers from the community to help us conduct our street count and get an accurate number of persons in an unsheltered setting. So that's definitely a little bit more of a direct service kind of way that people can get involved. That's great. I appreciate all the information that you provided me and the folks of District 10 today. Any last words, anything that you really would like those folks to know that might help us all work on this situation? Yeah, I just would really remind people to remember that A person that experiencing homelessness is a person. And we really want to be a compassionate community that helps steer people towards permanent solutions. We want to connect them with the resources that we have and the services that are available and see them in our permanent housing, a better situation for them and for the community. So definitely reach out, go to our website, download our resource card, become familiar with the resources or even better, print them off and hand them out or contact me and I'd be glad to supply you with some. that's fantastic I really appreciate your time today thanks so much Jeff it was great and to the people at District 10 thank you so much for listening and if you have any questions please you can engage my office use 311 or deal with Jeff and his office directly thank you so so much for being with us today Thank you. Before I call the meeting to order, I'd like to make sure everyone is signed in that's planning to speak today. There's sign in in the back, so if anybody needs to do that, please go ahead and do so. Thank you. Thank you. If you're still waiting in line to sign up, there's another sign-up sheet in the hallway. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So we're a little bit over. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. The first, oh, no minutes. Let's see. The first thing we'll do is if anyone is planning to speak today for or against or is an applicant, applicant i do need you to stand this time and be sworn in applicants as well anyone that's going to be at the podium i see good deal so if you could raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today you do sounds good thank you i believe you the next thing we'll do is sound the agenda and i'll read through the cases make sure the applicants are here and i will ask at that time if anyone is there to speak in opposition of any of the particular cases the ones that are recommended for approval with no additional public comment will be heard first and everyone that does wish to speak or if staff has recommended disapproval those will be heard in the second set so the first case here is plnboa 2345 that's red red draw delaware llc the staff has recommended approval with the lesser variants is the applicant oh no we've recommended approval on one and disapproval on the other is the applicant present Anyone speaking on behalf of Red Draw Delaware? Oh, no, not now. I was just making sure you were here. Okay. That one will be heard because part of that has been recommended for this approval. PLN BOA 2364, Shelby Marletta. Is the applicant present? Okay. This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak against this particular item? Okay, Shelby, you will be heard first on that one. PLN BOA 2371, Chris Filder, is the applicant present? Yes. Yes, okay. And that has been recommended for approval with the lesser variants. Have you seen that? Okay. Were you in agreement with that or would like to be heard? Would like to be heard. Okay. All right, then we have PLN BOA 23-83, Joe Ran. Mr. Murphy, this one has been notified. You may want to postpone. I'm sorry. Did I skip one? Yes, I'm Dick Murphy, representing the applicant. We're requesting a one-month postponement on that. We're seeing if we can revise our plan on the property. Okay. So the applicant has requested a one-month postponement. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We will take a vote. All in favor? Aye. So that will be December 7th? 11th. December 11th, Mr. Moe. Thank you. We'll see you in December, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. All right. I'm oh here we go we're moving fast you guys it's a lot on the agenda I don't know if we've ever had this many cases so bear with us so we will backtrack to peel in BOA 2375 that's Ricky Pope is the applicant present Miss Plumlee could you please vote on the last motion Okay, this item Mr. Pope has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? You will be heard second. I'm sorry, you are? PLN BOA 2375, that's Ricky Pope. This is on 159, 161 Jefferson Street. That's okay. Okay. Then we have PLN BOA 23-69, Nicole Sills, applicant present. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this item? Okay. Then we have PLN BOA 23-70, Jessica Voigt. Applicant is present. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this particular item? No? Okay. Okay, so on PLN BOA 23-72, Stewart and Judy Perry, has this item been withdrawn? Yes, the applicant has informed staff that they are withdrawing this application. Okay. PLN BOA 23-73, Traditional Bank. Zach Cato of Billings Law Firm for the applicant. We're requesting a one-month postponement. The staff had some comments. We've submitted some revisions. but on our client team side needs some more time to go over those and make sure it's in good shape to present for next month thank you i'll postpone it for one month so move to december 11th all right we have a first and a second we'll open for vote I know Donna's not used to me moving this fast. Thank you. We'll see you next month. All righty. We have PLN BOA 23-74. That's David Dower. I understand the applicant's... Yes, the applicant has informed staff that they are withdrawing this application. okay so we will move on to PLNBOA 23-76 that's Glock Nicholasville LLC 103 Westwood property you're the applicants okay do we have anyone here to speak in opposition? Was that an opposition or was that a what's up? Okay. Good. All right. And then we have PLN BOA 2377 David Hogg, applicant. Do we have anyone to speak in opposition of this particular item? okay we have pln bla 2378 harmony hb llc on todd's road it's been recommended for approval is the applicant here do we have anyone to speak in opposition on this particular item okay see what everybody's here for Good deal. PLN BOA 23-79, 341 Sherman Avenue, LLC. Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Do we have anyone here to speak in opposition? We've got a few people. Okay. We will be heard on this one. We have PLN BOA 23-80, Calvin Andres. Applicant, thank you. It's been recommended for approval. Is anyone here to speak in opposition of this one? We do have a couple. Okay. Okay, PLNBOA 2381, Keeneland Association. The applicant is present. Do we have anyone here to speak against this particular item? Okay, then on PLN BOA 23-84, that's LSC Facilities Holding Company, is the applicant present? And we do have two items on this one. Can you help us, staff? Yes, so the applicant is moving forward with the request for conditional use and the variance to increase the allowable height of freestanding lighting, but they are withdrawing the variance to increase the allowable distance between interior landscape islands. Withdrawn or postponed? Withdrawing. Withdrawing, okay. So no motion is needed? Okay. So is there anyone to speak in opposition to this item? Okay. So we will be heard on that particular item. So we'll hop back to the beginning. The first heard item is PLNBOA 2364, Shelby Marletta. If you can come to the podium, please. And if you could please state your name for the record. Shelby Marletta. And this one has been recommended for approval. Have you had an opportunity to see the conditions listed? Yes. Staff did want to make a special comment. So this property is located in an H1 district, and the applicant is already working with the Board of Architectural Review and will be heard at the meeting this Wednesday. The BOAR shared with us that they will be looking to potentially add some material requirements and some other design elements. Their recommendations and their approval will be enforceable in addition to BOA approval, but I just wanted to let the board know here that the BOAR may add some additional requirements. And I'd be happy to read an email from Barry Dennis in Historic Preservation if you would like more information. Anybody on the board have any questions or need further information regarding that? I had a question. How many people live in the house? There's five. Five. No further ado. Go ahead, Ms. Five now. If we increase the paving, the parking places number, I guess this is for staff, then how many people can live in a house? Just five. I mean, it's not going to increase the number of people. It's just going to allow them to park properly. Does the staff agree with it? If you increase the parking, does that permit more beds in the house? Parking is not required, so that does not limit the number of occupants, but I will comment that the zoning ordinance has a definition for a family, our family unit, which states that there may be no more than four unrelated people living in one home together. So I just wanted to clarify that. That doesn't necessarily affect the parking, since it's not required per occupant or per bedroom. Thank you. So are these five people, are they like UK students? Yes. So they're not related? No. Before we go any further, there seems to be, at least in my mind, an obvious conflict between what the applicant told us, right, five people living there and the definition of family. But it could be that they existed prior to the change in our definition and therefore would be nonconforming in terms of that. That the house can continue to be occupied by five people if it existed prior to the definition change. Thank you. Any further questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLM BOA 23-64. Shelby Marletta's request for a variance to increase the maximum number of parking spaces from 2 to 4 in order to pave additional parking within the defined infill and redevelopment area and an historic district overlay zone in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 324 Ellsford Place. Based upon the staff's report they've given us, the testimony we heard today and subject to the two conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. I'll second. We have a first and second. No further discussion. We'll open for vote. Deal. Motion is passed. Good luck. Thank you. Our next item is PLNBOA 2375. That's Ricky Pope. You can come to the podium, please. You can state your name for the record, sir. Ryan Clark. He didn't look like Ricky Post. This has been recommended for approval. You had the opportunity to look at the two conditions listed as well? Yes. Did the board have any questions of this applicant? Yes. Thank you. close to the sidewalk how much space between the patio enclosed patio and the sidewalk would there be when it was is finished roughly 16 inches that's how it is existing currently with the edge of the patio if that helps. Thank you. Further questions? If not I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 2375 Ricky Pope. Request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet in order to construct an addition and closed patio to an existing restaurant within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business zone on the property located at 159 through 161 Jefferson Street based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed second Thank you. Motion is passed. Good luck. Thank you. At this point, we'll move on to the conditional uses. Do you want to present first, staff? I think I can just roll through them. I think we can still move through the abbreviated hearings. Okay, thank you. So we have PLN BOA 23-69, Nicole Sills. Go to the podium, please. Thank you. State your name for the record. Nicole Sills. Alright, the staff has recommended approval. There are five conditions that have been listed. Have you had the time to review those conditions? Yes. And are you okay with all of those conditions? I am. Did the board have any questions of this applicant? I do. Okay. This is in Bracktown, right? ma'am okay and that area is a rural hamlet african-american hamlet yes ma'am and councilmember floeman has been championed those hamlets lately and very much in the news and my concern is that this is really a commercial use in a residential area and it might compete destroy the flavor of what it would be desirable in a hamlet that they're trying to protect. Can I respond? Yes, so actually I grew up in Bracktown. Bracktown is my home. I was raised in Bracktown from the time I was three until I went to college so i'm very familiar with blacktown my my uncle lives in blacktown my son lives in blacktown and again that's where i grew up after i left lexington and moved back here i wanted to reinvest back into my community so again i have a lot of friends in blacktown the church sets on the property that my grandmother once owned so i'm very familiar with it actually i attended the meeting last week with Reverend McFarland from Brocktown so I have very familiar with Brocktown as far as the the integrity is very important to me that Brocktown stays very special so I understand your concern but I live there so it's it's very important to me that it's a place that my family can come back to I have kids that live out of the state they can come back to and i have family to come to rocktown they can still stay at my short-term rental you're welcome are there any other questions no i'm ready to move okay all right madam chair i move for approval of plm boa 23-69 nicole seals request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in the single family residential zone on property located at 3104 lees town road based upon the staff's report the testimony given today and subject to the condition set forth in the report thank you do i have mr walker second we will put for a vote thank you your motion is passed good luck with your project then we have PLN BOA 23-70 that's Jessica Voigt thank you sorry I'm Jessica Voigt 1859 we're requesting a hosted str okay thank you and that has been recommended for approval uh there are five conditions listed have you had an opportunity to review those yes i have and you're comfortable with all all of those items okay does the staff have any questions thank you um i was just kind of board i'm sorry oh i'm sorry just to have you know i hired you guys today sorry well and i answered i just had a concern about the parking like where these people would park um so we actually had an image um sorry we sent in a pdf to staff of showing our site plan but we have a dedicated parking space on our property that has been for the str so we're directly off nicholasville road so we don't actually engage with the neighborhood streets at all and we have two parking spaces on our site one's for us and one's for so if you see sort of that hatched area up top there's pointing where it says dedicated spot and for our str and then one for us and it's only for two people to stay there so it's never been more than one vehicle at a time has stayed and just for clarification from staff this is a hosted so we normally would not have heard it except that there's a adu involved is that correct yes that's correct anytime an adu currently wants to be rented as a short-term rental even though it's hosted it does currently require conditional use thank you are there any other questions so there is room to turn around in the back to come out yeah you don't have to bet okay no you don't have to back up onto nicholas road thank you there are no further questions we'll entertain a motion madam chair i move for approval of pl nboa 23-70 jessica voigt's request for a conditional use permit to operate an accessory dwelling unit adu as a hosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a historic district overlay h1 zone in a single family residential our zone on property located at 1859 nicholasville road based on the staff's recommendation and the five conditions as listed thank you it looks like mr gross is seconded a second i think there are six conditions on this one it's okay i think it's because it's hosted maybe or adu maybe but we just have five of them there are five am i on the wrong page yep oh wait that's right i'm on the next one already so that's still second mr. Clark was right thank you I miss someone who am I missing miss plum thank you thank you Okay, our next item is PLN BOA 23-76, that's Glock-Nicholasville LLC. Let's come to the podium. Hi, I'm Jason Taylor, I represent Glock-Nicholasville as a partner. So this one has been recommended for approval, and this one does have six conditions. