# Board of Adjustment Hearing - December 11, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 11, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5983 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5983?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-12-11 - **Last revised**: December 11, 2023 - **Length**: 18,021 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 Board of Adjustment convened on December 11, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items during the session, including the approval of minutes from a previous meeting and conducting public hearings on zoning appeals. Throughout the meeting, the board took 13 votes on various matters and heard from 2 members of the public during the comment period. The meeting followed standard procedural format, beginning with a call to order and concluding with adjournment after addressing both board items and staff items on the agenda. ## Attendance The meeting on December 11, 2023 had the following attendance: **Present:** • Raquel Carter • Carolyn Plumlee • Bob Sturdivant • Linda Tucker • Chad Walker **Absent:** • Harry Clarke **Late:** • Branden Gross Five members were present at the start of the meeting, with one member arriving late and one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The Board of Adjustment conducted 13 votes during the December 11, 2023 meeting, with most items receiving unanimous approval. **Administrative Items** The board unanimously approved the September 2023 Board of Adjustment minutes on a motion by Linda Tucker, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 00:30]. **Postponements** Two items were postponed unanimously. Case PLN-BOA-23-00045, a variance request by RED DRAW DELAWARE, LLC, was postponed on a motion by Bob Sturdivant, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 01:30]. Case PLN-BOA-23-00083, Joe Rayyan's variance request to reduce gasoline pump setbacks, was also postponed on a motion by Branden Gross [timestamp: 09:30]. **Variance Approvals** Five variance requests received unanimous approval: - PLN-BOA-23-00068: Matthew Deluca's rear yard setback reduction [timestamp: 02:30] - PLN-BOA-23-00085: Gibson, Taylor, Thompson Architecture's side yard reduction for a deep building [timestamp: 03:30] - PLN-BOA-23-00092: Ramon Hernandez's side yard setback reduction for a carport [timestamp: 04:30] - PLN-BOA-23-00094: Joseph Costa's accessory structure size increase [timestamp: 05:30] - PLN-BOA-23-00090: Anne Ramirez's driveway paving setback reduction [timestamp: 10:30] **Conditional Use Permits** Traditional Bank's drive-through facilities request (PLN-BOA-23-00073) passed unanimously [timestamp: 06:30]. Three short-term rental applications had mixed results. Maryland Avenue Getaway, LLC (PLN-BOA-23-00088) passed 4-2, with Carter, Gross, Sturdivant, and Walker voting yes; Plumlee and Tucker voting no [timestamp: 07:30]. Nicolle Girves' application (PLN-BOA-23-00091) passed 5-1, with only Gross voting against [timestamp: 12:30]. However, Phillip Petrie's request (PLN-BOA-23-00086) failed 3-2 with one abstention, as Carter, Sturdivant, and Gross voted against [timestamp: 11:30]. Jessica Justice's home-based beauty salon (PLN-BOA-23-00093) passed 4-2, with the same voting pattern as the Maryland Avenue case [timestamp: 08:30]. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the board during the public comment period to express concerns about pending applications. **Boyd Sheerer** spoke regarding the variance request submitted by Anne Ramirez [timestamp: 10:00]. Sheerer raised concerns about potential stormwater runoff issues that could affect his property if the proposed driveway paving project moves forward. He expressed worry about how the additional impervious surface could impact drainage patterns in the area. **David Burdette** addressed the conditional use permit request by Nicolle Girves [timestamp: 12:00]. Burdette voiced concerns about ongoing changes in his neighborhood due to the proliferation of short-term rental properties. He also mentioned safety concerns related to other properties in the surrounding area, though he did not specify the exact nature of these safety issues during his comments. Both speakers appeared to be directly affected neighbors seeking to have their concerns considered as part of the board's review process for the respective applications. ## Contested Items Two conditional use permit requests for short-term rentals generated significant debate during the December 11, 2023 meeting, resulting in split decisions from the board. **Maryland Avenue Getaway, LLC Conditional Use Permit** The request by Maryland Avenue Getaway, LLC for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental faced opposition from board members, ultimately passing by a narrow 4-2 vote. The split decision indicates substantial disagreement among board members regarding the appropriateness of approving this particular short-term rental application, though the specific concerns raised by the dissenting members were not detailed in the available materials. **Phillip Petrie Conditional Use Permit** The conditional use permit request by Phillip Petrie for an un-hosted short-term rental was denied following community opposition. The denial was specifically attributed to concerns about gentrification and displacement effects in what was identified as a priority area. This case highlighted tensions between property development interests and community preservation efforts, with opponents arguing that additional short-term rentals could contribute to housing displacement and neighborhood gentrification pressures. The contrasting outcomes of these two similar requests - one approved by a slim margin and one denied due to community concerns - illustrate the complex considerations involved in short-term rental permitting decisions. Factors such as location designation (priority area status), community input, and potential neighborhood impacts appear to have played significant roles in the board's deliberations and final determinations on these applications. ## Call to Order Chair Raquel Carter called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. [timestamp: 00:00] This agenda item served as the formal opening of the December 11, 2023 meeting, with Chair Carter presiding over the proceedings. The call to order marked the official beginning of the session and established the meeting as properly convened. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The Board of Adjustment considered approval of the minutes from their September 2023 meeting during agenda item II. Linda Tucker and Carolyn Plumlee were the key speakers during this discussion. The board reviewed the previously distributed minutes from the September 2023 Board of Adjustment meeting for accuracy and completeness. The September 2023 