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? those conditions we have and we're in agreement in agreement with all of those do we have any questions from the board madam chair in that case I move for approval of PLM VOA 23-76 Glock Nicholsville LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental and a variance to increase the maximum number of parking spaces from 2 to 4 in order to have additional parking within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single family residential zone on property located at 103 westwood drive based upon staff's report and subject to the six conditions so moved thank you do we have a second second we'll open for a vote Okay. Your motion has passed. Thank you. So I have PLN. Okay. PLN BOA 2377. That's David Hauge. That was going to be my fourth try. Fifth. Sixth. yeah david haugy thank you thanks david is that okay can i call you oh absolutely i appreciate that this has been recommended for approval and there are five conditions listed have you had an opportunity to look those over yes and are you comfortable with the conditions yes does the board have any questions of my friend david if not i will entertain a motion Madam Chair, I move to approve PLMBOA 2377 David Hauge, request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill redevelopment area in a historic district overlay H1 zone in a mixed low-density residential zone on property located at 361 through 363 South Upper Street, based on staff recommendations and subject to the five conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you Mr. Gross. Motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. The next one's PLN BOA 2378 Harmony HB LLC. Good afternoon, I'm John Strom here on behalf of Harmony HB. Thank you. And this has been recommended for approval and we have three conditions as listed. Have you had the opportunity to review those? We have and we're comfortable with them. Thank you. Does the board have any questions of this applicant? Question or motion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 23-68 Harmony HB LLC. Request to amend an existing conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly in order to construct a detached accessory structure garage in an agricultural urban zone or property located at 3330 Todd's Road based on the staff's recommendation and the three conditions as listed. thank you mr clark and looks like miss tucker's seconded we will open for vote thank you very much thank you the next item is pln boa 23-81 kingland association good afternoon nick nicholson here on behalf of keeneland association we have read the staff report and are in complete support of the recommended conditions there we go you did all my job for me this has been recommended for approval do we have any questions of the applicant i have a question about trees yes you might have expected that in in the construction what are we doing about the trees obviously there's going to be some removal there are we are basically there are 32 total trees that are being removed nine of which are being relocated on to basically other parts of the parking area we are adding 74 new trees and so we are adding basically I think it's net somewhere around 40 trees that are being added to this property thank you Thank you. Any other questions? If not I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair I move for approval of PLN VOA 23-81 Kingland Associations request to amend an existing conditional use permit for a horse racetrack with accessory facilities and a variance to increase the allowable height of a building from 35 feet to 55 feet in order to provide additional square footage for administrative space, dining facilities, and visitor center in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 3810 and 4081 and 4251 Versailles Road. Based upon the staff's recommendation of approval, the testimony given here today is subject to the three conditions in the report. Thank you. It looks like Ms. Plumlee has seconded. We'll open for a vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we'll get back to the herd docket now, that was the easy part. So the first item is PLNBOA 23-45, Red Rock, Delaware, LLC. And this has been recommended for reduced variance. So we will allow staff to present first. Hello, Megan Jennings with planning staff. Sorry. Okay. All right, so this first case before you today is 23-45 Red Draw Delaware LLC. Their application includes a total of four variances. The first one to reduce the required VUA perimeter buffer width from eight feet to zero feet. The second to reduce the required minimum interior landscape area from 10% to 4%. The third to reduce the required vehicular use area tree canopy from 30% to 0%. And the fourth one to reduce the required usable open space from 10% to 1%. in order to construct a warehouse storage facility within the infill area located at 1535 Delaware Avenue. This property is zoned I-1. The first three variances are all related to Article 18 requirements, where the fourth variance is related to Article 20 open space requirements. First, this is an aerial of the vicinity. You can see the property here outlined in red there. The subject property is located along the north side of Delaware Avenue. Oh, hold on. There we go. Delaware Avenue runs this way. Henry Clay comes over here and connects with Liberty Road. and then just off the screen to the left is Winchester Road which Delaware Avenue connects to the general vicinity features a mix of both residential and industrial uses both R1C and I1 zones and there is some B1 zoning in the vicinity up at Liberty Road and Henry Clay the surrounding industrial uses are warehousing shops specialty trade etc and the nearby residential uses are mostly single-family zooming into the property a little bit this is an aerial taken in the fall or winter of 2022 so it is a little outdated the applicant has cleared the property and so it is currently vacant they opine that the requested variances are necessary in order to minimize potential issues with developing on this property and affecting the adjoining structure at 1555 Delaware Avenue which is this one here that I'm highlighting the applicant states that this structure on the adjoining property is located immediately on the property line and is not structurally sound and they say that the that meeting the required screening and landscaping standards for the VUA areas will threaten the integrity of that adjoining structure and create potential liability issues with that adjoining property owner the applicant also states that the screening standards intent is to minimize impacts of headlights from vehicles shining into adjacent properties and they state that since their view a area which I'll show the site plan here soon it borders this property line and so the adjoining building which does not have any windows kind of serves and acts as the screening that the VUA buffer intent was kind of created to serve so just to give some context there with that aerial photo the applicant submitted these photos for review to show the adjoining structure you can see here the potential issues there with the structure that's on that property line and again this is on the other side of the structure so it's not on the subject property property line but you can see that that existing structure does potentially have some stability issues and then the last set of photos that they submitted first I want to review what the zoning ordinance states since there's four variances I just want to make sure everything's kind of out in the open first an article 18 states that vehicular use area perimeter buffer shall be located between vehicular use areas which contain 1800 square feet of area or more and or are adjacent to streets and adjacent properties further in article 18.3 it states that the vua perimeter buffer shall be located along the perimeter of the view area maintain a minimum average width of eight feet and have some material requirements listed there a continuous hedge fence wall or earthen mound and one canopy tree per 25 feet it also states that for vua areas containing 5 000 square feet or more they shall be required to provide interior landscaping in addition to the perimeter landscaping and then it also states that this minimum interior landscape area shall be 10 of the total vua area and i promise this is the last slide of zoning ordinance text. Article 18 further states that the minimum interior VUA tree canopy shall be 30 percent or more of the total VUA area. So those last few bullets all cover the first three variances and then this next one is the fourth variance. It states that in I1 zoned property there's a required 10 percent usable area for open space. And then this next bullet defines usable open space so it's an area that is unenclosed or it can also be on the roof and be a minimum of 10 feet wide and provide some additional amenities for the property itself so this is the site plan that the applicant has submitted and you can see i'll point it out here this is that adjoining structure there that's right on that property line that we saw photos of earlier. Hold on. There we go. And then the variances are applying to kind of this section of the parking lot, the first three, while the fourth variance applies to the whole site. Since these are variances related to Article 18, they were required to be reviewed by the Landscape Review Committee, and they did meet on October 24th in order to review the three article 18 variances. That first variance is to reduce the required VUA perimeter buffer. And so I'll highlight on the site plan. Hold on. Let me get to the right pointer. Okay. So that is this area here and this area here. As you can see, they are providing some buffer area. It's a five feet wide, I believe. And they're asking for the variance in order to not have to provide the material requirements that are required in that bua buffer area and they stated that this variance is needed because of that adjoining structure having some structural stability issues and that the plantings there and the potential roots could affect the future stability of that adjoining structure the landscape review committee discussed this particular variance and determined that it was reasonable given the proximity of that adjoining structure at 1555 delaware avenue and the committee also agreed that the intent of the buffer to screen the vua areas from adjoining properties is not needed due to the fact that adjoining structure is windowless and right on the property line the second variance is to reduce the minimum interior landscape areas which is required to be sorry 10 but they are asking to reduce it to four percent so that is these little islands here they're asking for the to reduce that required amount of interior landscape area the landscape review committee reviewed this request and determined that they could not support the request as the applicant has already proven that they meet this requirement and what i mean is back in june the applicant submitted this landscape plan in association with their commercial new construction permit with the division of building inspection and this plan meets all of the article 18 requirements as you can see they have more trees here that meets the buffer requirements and then also they do have they do meet the interior landscape areas there and provide the trees that are required for the tree canopy now the applicant decided to file the variance variances because of that adjoining structure but the landscape review committee felt that since they have already proven that they can meet that interior landscape area that they can do so on this plan and only lose one parking space So the difference between this site plan, which has, I believe, 18 parking spaces, and this site plan is this one only has 17. Megan? Yes. Could you flip back to the landscape plan? Yes. I'm trying to think here. so on the trees but in the uh parking buffer area so they wouldn't have to they would not provide those they would just provide the other four trees because okay that's okay uh that's correct i'll think i'll say the landscape area the interior landscape area are there trees required in that okay so yes and those i believe also count towards the tree canopy but the um so that's these trees here okay yeah the four yes but those the ones in the row they won't because of if you decide to approve the first variance they are not required to provide those trees okay so really we're talking about four trees in a parking space yes okay thank you just want to make sure um let me see if there's something else okay so then the The third variance, which is related to Article 18, is to reduce the required vehicular use area tree canopy. As you can see here on this plan, they don't provide any trees, and so they are reducing that required canopy of 30% to 0%. The Landscape Review Committee discussed this request and expressed a desire for the applicant to work with the Division of Environmental Services in order to determine what trees could be planted within those interior landscape areas in order to provide some tree canopy i will say mr ben cornett from the division of environmental services is here today if you have any questions about their requirements and he was in attendance at the meeting i'll state mr dan stever who's a member of the landscape review committee he stated during the meeting that this part of town especially the census block has the lowest tree canopy coverage within lexington and that having the applicant provide some trees would be preferred so they kind of recommended that the applicant work with the division environmental services to determine what trees if some they could provide on the site so our recommendation for this variance is approval but we include a condition in our recommendation of approval that they work with the division of environmental services to determine species and locations of trees to be provided in alternative locations on site that one was kind of confusing so i'll pause and let the board ask any questions okay then the fourth variance is related to article 20 and so the landscape review committee did not review this request the fourth variance is to reduce the required usable open space from 10 to 1 and staff is not cannot support this request because the applicant could lose another parking space or two in order to meet the requirement this site in total has you know 18 parking spaces both interior and along the right-of-way along Delaware Avenue, which is a lot, staff feels is a lot of parking for the use that is being developed on this site. And so we feel that it is appropriate for the applicant to meet that requirement and lose another parking space. So next, this is our formal recommendations. We are recommending approval of the variances to reduce the required VUA perimeter buffer to zero feet and to reduce the required VUA tree canopy to zero percent and we do include these conditions with our recommendation of approval and that second condition there is where we specify that the applicant shall work with the division environmental services to determine what trees if any can be provided on site and then for the other two variances we are recommending disapproval these are for the required minimum interior landscape area and the required usable open space that is the end of my presentation if the staff or board i did that too the board has any additional questions i'd be happy to answer them at this time all right thank you all this time the applicant will come forward My name is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering, so I'm presenting Red Row. So we are in agreement with the staff in regard to the first three items, including working with Mr. Cornell on the interior landscaping to add this island and certain trees. The main concern is that a little bit of history, that site, we had the building permit and that site has been under construction, I believe, since August. So as we get more into the construction, we can look at the adjacent property and there's significant cracks along the wall of the building and some settlement in the foundation. You can see it in the roof sagging. You can see the wall, cracks in the wall. So the reason for that, so we said we don't want to have the trees with certain size to be built into next to that foundation walls. That way it's going to lift the foundation and put more stress on the foundation, more than what's there right now, which is going to create negative impact on the adjacent property owner. And then after the meeting we had on the 1024, just checking with the other geological map, It looks like in between 1950 and 1965 there used to be a pond in that location which cover that lot and the adjacent property owner. And in 1965 it does not appear that pond and during the sole investigation it looks like it has been filled with some bad material, some kind of soft material. So that's what you see the significant settlement in that property. So the reason that we like to request this waiver is first we want to limit the root of trees extending into somebody else property and creating more damage. Number two is that we want to limit the amount of runoff or drainage that gets into the soil, into a bad soil that's going to stay for a long time, also contribute to additional issues. So, and then we are in agreement with the staff about, hey, if we need to add one more landscape island and working with on the landscape the type of the trees and the height of the trees the size that's no problem so the issue we have is basically today we like to discuss is the open spaces that site is very limited is like 18,000 square feet approximately 0.4 acres and in order for any spaces to consider it as open space it has to be at least 10 feet wide on small industrial a lot, everybody trying to maximize as much as possible, and then losing that many spaces with the use that we're trying to intend is going to eliminate approximately all the spaces but one handicap space in order to meet the 10% usable open space. So we have open space that's going to be on the side, but they're not 10 feet wide, so it cannot count toward the usable open space. So that's why we like to get reduction on the usable open space from 10% to 1%. Because if we have to lose all the parking but the handicapped parking, so that makes the project unusable and unjustified for us, so we have to go a different route. And another thing is that basically that property has a building permit and it's under construction. And it was approved to get the building permit. So I believe we are in a dilemma over here. So how to proceed? When we submit the application, the first time we were not thinking about open space is going to come up, usable open space is going to come up because we thought we have a building permit and we are under construction. As that review, can I get more in-depth and more into scrutiny so we are now in that situation why don't you explain a little bit this project overall yes sir is it just going to be a standard storage facility or is it going to be something that project is basically is going to have multiple of views. It's going to have an office that runs multiple of businesses. The property owner owns multiple of hotel, restaurant, and other businesses. So it's going to be like kind of a headquarter for them to kind of receive deliveries and other stuff. So that would be a portion of the project. The other project is going to be more like storing high-end cars or old cars that has been maintained and so they'll be used for storage so that's basically the use for that facility and parking is very essential so like say we had parking along Delaware and we had to go through multiple of hoops to get this permitted through traffic engineering and engineering and then we are able we were able to work out how we can have the 90 parking and maintaining traffic without impacting traffic on Delaware. But definitely the interior parking is very necessary for the project and that's why there's a gate and they want to keep it as private as possible and secure as possible. And what's the proposed central trash? propose which one it's the smaller building oh this is trash this is the dumpster enclosure yes sir it's going to be more like the herbies was that can be collected inside that storage area yes sir sorry so what other than the trees is eliminating parking uh that's it sir we we would be more than happy to work with with ben to kind of make sure the trees hide this type to work it out so open space basically and not losing any parking spaces addition to what we need to use to meet the interior landscape requirement I don't know. I thought Mr. Clark was asking how many with the additional, with the required open space. Oh, we lose all parking except the handicap. Why would it lose all the parking for the 10 feet? It shouldn't. You might lose a spot, right? One spot? If it's one spot, we are in agreement. I'm sorry. Yeah. If it's one spot, yeah, that's no problem. Check with staff. Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Let's commit to one spot right now. We are happy, everybody's happy. Well, let me ask you this, how many employees are going to be on site, do you think? It's going to be, if my memory is correct, sir, there will be two employees on site. Okay. And then the units under roof will have cars. Correct. Plus there will be cars out in the parking area too? Correct. Because one thing I failed to mention is there's going to be a wall around the whole site. So it's going to be all kind of enclosed. We'll let the staff look at the calculations, but I don't know how much open space two people need. And I wish there was some, this is a different topic, but on a small site like this, I wish there was some more latitude on the 10 feet requirement, because when you have small site meeting 10 feet for 10% it's kind of a little bit complicated. So let's call it one parking. So in our very quick math, the required open space that is not currently being provided on the site is a total of 1,700 square feet. So the total site being 18,000 square feet, well, actually just under 19,000 square feet, that required open space is just under 1,900 square feet. And then since they're already providing 1% of that, the missing 9% is a total of 1,700 square feet. Which is every parking space 9 by 18, so it's almost a little bit shy from 200 square feet. So they would give additional at least 10 parking spaces. Because those parking spaces are... 9 by 18. Where are you guys in the construction timeline? So the foundation has been in because we have to go to a different type of foundation, deep foundation and then also it's a raft floor. So I believe they're done with the floors and the foundation and then I don't know, I have not been there in the last couple of weeks so I'm not sure on the vertical where are they so far. The construction is just the building itself. Yes. One thing is that on the adjacent neighbor, we met with them and we agreed to kind of basically take the roof drain connected to our storm sewers and drain it out to kind of help a little bit help him from more of his foundation being deteriorated. So currently staff has recommended disapproval of the request from 10% to 1% of the usable open space. So any variation of that would just be a motion to allow from a different percentage, but 10 feet is always the requirement, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So it couldn't be instead meaning, I should have asked it in reverse, that we could request the space, but it doesn't have to be 10 feet. That's not allowable. I believe that if I'm, can you restate your question? Sorry. i was just thinking if we can come closer to the number but it's not in 10 feet increments does that give you more flexibility but is it required to be madam chair if i could yes you think there's a path forward for you and the applicant to get to something less than 10 but more than one if this were to be continued for a month in our review our larger staff review we were pretty adamantly against this particular variance and i'll state um in i1 zoned properties that light industrial zone um they are required just the 10 open space and most of the i1 properties are able to meet that um because of the required front yard because this property is having parking in their required front yard they are kind of losing out on that opportunity where other i1 zoned properties are able to utilize that portion of the property for their open space requirements I don't know if I'm allowed to be. Yes, please. Yes. So it's basically there's 20%, 10% vegetative and 10% usable. We are able to meet 10% vegetative. So that's the only discussion is the 10% usable. There's not a 20% requirement. It's only 10. The 10% usable and the 10% vegetated can be the same 10% or they can separate. You have to have 10 of each, but it doesn't have to be 20. It can be 10. Yeah, but the minimum for usable, it has to be 10 feet wide. Yes, that's the issue. we if we waive the 10 feet wide we may be able to get to the 10% usable. All right so maybe I need to request maybe to continue it for another month to work with the staff and reach common ground so I yeah I think that I don't speak for the entire board I think that the board is sympathetic given the lack of employees some of your other issues that you've brought forward but I don't get the sense that they're willing to go to one today so if the board's ready I will I'd be willing to continue this maybe they can work with staff submit something that shows something more what do you think are you going to make a motion on the items that we already agreed to first I'd say continue the whole case continuing the whole case so moves this we continue to december 11th we don't have to rehear everything else but hopefully in the meantime the engineers can come up with something creative that maybe can get the staff on board maybe not but i'd like to give him that opportunity so i've moved do we have a second i'll second thank you thank you so this will be continued till december 11th so we won't rehear the same It will just be a continuance that will bring forth any new information that might bridge the gap. I'm assuming we'll see a revised site plan. Thank you. Okay. PLN BOA 2371, that's Chris Filder. This has been a lesser of variants. has been approved so recommended for approval so we'll let staff present first hello again Megan Jennings with planning staff this next application PLM BOA 23 dash 71 applicant Chris Fielder is a request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 0 feet in order to provide a circular driveway in the front yard on property located at 1929 alexandria drive the subject property is outlined here in blue in the surrounding area this is alexandria drive that comes down here and meets with lane allen road in that bottom corner just farther north off the screen is that kroger that's located on alexandria drive in the other commercial area the property itself is about a third of an acre and is located there on Alexandria Drive. Appomattox Road kind of comes in just to the north as well. Zooming into the property a little closer, the property currently contains a single-family residence that's just over 2,000 square feet in size, and it does include an attached garage you can see that here with the driveway coming in off of Alexandria Drive the zoning ordinance states that any paving in the front yard is not allowed and so in order to have a circular driveway a variance has to be granted that reduces the front yard to zero since no parking is allowed to be located in any required front yard the front yard then has to be reduced to zero and article one defines a front yard as the space in front of the home and the depth is the shortest distance and then it also defines a residential driveway as a private paved vehicular access extending on the shortest reasonable path through the front yard to the off-street parking area this is the site plan that the applicant has submitted with their request as you can see they are utilizing the existing driveway here and curving off of that to create that circular driveway they state in their application materials that the traffic on Alexandria Drive makes it very difficult and unsafe to either back out onto Alexandria Drive or to back into their driveway they state that there is a bike lane there and that often they have to pull into that bike lane and kind of wait until traffic calms down and they're able to either back out of their driveway or back into it well last fall these regulations related to circular driveways changed we kind of did a big rewrite of required parking and reassess circular driveways. And staff at the time had concerns about creating multiple access points on a singular property and increasing conflict points, especially on roadways and sidewalks. And so circular driveways were the regulations related to circular driveways were rewritten in order to require a variance application if an applicant wants to pursue a circular driveway reviewing this application staff cannot support the requested variance for the full circular drive as applicant has not provided sufficient sufficient justification to meet the requirements of article 7 of the zoning ordinance or krs there do not appear to be any special circumstances that are unique to the subject property that don't generally apply to properties in the general vicinity and staff is also not in favor of creating another access point along a busy corridor however staff does acknowledge that backing out onto alexandria drive is a safety concern and staff from the division of traffic engineering assembled an alternative design which i have here on the screen which provides a wider driveway so the existing driveway is shown here it's about 10 feet wide so you're widening that driveway to 18 feet wide and then creating this 6 by 10 turnaround space where the owner can either back into that or back out of that when exiting and entering their property now the widening of the driveway to 18 feet is allowable in the ordinance without requiring a variance but that six by ten turnaround space does still require a variance so the distance that we have we're recommending approval of a lesser variance to 13 feet here in order to permit this turnaround space there are other properties along alexandria drive which features similar turnaround areas and for example this property here at 1925 Alexandria has a little turnaround space up located closer to the sidewalk the subject property is located here just to the left of this property so staff finds that this alternative design is acceptable for providing the applicant a solution for safely exiting their driveway and avoiding a hardship with being located on a high traffic road so we are recommending approval of a lesser variance to 13 feet in order to allow the applicant to pursue this alternative design and we are including these two conditions which the first one there does address the revised site plan depicting the alternative design provided by staff i'd be happy to answer any questions from the board at this time all right thank you all very much thank you Megan and if the applicant will step forward Chris filter in looking at the city's planning for the extended driveway in talking with a client on the new proposal that they've proposed, trying to pull in their car frontwards and back up as they tried to practice that to see if it's reliable. They were having some issues with that. And so what we're proposing is to continue on with the circular driveway based on other houses. There's actually four houses on Alexandria Drive that have circular driveways. other houses that have this proposed alternative expanding the driveway has more concrete we do have some photos to be able to show the difference so I actually put together the presentation my name is Tracy Pitt and I live at 1929 Alexandria Drive thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon so this is my property as you've seen in the other pictures the work was started before it was stopped in process because we were unaware of the the new requirements and so as mentioned and here's the picture of my neighbor this is what is being proposed I will show you a few different pictures in my neighborhood there are actually two driveways on my street that are circular driveways and not a single driveway on my road is standard we seem to be wanting something that is functional for my driveway my goal is I was hoping to have something that's functional, safe, and beautiful as well. So here's my neighbor. Here are some other variations down the street from me, a couple doors down. They're all a little bit different. The one over here was just done last year. It's actually three wide. And to me, as beautiful as it is, it looks like a big driveway in front of home and that is not what i'm hoping for there's some other driveways with people who have just been parking on their lawn we've got people who are parking in the grass between the sidewalk and the street there's a house down at the corner near kroger that actually has two double wide driveways this is example number one of one of the houses that is across the street and seven doors down to my right that has a u-shaped driveway it's right at the corner of alexandria and lane allen which is a dangerous corner and i understand why the circular driveway was placed there down towards kroger before appomattox there is another driveway that is circular which is more what i envision i want the circular driveway i would like to have the grass area trees some vegetation something beautiful and safe for me to pull in and out of this driveway happens to be just around the corner on lane allen so it's about 13 houses down across from me another beautiful driveway it poses no safety hazards to get in and out of that driveway it's beautifully done and as she was pointing out so my house is here with the yellow highlight the first house that I showed with the circular is here at the intersection of Lane Allen and Alexandria the next one is up towards Appomattox towards the Kroger store and the last one is down here just around the corner on Lane Allen the next slide just shows a picture of this property that's on Lane Allen is a much larger property but if a second entryway is an issue they have a single entry with a circular driveway which is this property here my goal again is I'm looking for something functional I moved into my home one year ago and did not realize how busy the street was I do live by myself but it is problematic i have changed routes coming home from work so that i can pull over to the side of the road without making a three-point turn in the middle of the street i pull into the bicycle lane and i notice cars coming in the bicycle lane towards me and hoping that i do not get hit as i'm trying to back into my driveway because i work eight to five and it is very busy in the morning when i leave and it's busy when i come home in the evening what i want and my envision was to have something like this that's functional and beautiful i will say that it was mentioned that my house is approximately 2 000 square feet but the house without the single car garage which is not very large is actually just under 1400 square feet and what i again what i'm proposing i think is functional and beautiful and i'm hoping that you will consider my statements here and if you have any questions i feel free to answer them thank you do we have any questions of the applicant oh i i'm sorry i also wanted to include the option that they had given me as As Chris, my contractor, had mentioned, I did try the turnaround, and it allows for 24 feet from the left side of my driveway to that turnout to try to maneuver around. I tried several times. I'm unable to get my small, it's a Subaru Forester, I could not get it to do a two-point or three-point turn in that. I had to maneuver back and forth four times to get in a different position and found that to even make something like that work, it would have to be extended from six feet for the turnout to be, let's see, it's, what was it, 20 feet to begin with, so 24 feet. i had to extend it from the 24 feet over to at least 28 if not 30 feet to be able to pull in pull to the right and try to back into my garage thank you thank you staff would you thank you we'll let staff respond I do have handouts of the PowerPoint, if anyone's interested. All right, so I brought up Joe Edmiston, who's from the Division of Traffic Engineering. First, I just want to say that the other circular driveways in the area were done before these regulations were changed, so that's kind of why we're seeing those, and now these circular driveways do require variances. But I did ask Joe to kind of come up and explain how the maneuverability with this design works. And I'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have, too. So as she said, I'm Joseph Edmiston. I'm with the Division of Traffic Engineering. So basically, looking at this, I can see her concerns with the amount of maneuverability that she has. what we tried to do here is to provide her a way to turn around without getting into the street so that's why we we had it we have a back 17 feet which is about a car's length if you're looking at it and then 18 feet from her house you know it's not ideal it's a compromise for sure but it's something that you can use to make that turn you know it's not necessarily a two or three point term but you know it's usable it's very similar to her neighbors as well I think she could probably do you were saying 28 feet you know one of the concerns was it not being a full parking space staff didn't want it to be used as a extra parking space in the area so it's why we made it a little bit narrow but you know we could you could extend that out slightly this was a concept that we just kind of wanted to provide her to work with so and I will mention you know looking at circular driveways especially with bike lanes and things that we do try to limit the number of curb cuts in bike lanes it's just you know right now there isn't any plans to improve Lane Allen but if there is plans in the future and they want to improve those bike lanes every curb cut becomes more of an issue to provide protection for the bike lane things like that so it's one of the reasons that staff has looked at limiting the circular driveways. Thank you. Do we have any questions of either staff member? I'll just tag in and say I'll just say one more thing. So by the ordinance the applicant is able to widen their existing driveway to 24 feet total wide without needing a variance. So this alternative is a little less wide than that but it does provide that turnaround space. Yeah I was going to say it's very similar to our neighbors but as megan said she's able to widen up to 24 and and this was more of a concept to provide to her to work with to you know as something she could try to maneuver into something she would like so okay yeah thank you absolutely all right does the board have any questions further discussion either with the applicant or staff now do we have a motion to entertain are we ready okay madam chair uh pln boa 2371 chris felder I move for approval as a staff recommends with a lesser variance of 13 feet, subject to two conditions. I'm sorry. Could you read the actual variance requested? Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. The variance, we're going too fast today. Request a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to zero feet in order to provide? To 13. Okay. A circular driveway in the front yard in a single family residential 1C zone on property located in 1929 Alexander. So the lesser variance would be 13 feet. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'm going to second this, but before I do, this is a policy decision that's been adopted by the city, and circular driveways have to be shown that you have special circumstances that don't otherwise apply throughout the entire city. And so they're not, I don't think we've approved one since the new regulations went into place. and so while we may or may not personally agree with the regulations they are what they are and we can't change them and so I would suggest them you know talking to your elected representatives if you have a problem but I am going to second this and to clarify a friendly amendment that it's based upon the staff's report and also the testimony we're given today and it be subject to the conditions thank you open for vote if no further discussion thank you so the lesser variance has passed Okay. Got lots of marks. You guys have Sherman Avenue next? Okay. Thanks for keeping me straight here. PLN BOA 2379. That's 341 Sherman Avenue, LLC. We will... I'm sorry. No, I was going to say we will allow staff to present first. I was just going to say we had talked about having the short-term rental applications heard together kind of at the end, and staff would do one presentation. I think is that not where I am? Oh, I have LSC first. We still have a soccer stadium, I think. Okay, gotcha, gotcha. I thought I was there. I thought I was there. Okay. So we have PLN BOA 23-84, LSC Facilities Holding Company, and we have two approval of conditional use, and then one has been withdrawn. We will let staff present. We'll let the applicant speak, and I do believe there's some public comment. Yes. All right, next application, PLN BOA 23-84, LSC Facilities Holding Company, LLC. This is a request to amend an existing conditional use permit for outdoor recreational facilities, soccer fields, with outdoor lighting. And they are also requesting a variance. And I apologize I didn't get to edit this screen before our meeting today. But this second variance is what is withdrawn. So we are looking at updating the conditional use permit and this first variance here, which is to increase the allowable height of freestanding lighting in a parking lot from 12 feet to 28 feet. All right. So this property looks probably familiar. Around this time last year, this conditional use permit was approved in order to establish soccer fields at the subject property here at 250 Doe Run Trail. This property has actually been, since last year, kind of divided from its parent track, which was 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road. So last year the applicant was under that Athens-Boonesboro Road address, and this year it is under this 250 Doe Run Trail address here. So to help everyone get located, we're here at Athens-Boonesboro Road, and Interstate 75 runs here. The Blue Sky Industrial Park is here, and then we've got some gas stations, and Doe Run Trail comes in off of Athens-Boonesboro Road there. I will state one thing as well relevant to this application 5380 which is right here Athens Boonesboro Road will be developed as the soccer stadium and these fields are are kind of in association with that soccer stadium. So zooming into the property this soccer field complex which was approved last year is operated by the Lexington Sporting Club they are a soccer organization with approximately 1400 youth members last year the use was approved to host practices and games for the members of this organization as well as to host larger larger regional soccer tournaments and events a total of 10 soccer fields and 750 parking spaces were approved last year and since its approval seven of the 10 fields have been developed the field lighting has been installed and 440 of the parking spaces have been paved and the lighting is installed changes to the operational plan itself are not being requested at this time the applicant is only proposing small changes to the previously approved site plan so here's a picture of the site's development you can see the seven soccer fields that have been developed so far as well as that parking area we are looking north through the site athans boonesboro road is here with interstate 75 along the right side of the image and two things i want to point out this area here is the detention basin that has been installed on site and then this darker brown dirt here is where the leach field for the septic system has been installed so i just wanted to to point those two things out while we're looking at an updated aerial of the property. So within the zoning ordinance, Article 8.1, which is for the AR zone, states that this use requires a conditional use permit. Since they have an existing one, they are requesting to have it updated. Article 16 is where the lighting height is specified. Freestanding lighting shall be no taller than 12 feet in height. And then you can ignore this last bullet here since the applicant has withdrawn that variance request. So this is the updated site plan that the applicant has submitted. And this plan here does reflect the changes impacted on the site by not, by withdrawing that third variance request. So the very slight changes, but the amount of parking islands in this back half of the parking lot is what is different between the site plan that was originally submitted with this application there are four changes in total to the site plan from last year first the buildings have changed a little bit the parking has changed there's an access road here that has been included and then also just some slight field shifting down here and i'll review those in detail in a second Regarding the temporary access road, which was reviewed last year, this is Kirby Road here, that was previously approved by the board due to the adjoining properties working through the rezoning process. And the rezoning and the development plan were approved by the Planning Commission in order to approve a soccer stadium and associated outlots, and then also the road system that you see here on the site plan. So these roads aren't on the subject property, but it does change the access to the subject property, and these have been reviewed and approved on a development plan and are working through the permitting process. And I think... So once the... I'll just say one more thing about this, sorry. once this road system is completed that temporary access road will be removed all right so i've rotated the plan and zoomed in a little bit to focus on the fields the applicant opines that the proposed improvements will not negatively impact the subject or surrounding properties as the more intense uses such as the parking and the buildings are located to the interior of the site here and the buildings are here and here they they argue that the proposed improvements are needed in order to enhance the layout of the site and improve its functionality in regard to the requested lighting variance the applicant states that it is needed due to the existing parking being installed under the old regulations and so the lighting that is currently being installed on the previously approved parking which is kind of this front half here are at 28 feet and so the applicant is requesting the variance in order to install similar lighting on the new part of the parking lot there so this will allow for continuous lighting heights throughout the entire parking lot and then the other shifting is related to the field here which which you'll see I've got the old site plan on the next slide, and we can kind of flip back and forth between those. But first I'll state field four here has been moved and kind of shifted a little bit, and staff does have concerns with how this field interacts with the detention basin that we saw in that aerial image, and then also with the leach field that's installed in that area. We don't have those on the site plan, so we just would like the applicant to kind of address those concerns. So this next slide is the site plan that was approved last year. And I'll kind of flip back and forth between them and hopefully not make you too dizzy. But as you can see, the majority of the fields are in the same location. That field four here is rotated and located a little differently. and then last year the applicant was proposing one 10,000 square foot building located here and now on their updated site plan they've kind of split that up into two small buildings with a covered shelter that's their office and bathrooms and then they have they're proposing a smaller storage building over here in between the fields to just be a little bit more accessible for storing the goals and that kind of stuff for the fields maintenance the buildings in total on the new site plan still equal 10 000 square feet or under and so their size is not a problem it's just their location and then as you'll see here the parking that was approved last year there was a parking lot located here on that western property line and the applicant has relocated it to the center of the site and has created a new little parking lot up here they were able to do this because during the rezoning process last year they realized that the zone boundary here between this ar property which is a subject property and the adjoining now b3 and b5p property was incorrect the first time so as you can see on this new site plan it kind of peaks up here and then goes back down where last year we it was believed that it kind of came down and then went back up so with that change the applicant does have a little bit more room in that center kind of top side of the top part of the site in order to fit all of that parking the last change that i want to address is this access road here because of that change in the zone boundary that access road last year would have been on the a business zoned property and now it is kind of located on the ar zoned property and so that is now needing approval from the board where last year it was not a part of the plan Oh, and I guess the other small field shifting note is that this field here was located up closer to the other two. So you can see how it has been now moved closer to these other two fields. I hope that's everything. All right, so then the kind of last thing I want to state here is that this is the most recently filed development plan for the soccer stadium. And so you can see that road network here and how this development now interacts with the site plan for the conditional use permit. So you'll see the road circulation and the rest of the development on the north side of the site. Or I guess it's technically. No, it's north. All right, so staff is recommending approval of the conditional use and the variance to increase the allowable height of the freestanding lighting. we don't think that the proposal should adversely affect the surrounding properties as the changes are relocating previously approved parking to the interior of the site and the relocated storage building will be screened from view by existing landscaping i didn't point that out earlier but i'll kind of go back to the aerial image the proposed storage building is located over here and all of this screening exists on the site, which will help along with some elevation changes, screen that relocated storage building from adjoining properties. We also believe that the proposed access road will not negatively affect the subject property as the conditions of approval will prohibit the users from that soccer stadium site from utilizing the parking on the subject property for overflow parking, and so that should not create a problem with using the AR zoned parking by the business users. And staff finds that the variance request to increase the allowable height of lighting is reasonable as the already installed lighting features the same height and a change in lighting height will affect the functionality of the parking lot. So we are including these conditions of approval. a lot of these are carried forward from last year's approval. So it's a total of 13. A few were removed because they were dependent upon a one-year review and the installation of a detention basin, which has been included, that kind of stuff. So a lot of these are the same as what was included last year, and we just kind of carried them forward. That is it for my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, quick question just to clarify for me. We are only addressing from 28 feet to 12 feet, but implicitly we're also approving a new site plan which shows the reorientation. Yes, so it's both updating the conditional use permit and the variance for the lighting. Perfect. That's all I need to know. Thank you, Megan. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. The applicant can come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Charlotte McCoy with States and Harbison. I'm here as counsel for the applicant. I have with me today Brad Boaz with CMW, who's the engineer on the project, and Josh Lewis, who is the applicant representative. We are in agreement with the staff's report. We've refined our design a little bit. We think that the splitting up of the building is going to make it more functional for the users of the soccer field and the relocation of the parking to be a more centralized area for the same reasons. the lighting we just want it to match in the parking lot and that's the goal there so we're available for questions if you have any are you able to address the staff's concern on the placement of the field i'm gonna i'm gonna let brad okay good afternoon uh again i'm brad boaz cmw uh yeah so field four is something that's not installed yet and if and when the developer elects to construct that we would do so in conjunction with division of engineering if the if the detention basin had to be modified to accommodate it we would do that as well as the health department to make sure it does not impact the leach field that's that's been installed so certainly if anything was done in those two areas we would incorporate the city and health department before doing anything but chances are it might be a slightly smaller field to go behind there but we just don't know yet. Okay thank you. Any further questions of the applicant or their team? I'd just like some clarification if I did the lighting you're requesting is is all part of parking. Correct. Is that correct? Yes sir. So we do have existing the lights are out there now on the existing parking lot and these would match exactly what's there now just in the parking lot. I got thank you thank you i know we had a couple of people that wanted to speak if they can come up and line yourself up here yes um thank you for your time yes i appreciate the opportunity to express my objection to this and i think if you lived on ashley woods road state your name first please my name is charles wisdom i live on ashley woods road at 195. there are currently there are five residences on ashley woods road and two behind us but you've heard the term slippery slope this is a slippery slope if if the vegetation that was represented in those in the plat and in those arrow photographs was there to here today we might not i might not be here but that vegetation is all but gone and there is no vegetation and the staff face their recommendation in large part upon the existing vegetation shielding the homeowners from this intrusion of light and it's a great intrusion of light i have a photograph i took a couple of nights ago that's i'll put that into evidence if i may that is about halfway down on Ashley Woods Road and it shows just the glare that's coming off of these lights there is no vegetation there to block it and I believe that's the southwestern side and there's very little vegetation on the south side most of that has been removed what remains is one fence row of some trees that has down lost their vegetation you got several dynamics going on here. You have not only these lights being added and existing lights, and I would say for the existing lights, the condition used for those should be revoked because they have not met these standards. They're not a good neighbor to us. And, you know, these lights are very intrusive. Now we have to deal with traffic, we have to deal with noise, we have to deal with lights. And this is not, I don't think, look at those lights. I mean, this is just, I was on foot, I was just walking down. And another dynamics here is these fields have been elevated. So, Ashley Woods Road is a gently rolling hill that goes down. But all of this, they've brought in earth movers and they've built up, they've elevated the ground level. So you've got a high ground level. And even if you had a lot of that vegetation there today, the lights would be on top of that. And it's just that the thing has changed from what I think you approved. And I would ask that you deny this, and if you're not ready to deny it, continue it down the road and take some more evidence in it. Drive down Ashley Woods Road at night and see what we live with and what we face. I mean, it is coming into the homes. And it's, I don't think this is what, I don't envy your job. I mean, you have to balance interest. Economic development, I understand all that. I get it. But not at the cost of all these preexisting homes and these homeowners that have been there for years. I mean, it's just not. I don't think it's what you intended. And it certainly is highly objectionable to all of us. I mean, it's just you should have to deal with that for one night. and I don't think the lights go off at 10 o'clock as they're supposed to and if they were not supposed to remove that vegetation they did and to me that changes the dynamics and we can have some old photographs and we can have some diagrams that I understand that you can't go on a site and visit every site that you consider but this is a major this is a big deal and you should at least visit it before you vote on this. And so I would ask you to move it down the road if you're not ready to deny it today. But these photographs speak a thousand words. And this is what we deal with. And it comes at us. And there's no hiding from it. I mean, it comes into your home. I mean, where do you go? How do you hide from it? You can't build a wall high enough. I mean, I don't know how to deal with it. But I think the condition of use that's already been approved should be revoked. or modified. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Thank you. we have someone else wanting to speak and donna do you have my timer i couldn't see it hi i'm linda pearson i live at 111 ashley woods road so i'm on the other side of the street and i don't need lights on in my kitchen when i have dinner anymore because it's literally lit from the soccer field across the street of ashton woods across the adjacent properties it is that bright so i don't and they built the field so much higher that there is no trees that we can plant that are going to block it they've torn down vegetation i witnessed them tearing down trees and the sound there's nothing even a buffer for sound i can hear the kids and i love soccer my kids played competitive travel soccer i drove all over tarnation but the lighting and the noise and the parking situation with the you you you can't get out of your driveway we can't get out our driveway so at least give us cut some slack with the lighting because i can't even you know you just don't go anywhere between six and 9 30 because you can't get out of your driveway so please consider that that you tone the lights down i i agree the conditional use permit should be taken away it's it's turned into a crap show and i really am concerned about the natural creek that ran along there because they built the field up so high i don't know where the creek can go so thank you very much for your time thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak Thank you. May I ask the applicant another question or two please sir, or one of you? Just looking at the picture of lighting, what I'm assuming I'm seeing is not the lighting that we're talking about but the lights on the fields themselves which is not in question at this point. Correct. Yes, sir. So what do you do about this? I mean, this is a serious problem. This is not our mandate. I understand that. But can you answer that question for me? Well, I guess there's a few questions there about vegetation being removed. The aerial that Megan showed, that vegetation along the western boundary is still in existence. That has not been removed. all fields were at already lower elevation than the existing previous native ground some some is lowered as much as 20 feet from the previous elevations the sports lighting we are continuing to work with the with the lighting folks as their jobs is continuing on is obviously this is under construction so we're still working on finalizing all the details of the installation of the project but yes there will be glare just as there's glare off the the highway lights but as far as lighting into into adjacent a measurable light into the adjacent properties that's something we're continuing to work on to eliminate from the project so as tried to say is that we're not finished with with the installation of this lighting and that was part of our discussion at the year review a month or two ago where we talked about where the project stood at that time thank you i was just i'm gonna ask if you have spoken with any of the horse farms i was on the road behind there one night a couple weeks ago about nine o'clock at night it was all lit up probably a mile from the soccer field and there's two big pdr horse farms back there so i was wondering if you're having any conversation with them concerning we're we're in contact just man with the with the folks who have reached out to us so i know the mccoy residence which is the house you can see kind of in the center north upper portion we are in constant communication with with the mccoy family and trying to address concerns because currently the excavation construction is happening near near his home or their home and so we are trying to be as again trying to be as accommodating as we can with the construction going on uh working with them to to address the any spill lighting uh so again we we are in constant communication with that with that neighbor now i don't know if anyone else from our team has heard from any anyone from the west but as we hear from the neighbors directly we try to stay in communication with them and keep them up to date with what we're doing and hearing their concerns so we can do our best to address them thank you further questions not normal well i know yeah briefly one minute please I don't know why my friend here says that vegetation has not been removed. If you put up the photograph that I brought in, if you can see for the glare, you can see the tree line. And there is one row of trees. And you can see right through it because they've lost their vegetation, but that's one row of trees. And the plants that was put on earlier shows some vast vegetation. That is no longer there. It's just not there. And the ground level, his knowledge has gone up. Now, the problem is he is, Drew McCoy is a friend of mine, and he is in some communication with Drew McCoy, but not to Drew McCoy's satisfaction. Drew would be here today if he wasn't quarantined because of COVID in the family. But I represent myself, but my interests are equal to everybody in our neighborhood. And they are just not, it's passive aggressive behavior. They say one thing and do another. And I don't know how you deal with that because someone comes in, their word is a bond. If they say we're going to do this, you expect them to do it. They don't do it. And if you had requirements that they keep existing vegetation, they certainly haven't done that. And that to me is the ground not only to deny this, but to go back and review what you've approved in the past. Now, I've only been on Ashley Woods since June. I bought this property in June. Had I been there before, I would have been here before. And so this is just highly objectionable to me and all my neighbors. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And just maybe if Legal could chime in, there is a, what is the actual process as a conditional use is being reviewed every year? What's the complaint process for the applicants? Are you referring to a revocation hearing? Is that what you're asking me about? Yeah, if there are complaints or they are feeling that they're not following what we have put out. Yes, there is a formal process and statute for revocation of a conditional use permit, but that would start with building inspection. So that would not start informally today. There's a whole due process procedure for that. So that complaint would be filed through building inspection? Yes, they could start it, and if they found that there was a violation, there would be a time to respond. There would be a separate hearing set for that. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir? and so we we hosted the staff out to the site uh maybe a month ago and since that visit no vegetation has changed since you all run on the ar property when you all visited a month or so ago just to make that crystal clear yes staff please Okay, so first I'll talk about the vegetation and I guess it inherently covers the lighting. So this is a recent photo of the property and this vegetation still exists on the property and their property boundary extends kind of on the other side of that. Ashley Woods itself is located kind of up here, and I'll pull up the vicinity map from earlier. They are located up here. And so they are actually impacted by the development of this property, 5354, as well. The other development that was approved by the Planning Commission and is not subject to comment by the board here today, but this vegetation has been removed because of the Planning Commission approved development plans. This vegetation on the subject property, of course, some of it has been removed for the fields, but the majority of this vegetation here on the western side still exists. So you can kind of see some scarring in the imagery here. Maybe I'll zoom in a little closer. This is where there's an existing gas line that runs through, so vegetation here still exists but the majority of this site has been cleared for the fields and so I'll just cover that again the front of this property here has been cleared of vegetation Ashley Woods is located up here and so that is how they're being impacted by the development on that adjoining property of 5354 the landscaping on the subject property still exists here and on On their site plan, they do still have a 50-foot landscape buffer that is required to be installed and maintained if they choose to develop these two fields. These are not currently developed in that aerial photo. These fields here are these fields here. So all the landscaping that's here still exists in that vegetation. So that's probably why the Ashley Woods neighborhood is being impacted more because they are located kind of up here a little further and not being buffered by the landscaping on the or the screening on the subject property. And I will state that the lighting that has been installed on these fields was done so in accordance with the previous BOA approval. So they did not do that illegally and they were installed in accordance with what they were approved to install. I believe that's all I really wanted to state at this current point in time but be happy to oh the field for location with the detention basin and leach fields I know Brad talked about that earlier but I was looking through our conditions of approval and I believe condition number two and number four will cover the field for location and its relationship to the detention basin and leach field so that requires them to continue to work with the division of engineering as well as the health department to install the site in accordance with those organizations regulations thank you any questions of staff well yeah any questions from the board for staff all right thank you all The variance request is for the additional lighting in the parking lot. Do we have a motion? Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN BOA 23-84 LSC facilities holding company LLCs request to amend a conditional use permit for outdoor recreational facilities, soccer fields with outdoor lighting and a variance to increase the allowable height of freestanding lighting in a parking lot from 12 feet to 28 feet based upon the staff's report and the testimony today and subject to the conditions set forth in the report and discussed today by the staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Do we need a break for some discussion? Well, before we go into discussion, I will just remind everybody, this is realistically, they already have the lights. All they're doing is asking for how many more parking area are we talking about compared to existing? I mean, it looks like they relocated parking, but there's no more parking. they could build the parking lots with this with the 28 foot highlights as shown all they're doing is moving the pieces on the board a little bit so in my mind this is a pretty reasonable request given the fact that it's making their project i think it's the design is better all the parking is oriented to the middle which blocks it which is good i think that overall they can have 28 foot lights anyways all they're doing is moving them from point a to point b that's really that's ultimately that's what the request is i know we had a bunch of material that staff went over i think that's ultimately their quest is can they move their parking lot to a new location and continue with the 28 feet lights so i think that's pretty reasonable oh yeah we're in discussion oh yeah yeah yeah before we get into this oh well i mean like before we take a recess for it for other discussions well miss tucker can you turn on your mic my my concern is too the taller a light gets as you well know the more it illuminates down so you're moving a light from 12 foot to 28 feet which is 16 feet higher but it's already allowed to be 28 feet they're just moving it from a to b and when they move it we've got to approve the 12 to 28 but if they built it where we've already approved it they could stay at 28. that's my point is i understand yeah we're just moving the pole around but if we deny this there's a good chance they will go back and put the 28 feet where they're allowed to have it i don't know if they'll do that or not but which is closer to the residents houses rather than being more centered on the property and they don't need any further approval to do that they don't need us to approve i think Ultimately, this is probably better for lighting than the other plan was. And if we don't approve this plan, they could go back to the inferior plan. I'm not concerned as much as the height. The height doesn't bother me. It just seems like the time. I'm in an AR zone, and that's all we worry about is we worry about smells. We've got chickens and ducks and all that. But it's the time of day and the light pollution. It seems like summertime, yeah, have them on until 9 or 10 o'clock. at night that's when the sun goes down unfortunately kentucky sun goes down at two o'clock this time of year so why not um give a little and say all right fine for these dates then we will turn it off at six or seven o'clock at night versus having to look at this till 11. that's where i'm at i got no problem with the height it's just time frame well the variance for time frame is not in front of us that's true okay well but what is it yeah but But it becomes that because it's a compromise. If you want this, then you get this. So, yeah, I would be against it just because of that reason. It makes no sense to extend the height with no compromise in the meantime of saying, okay, let's shorten the times. These are the parking lot lights, not the stadium lights. We've got to start somewhere. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I think this is an opportunity for us to be empathetic to the neighbors, sensitivity to their needs and their quality of life. The adjacent farms, the adjacent neighborhoods, they have demonstrated today that there are some bright lights out there. And if we can dim them a little bit, I think that would be an appropriate action for us. again to be a little more empathetic with sensitivity to the public thanks thank you i don't think what we do here today i don't think what we do here today is going to make any difference whatsoever in the lighting situation unless we come to some compromise that i'm not sure we're capable of doing today um i'm going to second the motion mr cross to to perhaps we may not be in agreement in whatever we do here. But I'm very concerned about the issue. I don't think voting for or against this is going to change that. That's the problem. I think the applicant has to be more concerned about what the neighbors see and what they're experiencing. It's their homes. It's their neighborhoods. and it's changing how they live, that's not right. It's just not right. And this board has no way of changing that at this point because of what we've already done. I had a hard time making the vote that I made a long time ago. Hard time. But I did it because it seemed like the right thing to do. I'm wondering if I made a mistake because this is not right. I must second it because I think it's the nature of this board to do what we should do in terms of the work that we do. Thank you. We have a first and a second. Do we want a further discussion or are we ready to vote? Okay, thank you. The motion has passed. I hope you're listening. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. we take a five minute Thank you. I might have replaced my dinner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Did I lose Megan? Okay, we'll call back to order and get wrapped up. Our last two are actually conditional use requests that are similar in nature. Because of the newness of this ordinance, we will have staff go ahead and present first, and then we will hear each case separately, but staff will do one presentation. Yes, so, like Chair Carter said, staff is going to give one presentation that reviews the regulations and resources related to short-term rentals here in Lexington, since we are recommending approval of both of the short-term rental applications that you will hear today. Some were, because there was no opposition to others, they were approved earlier on the agenda, but there are two today that will have come up and speak. All right. So first, this slide summarizes a lot of information about our short-term rental regulations and how they affect both existing and new short-term rentals. These regulations were adopted by council on July 11th of this summer. Short-term rentals that were legally operating before this date can be grandfathered in and may not require a conditional use permit. They only need to get a zoning compliance permit from the Division of Planning as well as, of course, register with the Division of Revenue. new. This grandfathering in period only lasts for six months. And so existing short term rentals only have six months in order to apply for this zoning compliance permit and be considered grandfathered in. That six month date ends January 11th of 2024. Any short term rental with occupancies greater than 12, this applies to both existing and new short-term rentals, require conditional use permits. So even if they were existing beforehand, because they have occupancies greater than 12, they do require a conditional use permit and cannot be grandfathered in. A platform that we use as a resource, because our own database is still building since these regulations are still new, is called AirDNA. And this website kind of pulls listings from both Airbnb and Vrbo and maps them and kind of hyperlinks to their listings. Currently in AirDNA, there are 1,200 short-term rentals operating in Lexington. And since these regulations passed in July, our Division of Planning has processed over 200 zoning compliance permits for short-term rentals. So these are ones that legally operated before, aren't greater than 12 occupancies, and so therefore they can be grandfathered in and just have a zoning compliance permit. And we've still got a long way to go to register all those that are existing. In addition to the zoning ordinance, the code of ordinance has a section as well that has additional regulations for short-term rentals. These are related to business licensing and permitting, and the Division of Revenue is the main point of contact for those regulations, but I did want to point out that there are additional regulations in addition to the zoning ordinance. Within the zoning ordinance itself, these short-term rental regulations are housed within Article 313. And in that section, I wanted to call out one specific thing. rentals are not allowed to be utilized for private events such as weddings or parties in which the number of participants exceeds the maximum occupancy limit and no private events shall occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and then special events for commercial purposes so if they're selling tickets it shall be prohibited at all times so say you were renting a short term rental for a birthday weekend if the people who were staying in that home wanted to have a party with just the people staying in that home or greater than the occupancy that was allowed they can do that but you can't invite additional people in over that permitted occupancy so that's kind of a rundown of general regulations and this is a map from that air dna website i mentioned earlier like I said it pulls listings from both Airbnb and verbo and these websites do not share specific address locations due to proprietary information privacy concerns that kind of thing so each one of these dots represents a short-term rental in the general area there's like kind of a buffer area around the accuracy of the point but staff is not able to utilize this map and say on this property this is where a short-term rental is listed those specific addresses are not included in this data so I'll run through the rest of the zoning ordinance regulations related to short-term rentals article 1 defines a short-term rental as the commercial use of a dwelling unit that is rented in whole or in part for occupancy less than 30 days So 30 days is that maximum time where a short a rental of a dwelling unit constitutes as a short-term rental This term does not include extended stay hotels then breakfast facilities other types of facilities that are already defined in the zoning ordinance and It then it goes into define what an unhosted short-term rental is is it is a rental in which a primary resident does not occupy the property during the short-term rental period most of these conditional use applications that the board is seeing are unhosted short-term rentals of an entire dwelling unit so that's why I chose to include that definition article 313 is where the the short-term rental regulations are housed within the zoning ordinance it It states in item D that the board shall establish a maximum occupancy for the short-term rental and includes a calculation for determining the maximum appropriate occupancy, which is two individuals per bedroom plus an additional four individuals, or a total of 12 individuals. So that's kind of where that 12 occupancy maximum comes into play. This, for example, a home that has four bedrooms can house 12 individuals and not require additional approval for that occupancy, where a home that has five bedrooms, per this calculation, would allow for 14 people, which they can request approval from the board to increase that occupancy, or they can operate under those 12 individuals. then in item G it states that the board shall consider shall take into consideration these four bulleted items towards the bottom of the screen first the number of short-term rentals if any in proximity to the property being considered second the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant if they operate other short-term rentals in Lexington third the occupancy rate of other short-term rentals in the general vicinity including those operated the applicant and the fourth item is whether other short-term rentals in the vicinity have been cited as a nuisance including those operated by the applicant all right last zoning ordinance slide this is a table of the types of short-term rentals and their levels of approval by zone so this first column here on the left lists the zones in which short-term rentals are allowed the next one is if the unit is hosted and they have an occupancy of 12 or less these are the types of I guess the level of approval that is needed most of these are accessory uses because it is a hosted unit but then in our higher intensity zones like downtown it is a principal use then in a hosted with occupancy greater than 12 this is where we change to the conditional uses but But then in our business use, it remains an accessory use, and the last one here remains a principal use. Then in the third column, we have the unhosted short-term rentals. And they are conditional uses in our residential zones, and the EARs are expansion area zones, so those are listed as conditional uses, where in the business and downtown zones, those are the principal uses. And then this last column addresses the number of short-term rental units allowed per property. So, it's a lot of information, but if it is hosted, you're allowed to have one dwelling unit and one ADU as a short-term rental. If it's unhosted, you're allowed to have one dwelling unit or one ADU as a short-term rental. For single-family lots in our higher residential zones, if it's hosted, one dwelling unit, one ADU. Unhosted, one dwelling unit or one ADU. for multifamily or group residential lots so these are like apartment complexes we have a 10 percent maximum so 10 percent of the units maximum are allowed to be rented as short-term rentals or one whichever is greater then we do have in these other zones the b1 p1 and mixed use zones have a 25 percent max for the number of dwelling units allowed to be rented as a short-term rental and then these higher intensity zones don't have a maximum. Those were the regulations that I wanted to cover for the board today. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Just one quick question on the grandfather clause in the six-month period. Yes. Are we doing anything to advertise that this is going to expire on January 11th? the reason i'm asking is because i prefer not to hear a whole bunch of whining new app when applicants come forward saying i used to have one but now i don't because i didn't do the paperwork so is the city and the planning staff doing anything to kind of let people know that this deadline is coming forward yes okay we just met with the office to kind of work on a press release and some other social media posts to help inform operators of existing short-term rentals that they are coming close to the six-month deadline for being grandfathered in. How many people have grandfathered in? We have processed over 200 zoning compliance permits. And you guys said what there were 1,200? On Air DNA, yes. So there's a big big chunk still out there. And I will say out of those 1,200 we have run into a handful of those like the Jessie Voigt application today she was one of them where she was existing before but we realized that she was running that short-term rental out of an ADU that hadn't been previously approved, so she was working through those approvals in order to come into compliance. So not all of those 1,200 short-term rentals may be able to file for that zoning compliance permit and get it approved. There may be issues like the application. And let me just say I appreciate you and the staff and all the work you've had to do on lots of applications since the STR ordinance was passed, so I sympathize. thank you i don't empathize because i don't nice but i do sympathize yeah thank you any other questions from the board i have some questions you might have imagined um you showed the picture of the dots on the map um but you all know exactly where these places are Not currently. Not currently. So when you say there are 30 SDRs in that particular area within 1,000 feet, I think you say, how do you know that? So we will zoom into this map on AirDNA and where that subject property is located and then estimate where that 1,000-foot distance is. and we use other mapping tools, but then we kind of look back and forth between the two maps to determine where that 1,000-foot buffer boundary is. And then we look at the dots on AirDNA and count up how many are in that buffer. So the dots don't represent an exact address, but they are within close proximity to where they are mapped on AirDNA. Will we ever have that information, you think? As they come in and register with us, then we do have their official address. We're just, you know, we have only processed 200 plus of those. Right. So once that database gets bigger, we'll be able to rely on that more than this AirDNA database. Let me answer this. You say you had no complaints, for instance. What if a neighbor or neighbors complain? And do you get those, or do they get to you at some point, or is it they just lost? or so complaints related to short-term rentals are filed with the division of building inspection zoning enforcement section and so they will intake each complaint and go out and investigate the property and the complaint so for example with short-term rentals they'll they'll go out and see whether or not it is actively being rented and then try to communicate with the owner and get them to come into compliance okay so if a neighbor has a complaint before whatever reason do they know who to contact most of the time when um um i think the 3-1-1 resource is really handy for residents who have complaints so if they call 3-1-1 even if they don't know which governmental division they need to talk to they'll be transferred to either building inspection or planning and then we'll get them connected with the right person and how soon where they get some kind of response about the results i'm not sure i believe zoning enforcement will review an inspection in a timely manner but i know that they have limited staff and receive a lot of different complaints so i'm not sure what their time limit is and i'm i'm not sure and i'll i look to staff over here whether or not those complaint records are actually public on the acela platform okay they are not public so in order to get updates i think they would have to call the division of buildings so we don't really know whether complaints or not the division of planning can access those records they're just not public but we know as a board whether or not the complaints yeah in other words in our record in our records you say there are no complaints yes so how would we know if there were. So when we're writing our staff report and reviewing these applications we go into Acela and look for complaints in the general vicinity if they're filed. Yeah. Yeah. I want you all to realize that you're having the same problems as we're having so we understand. A couple other questions and I'll quit. There are two descriptions used in in the ordinance and it says in the proximity of and what does that mean there's no defined distance it's up to the board to determine what in proximity of means for each application okay that's yeah and what does general vicinity mean I would answer the same thank you that's that's my problem okay thank you so much I appreciate your help thank you do we have other questions of staff do you want to speak more specifically on Sherman Avenue or I can let the applicant address that yeah okay yeah thank you thank you and I'll be happy to answer any questions from the board about the individual applications okay so at this time we'll allow the applicant to come forward did not the plnboa 2379 341 sherman avenue llc and if you state your name for the record sir seth hillenmeyer and would you like to tell us a little bit about your project i would love to good afternoon members of the board my name is seth hillenmeyer i'm the owner and the operator of the property at 341 sherman avenue i'm a full-time lexington resident my family's been been here my entire life and I do understand the importance of protecting Lexington and its unique character. My wife, three kids and I live just one mile from the property and discussion today. I have been self-managing our short-term rental properties for over seven years now. I've gained a wealth of experience that's helped form my standards and operating procedures and also provided me an in-depth understanding of the responsibilities of of being a professional host. I understand that there's concerns from the community about STRs in their neighborhoods, which I know we'll have the chance to hear today. I hope that some of what I have to say will alleviate some of their concerns, and I was able to watch last meeting's month in its entirety, and I noticed the board made it a point that today's not necessarily a debate on the merit of short-term rentals as a whole for the city of Lexington, but really a focused consideration on several crucial points regarding this subject property at 341 Sherman that Melissa had just laid out there. Number one is the impact on the neighborhood and guest capacity. So providing a conditional use permit will not advert excuse me will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. This property in question is 2,500 square feet. It is five bedrooms and four and a half bathrooms it's not just a random structure but it was thoughtfully designed capable and comfortably accommodating a guest count of up to 12 guests in my experience our average guest count other properties that i've managed is 6.7 to similar size properties there's other several key strategies i've implemented to maintain a positive relationship with my neighbors and I would like to list those out here. There's four of those. One of them is guest screening. So I perform a background check on all of our guests using a website called safely.com. These checks delve into numerous databases including county and court records, national and criminal databases, sex offender lists, and even a database of problem offenders who have received poor reviews from other hosts. This automatically prevents these potential problem guests from renting my properties. This is above the industry standard and not a requirement per the new ordinance that the city of Lexington has passed. The second thing I do is noise control. We use a technology called Noise Aware. It preemptively deters disturbances and ensures adherence to our quiet hours policy. This stretches from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily, and it is strictly enforced. We equip each property with an indoor and outdoor noise decibel monitoring system. If the decibels arise above an acceptable level, myself and the guests receive a text message alerting them of the disturbance and issuing a warning. The proactive approach is important to prevent disturbances before they happen. I remind you I also live one mile away from the subject property to address any concerns if they were to arise. The next thing I do is with surveillance and security. The external security system with strategically placed cameras acts not only as a deterrent to misconduct, but also allows us to uphold our parking rules and respond swiftly to any potential concerns raised by the noise monitoring system. These cameras currently overlook the front and rear of their property and provide alerts and are monitored daily. The last thing is with our neighbor relationships. The comfort and assurance of our neighbors is paramount. By providing my personal contact details to adjacent residents, I reinforce an open channel of communication that encourages immediate reporting of issues if the neighbors were to have any, which shows my desire to be a good neighbor. In addition, I've received nine letters in support of this conditional use, one of which was from the neighbor living at 345 Sherman, which is directly next to the property. I wanted to just, if I could, read that letter to you guys. Members of the planning board, my name is Mark Holland, and I reside at the property adjacent to 341 Sherman Avenue. Having been a member of this community for over 30 years, I've witnessed firsthand the transformation and progress of our neighborhood has undergone. It's nice to see the area improve year after year and I believe that introduction of new homes including the construction next to me plays a part in this continued improvement. Although the new house at 341 Sherman is larger than I would typically prefer I must commend that it has been maintained with great care and has not posed any disturbance or nuisance to my living experience. I understand there may be concerns or opposition regarding short-term mental operation at this location. However, based on my direct observation and experience as a neighbor, I have not encountered any issues that would warrant such resistance. Sincerely, Mark Collin, 345 Sherman Avenue. So these four measures demonstrate my willingness to do everything in my power to be a responsible host and a citizen to the community to ensure that our guests don't have an adverse impact on the neighbors. These measures have been in place at my properties for years and in part a reason why we have received nine different letters of support from existing STRs. The second consideration is the traffic and parking. I understand the sensitivity of parking in residential areas and I have a parking plan that respects the need of both our guests and the neighborhood. Although we have room for up to six vehicles of off-street parking, we limit our guests to just four vehicles at any one given time. This mitigates any undue pressure on local traffic. Our guests are well informed of our parking policies well in advance with a series of proactive messages, and this is also listed directly on the instructions when they book. Adherence is monitored via our security cameras linked to our smart lock system. So we learn at the time of their arrival and then check parking. The third consideration is obviously the precedent of local short-term rentals. As Melissa stated, there's no currently citations of any other short-term rentals in the neighborhood. I think the fourth thing in consideration was the compliance track record. I personally don't have any previous citations at any of our other listings. In conclusion, I have a proven track record of being a responsible short-term mental host that will not create any adverse impact on the neighborhood or its traffic. I have put in place a series of policies and procedures to ensure this as I've described. The permit in question is not simply a procedural hurdle. it represents a covenant of trust between myself and this community. It's my commitment that I, as a local Lexington resident and a steward of short-term rental hospitality, will uphold the highest standards of this operation. My proximity to the property ensures hands-on management and a vested interest in the welfare of both the neighborhood and the guests. I respectfully present my case for the approval of the conditional use permit for 341 Sherman Avenue with the confidence that all measures have been taken to ensure a positive impact on the community and the continued prosperity of Lexington's welcoming spirit. Your consideration is appreciated, and I stand by to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. Does the board have any questions at this time? Okay, we will open the floor for public comment. if you do wish to speak if you could line up here remember we do have a three-minute time limit for everyone that would like to add comment good afternoon good afternoon My name is John Grimes. I live at 272 Sherman Avenue. I'm here to object to this unhosted Airbnb. These are hotels. They are clearly businesses located in our neighborhoods. They should not be allowed. They present both a nuisance and a safety risk. Airbnbs are the worst of both worlds. The people renting them don't care about the neighborhoods. They pay a bunch of money, $200 to $300 a night. The one at 300 Sherman charges $627 a night. so they feel they have the right to do what they want. At other times, these just sit vacant. Airbnbs are very unpopular. Almost everyone who supports them makes money from them or hopes to make money from them. I'd like to know, how many Airbnbs does this person own? How much do they charge a night? I'd ask specifically, how do they intend to enforce their own rules? And he talked a bit about that. How will this be done, or will it just be done after the fact? Have you given your phone numbers to neighbors? Who will bring in your garbage cans? And the city has responsibility here too. What resources have you committed to enforce these regulations? I believe that the owner, that this owner also owns 340 Lincoln, where there was a huge party on June 3rd during the weekend of the Railbird Music Festival. This is what a neighbor said about this property. Streets blocked off, can't get to work because someone is blocking your driveway, gangs of people walking up and down your street, afraid to let your children go outside, tired of 3 a.m. parties, surprised you've got an Airbnb. Another issue that you must consider is the proximity to other Airbnbs. I ask planning, how many other Airbnbs are on the third block of Sherman? How many are on Sherman Avenue? How many total Airbnbs are there in Lexington? I would guess that they can't answer these questions because they've chosen not to collect their own data. I doubt there is a complete list of Airbnbs addresses. I doubt that the city has their own data mapped. City Council created and passed a new zoning ordinance that defines short-term rentals without having any idea where they actually existed in Lexington. This is just the opposite of data-based decision-making. This is the opposite of good governance. Last month, this board decided to give conditional use to an unhosted Airbnb at 333 Henry Clay Boulevard. There was no consideration of proximity. Proximity can be measured, and there was no given measure of proximity. You did not give any information on other nearby Airbnb's. Your own procedures say you must consider proximity. This appears to be a fatal flaw in this process. Here is my data. There are four Airbnb's on the third block of Sherman. 300 Sherman Avenue is nine houses away. This is a huge Airbnb specifically built for this purpose that advertises that it sleeps 20. 317 is five houses away. There are two more Airbnbs on the second block of Sherman that are 14 houses away. My estimation is there is no less than 35 Airbnb's in Kenwick. And this number of 120, 1,200 in the city, that's just an estimation from these data sources, from two data sources. I would estimate there's 3,000 or more in the city. Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you. We appreciate your comment. Do we have anyone else looking to speak? yeah there's one for each of you and make sure the staff has one do they have a copy the staff have a copy okay thank you my name is barbara rackers and i live at 361 sherman which is about three or four houses maybe five houses up from this one i'm here on behalf of multiple residents on the 300 block of sherman in addition to myself most of them are working today some are out of town and some have medical appointments what i was going to do is go over the comprehensive plan goals and objectives themes policies that relate to this but um that may be too general because you don't want to talk about airbnbs in general apparently just specific ones so um i will say that the housing in our neighborhood has always been and is currently affordable it's a stable neighborhood with longtime residents is mr. Grimes mentioned or not mr. Grimes minister Hillenmeyer mentioned Mark Holland he's been in the neighborhood his family has been in the neighborhood for several several several years longer than I have I've been there 26 years but it's it's a stable neighborhood and it has longtime residents and property owners it won't stay that way if you approve this and if you approve other ones in the neighborhoods the property values will go up because of this his two properties and on Sherman Avenue are valued at over six hundred thousand dollars we're not a wealthy neighborhood and we're all concerned that the property values will go up so high that we won't be able to live there anymore Airbnbs take residential properties that are either occupied or not and turn them to airbnbs and that takes that makes them a commercial use in a residential zone and that should not be allowed i would think but it is apparently and um it takes away from housing opportunities and we're always talking about about affordable housing or housing availability and it takes definitely takes away from the housing availability um as it was stated there are six on sherman avenue at least and then there are three in the 300 block all within 500 feet of each other it's not just these two other three of them within 500 feet of each other and i think we've reached and even gone beyond the saturation point there was an article online that said in july of 2023 the number of short-term rentals in lexington was at least twice as much as the number of houses for sale so um that is a saturation point that i think we've exceeded and the staff report says that this will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood we don't know that there was a party probably about a month ago on windramere you probably heard about it police had to be called three people were shot it was at an airbnb 100 people were there property was damaged the one at 317 had a similar situation although nobody was shot police had to be called because it was an out of control party and a couple of weeks ago the lady that lives next door to 341 Sherman had one of the guests on her front porch. He was drunk and it was on her front porch and she's a single woman. She lives by herself and she didn't know what to do. People that they were with him took him away but he was there and it was probably a scary situation but I ask you to disapprove this one. It's not appropriate for the neighborhood and we just we don't want it thank you thank you for your time any other public comment sir well my name is george george eustis uh when i first moved to lexington i moved to kenwick and through a friend in Kenwick that was in a previous millennium, previous century, previous decade when I first moved to Kenwick. So a friend from Kenwick told me about RBABs and to help me economically revitalize my own home. And so I did that. I'm now a super host. And so I support this decision to have an Airbnb there. I know that in 2022, which was a record year for people coming to Lexington and visiting through Airbnbs, it's something like over $96 million into the local economy. So I think it's really good economic development. And any hindrances to this should be stopped. and bullying should be stopped. The difference between an Airbnb or short-term rental is 29 days. 30 days more, we wouldn't be here discussing any of these issues. Violence happens at hotels. Do the hotels get shut down? No. They keep making their businesses. So what are threats to the community? Is it these decisions that come through the Urban County Council to allow certain behavior to happen, such as at hotels? I don't know. I mean, the Urban County Council is in charge of what goes on in this city, and the BOA is part of that. And so when we're looking at all these dangerous behaviors, speeding traffic, all this other stuff that happens on sidewalks and wherever, things that, you know, drugs, shootings, all that stuff, those are threats to public safety. His Airbnb is not. And so the short-term rentals have proven that they are a benefit economically to the city. And anything that you can do to help them is going to help this city in one of the poorest states in the country. And it certainly should be looked at that. And the bullying efforts and the misinformation that is passed on through this podium I think should stop. And when we're trying to help people, let's help them. When we communicate with people what's going on and trying to find a good tool for economic development, we have one. It's called short-term rentals. We don't need to kill it. We need to help it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any further public comment? Okay. okay i'll give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns sure thank you the first comments uh that were made and thank you for both comments i think they're it's important to hear and and you know i want to hear those comments about the concerns that the neighbors have because we don't want to be a problem and i don't think we we have been a problem which our record would indicate. Mr. Grimes mentioned a party at 340 Lincoln Avenue that I have no this is the first time I've ever heard of that. I have a letter of recommendation that actually came from the neighbor that's adjacent to 340 Lincoln and so that was submitted earlier this week as an email so I I would find it unlikely that if there was a big block party at one of my houses that the next-door neighbor would recommend the house. So I guess I can't comment any further than I just don't believe that that happened. And if it did, it wasn't at my property. I know that Barbara, I didn't catch her last name, mentioned the safety and concern there was a shooting at another Airbnb property. that's obviously that's that's awful to hear but there's things that we do to prevent that and that's the background checks and the screening a lot of hosts that even I've heard they say they screen their applicants well screening an applicant means they look to see where are they from or do they have a history on Airbnb I take it a step further and do a background check on my applicants and that automatically would prevent them from booking my property so when you are concerned with safety, I do believe I'm taking the necessary steps to prevent anything like that from happening. Staff has a few things to add, please. I will just address one of the statements about our own database that we're working on building um i mentioned it in my presentation but um because air dna and the individual listings don't have the explicit addresses we're not able to have a record of that exact address until they come to our office and register either with the division of planning or the division of revenue and i know the division of revenue may have some other plans for making sure that existing short term rentals are coming into compliance with their regulations and registering as a business and paying their due taxes and all their special license fees but our office is working as hard as we can to issue zoning compliance permits and of course process conditional use permits for short-term rentals that reach out to us so yes our own database is small but it's because we can only build it as they apply to us and reach out to us so i just wanted to address that we're able to you know have that database and map the short-term rentals that we have processed and permitted but because of the limited access to the direct address information on these listing platforms we're not able to map or build a database of other existing short-term rentals with their exact address so that's why we're relying on that air dna website in the meantime the other thing i wanted to state is clarifying how short-term rentals legally operated before these regulations before these regulations were put into place there was a definition of a dwelling unit in which the rental period was a week long that was the minimum amount of time so short-term rentals could legally operate before these new regulations if they leased their property or rented their property one time a week i just wanted to clarify that for the board and just any maybe pending questions about how we have so many short-term rentals in our community currently does the board have any questions for staff at this time i actually do just clarification um where we are considering proximity and not saturation maybe in some areas although it doesn't specifically say that in the ordinance it could mean an area that doesn't have any it says where we're considering proximity are we looking at that and kind of a first in first out basis so for example there's an awareness that there may be some other short-term rentals operating in the area but they have yet to apply so when we're considering one that has applied is it fair to consider the others that have not gone through the process so I'll say so far in our staff reports in our use of the air DNA website I mean I've pulled up here a screenshot of the subject property which is this I've highlighted in this red star and these short-term rentals in the surrounding area from that air dna website and in our staff report we included that we estimate there's about 25 to 30 short-term rentals within a thousand feet of the subject property so that's kind of our reporting on the number of short-term rentals in that thousand foot distance assessing concentrations is kind of up to the board to determine i think my question more specifically is there's about 30 according to that site but how many have actually applied or gone through the process i haven't i didn't map those for this meeting but i am able to do that um i can pull in those 200 and some zoning compliance permits and our now six um conditional use permits well i guess a few more added today and pull that into a map database and slowly build that over time i just think that'd be pertinent for the people that have actually gone through the process to give them weight keep in mind that they do have until January 11th to come in and do that so I think we're kind of operating under the assumption that these are ones that were operating prior to July and we're assuming that they will that they will come in I think it's first come first serve well they're there regulations were written if they were operating prior to July they're not gonna have to go through this process so functionally they're they're already there yeah good deal okay do we have other questions of staff all right thank you all thank you okay so i will okay so no further discussion i'll entertain oh i'm sorry miss plumler thank you um I think everyone agrees that STRs are commercial use in a residential area, and this was in R2. And I think we are possibly rezoning a house at a time because in R2, that's not really a commercial area. We're rezoning, like B1 is where you could have an extended stay. B3 is where you could have hotels and motels. So we're taking a segment of a street and making it something else zone-wise, which was not the intent of the zone, in this case, R2. Again, I have concern about the affordable housing. But when I say affordable, I mean affordable by 30% of your income goes to housing. And there are many neighborhoods around town that particularly I see this as a concern. 42 people signed a petition against this on Sherman Avenue. So the neighbors don't really want this commercial use on their street. And I think, too, that even the staff is concerned at this point in that they have written that staff has concerns that a concentration of short-term rentals may beginning to occur in the vicinity. And what that indicates is unintended consequences. and so we don't know really where it's going how many is enough but there is concern and so I would be opposed to this as a short-term rental thank you thank you miss Plumlee I would say I disagree with the initial statement that we all agree this is a commercialization of residents it is a conditional use and allowable conditional use in the residential area we do allow conditional uses for daycares and hair salons and there are other opportunities that our ordinance gives to allow conduct to allow conditional uses in this fashion so it is not subverting the zoning or we are not doing a rezoning process it has just been established as a allowable conditional use so that that is why it's before us, we do not rezone. That's not our role. I'd like to make some comments too and already make a motion if the board is ready for that. But first I'd like to say, first thing I'd like to say is this process is not bullying. This is the way we operate. These people are neighbors and they have every right to come and express themselves. So let's get that clear right away so we understand. This is not a bullying situation. These are people who are concerned about their neighborhoods. Having said that, as I said last month, our problem is not what Ms. Pommelius said or what our chair has followed up with. Our problem is the fact that the ordinance has been written in such a way that it prevents us from having specific reasons to make a decision. It's a very, very poor written ordinance. I have spoken with my council member, and we have talked extensively. And there may be opportunities to talk further with other council members about the ordinance and some of the weaknesses that it contains. It is not well written and it's going to not serve us well. I would like to put that in words that says I'm not biased one way or the other. I'm not trying to take this particular instance and make something out of it one way or the other. But I am saying that we have a problem here because if we say, well, this is not acceptable, then we have to have reasons for it not to be acceptable. And it has to be reasons other than our own bias and our own feelings. It has to be based on law. And the way the way this ordinance is written we we don't have those things What is too many a great question? We don't have any way of knowing what how what's too many? There's nothing in the ordinance that says that and as I brought up earlier What is the general vicinity? There's no there's no rationale for for that for that wording There's nothing specific here at all that gives us as a board the opportunity to say all right the law says this and we have to we we have to make decisions based on the law just like the staff has to do they have to make recommendations based on what what they have to work with I'm ready to make a motion unless there's other comments all right I move for appeal in a BOA 2379 I'm sorry I move to approve plnboa 23-79 at 341 sherman avenue lcc request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in the mixed low density residential zone properly located at 341 sherman avenue based on the staff's discussions and recommendations and the how many four conditions as listed thank you do I have a second thank you mr. gross any further discussion okay the motion has passed good luck with your project so we do have one more plnboa 23-80 that's calvin andres come forward please thank you if you could please state your name for the record good afternoon my name is Calvin Andres I own 640 Declaration Court along with my wife Samantha Davis who is also here with us today I understand we are the last agenda item before we head out to supper so I'll try to keep my comments short we are requesting a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental. We have been living in our home for almost a year now and are interested in using it part-time as a short-term rental. We plan to keep the house as our primary residence, looking to rent it out about 30% of the time, mostly on the weekends when we are visiting family nearby. Since we are already gone most weekends, we saw this as an opportunity to have our home provide additional income for us to make it more affordable to stay in the neighborhood that we have grown to love having moved here a short year ago we are well aware of the housing crisis that lexington is in which is why we want to stress that we are planning to keep this as our primary residence we won't be getting this conditional use permit and then turning around and buying another house and taking a home off the market i understand that using a having a short-term rental at your primary residence is not the typical scenario that has been brought before the board but we feel that is a positive use of short-term rentals in our community also known as house hacking this can give lower income individuals or young adults just starting out a way to generate some extra income from their home to make it more affordable to purchase a home because even just a small portion part of that mortgage taken off every month can be the difference between home ownership or in our case feeling comfortable really setting down our roots here in lexington and starting a family having a short-term rental in a primary residence is also something that we have experience with before moving back home to kentucky my wife and i owned a house in illinois that we rented out part-time as a short-term rental while also living there through the time that we had the had the short-term rental going we didn't have any complaints from our neighbors and we did not receive any notification of noise concerns or noise violations reported to the city noise can quickly become a concern when you live in tight quarters which we do live in there on declaration court but we plan to be proactive about this by implementing strict rules and using a noise monitoring tool such as noise aware to alert us and our guests if they are starting to get too loud. That way we can proactively reach out and address the issue before our neighbors would feel the need to say something. We will pull from our previous experience managing short-term rentals to be good hosts for our guests and for our neighbors. In addition to following city guidelines regarding quiet hours and regarding events and parties, we will also be not allow one night stays and we will be pre-screening all of our guests we don't just want to be good hosts we want to still be good neighbors Sam and I have lived here for nearly a year and we love our little cul-de-sac and we hope that this short-term rental will make living here more affordable to us and that we will still be able to enjoy the community that we have come to love thank you for your time and your consideration and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? So where do you stay when you lease the property? We will be staying with our parents. My parents live in Winchester, my wife's live in Paris. We often go visit them. They both have farms and I am the farm hand. And so end up doing work there and staying the night most weekends anyways. all right thank you and you can stay but this might is more for staff so the reason it's unhosted is because they're not staying there at the time okay because i it's almost hosted he's still they still live there but not okay gotcha okay i'm just curious uh just because your application it says that you're asking for something for up to five individuals is all that you want in there yes it's a two-bedroom house we have currently you know king bed and then a full with a trundle and so that would accommodate five so that's all that we are looking for and regarding parking you said there'd be no parking in the cul-de-sac and having done a drive by it's a very tight area yes i mean the driveway slopes you can get one car in the driveway and then one car in the garage is that what you're in we're proposing two cars in the driveway we we have been able to do that previously but you're you're going to be on the sidewalk if you have two cars in a driveway not if you pull up maybe if they're tiny cars excuse me i'm sorry if they're tiny yeah we have been able to have two cars we have a prius and then we have had a sedan or a an suv parked in there as well and we've been able to stay out of the sidewalk Any other questions? We'll open for public comment. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hello, my name is Van Vickers. I live in the neighborhood around the corner at 748 Liberty Hill Drive. I have a petition of 52 people who have signed, or I'm sorry, 47 who have signed out of 52 that we have talked to just right in that vicinity of that court they do not want it there uh this is what we've come up with here it says we residents of lebrity hills subdivision are upset about the proposed unhosted short-term rental at 640 declaration court proposed by calvin andrews and vehemently oppose it for the following reasons number one parking is almost impossible on declaration court even now we are putting calvin andrews on notice that the proposed short-term rental at 640 declaration court an imminent threat for untold suffering and loss of residents on both declaration court and patriot court declaration court has limited space many homeowners already parked with their vehicles partially blocking the sidewalk This is a very short court, has no parking signs, placed by the city of Lexington to ensure garbage trucks, first responders, both fire trucks and ambulances can have quick access and easy passage. Just where will all the tenants park if more than five are there? Where will all the tenants' visitors park? Where will all the tenants' partiers park when the tenants' partiers throw a big party or even a small gathering? Obviously, they will most likely park on both sides of the street and up on Declaration Court, and then head up to Patriot Court and park up there, which is a small cul-de-sac also, where they will likely also be parking on both sides of the street. Dwelling on Patriot Court are two wheelchair-bound persons, one who is an invalid, and the other is a victim of multiple sclerosis, as well as three known heart patients. Ambulances, fire trucks, garbage trucks have cleared problems for access on both Declaration Court and Patriot Court. If the short-term rental at 640 Declaration Court is approved, it will jeopardize lives at home because of limiting access to quick response of emergency responders, such as fire trucks and ambulances, as well as response of any needed police assistance. In this liability that Mr. Andrews is willing and knowingly accepting, if Mr. Andrews is a man with any propriety whatsoever, we urge him out of concern for the well-being and safety of human life on moral, ethical, and humane grounds to cease and desist this proposed short-term rental proposed on 640 Declaration Court. Case in port. Stated in an article posted by Andrew Lamparski at 10.50 p.m. on October 22, 2023, on Lexington 18 News, three people were shot at 3 a.m. on Sunday morning at Windermere Court. Also reported in Mr. Lamparski's article is the statement, According to neighbors, the party was being held at a short-term rental on the street. They added roughly 100 people where attendants and their cars lined the entire street. Sorry. Thank you. If the applicant would like to, or I'm sorry, did staff want to add? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond or address any of those concerns? I know that look count. She said. um i appreciate the neighbors coming forward and their concerns like i mentioned we plan to enforce that there's only a bell out to have three cars parked there we understand that there can be safety and security issues but we know as stated in the staff report that there are other short-term rentals within the area including some that we know in the patriot court area and I feel that there is in my personal experience walking the neighborhood Driving around at night. I have not seen the concerns that have been brought forward and So and regarding additional individuals as well. We state that there will only be five individuals allowed We have spoken with the neighbors around us to the degree that they've have responded to our request to talk to them those directly next to our home and we will be providing them with our phone number as well so that way if there are issues with too many people coming in a party getting out of hand that we are not notified of by our sound monitoring tool they will have the ability to reach out directly to us and we'll always be nearby so that way we can come and address those issues personally and just for clarity your estimate was about 30% of the time? Yes, so we're primarily just looking to rent it out on the weekends. I work in Lexington and I'd really rather not have to drive all that way to go to the office. Okay, thank you. Let me ask you a question. Mr. Andrews, let me ask you another quick question. Can you and would you insist and require that parking be in the driveway? Yes, that would be one of our rules on there. Thank you. Yes, sir. I have a question, but this might be more for staff. I know we've seen all your pretty pictures today. Did we see one on roughly the ones that are in this area from the AirDNA? All right, so this is the screenshot from AirDNA of existing short-term rentals in the area, represented by the purple dot. The red star is the subject property. and I do have two points of clarification if the board doesn't mind first I'd just like to point out that with our recommendation of approval we do include condition number three which does prohibit on-street parking and limits parking to the driveway and attached garage and then I would just like to state that if this is approved with an occupancy of five any more than five people during a short-term rental would be in violation of their approval so I just want to make that clear for the board thank you any other questions not I will entertain a motion there's one to be made Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve PLN BOA 23-80 Calvin Andrews' request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in the townhouse residential zone and property located at 640 Declaration Court based on the staff's recommendation and the five conditions as listed. Second. Thank you. We'll open for vote. So we have discussion. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yes, one more passing comment regarding STRs. The ordinance seems to be fairly ironclad in that we have no real say about what comes forth. And I think maybe it's up to us to come forth with something that maybe the staff would welcome a possibility from us that somewhere in this pile of hay there's a pony. And maybe if we keep on, we'll find the pony. Thanks. Thank you. I like ponies. Anything further? Sorry, I got to move in too fast. Forgive me. Thank you. The motion has passed. Good luck. I think that's the end of our cases. Is that correct? We added an addendum to the agenda under a board item to consider. No more cases. No more cases, no. Okay. Good deal. you guys have a good evening thank you for your time so we do have an added agenda item which tell the truth everyone expected we'd be doing this about 7 30 didn't you brandon thank you thank you hey yeah i do what i can all right all right but on the agenda we have added our 2024 meeting and filing schedule you guys have an opportunity to look over that and we can make a motion to accept I'm comfortable accepting if it more or less is the same days as this year with one exception which is so in November Veterans Day is now a city holiday and so the second Monday in November falls on Veterans day or at least the celebration of veterans day for the city so instead of having our november meeting the second monday it'll be held the first monday so then the filing time backs up a week as well so chairperson carter may want to text me and remind me to show up well you'll still get a a mail-in and a packet so hopefully that'll be a good reminder will do will do but if the other board members are comfortable with this schedule i'll make a motion wait let me check my birthday okay we're good we're good um madam chair i hereby move that we approve the board of adjustment meeting a filing schedule for 2024 as presented by staff thank you do we have a second Second. Thank you, Ms. Tucker. And we'll open for vote. Passed and adopted. There we go. All right, anything else? Our next meeting will be on December 11th at 1.30. When's the filing date for that one? The filing date was last week. week okay what do we have we had nine new applications and now with our postponements and continuances we have a total of 12. so happy christmas oh no we can roll through them we're good now we're good now meeting adjourned Thank you.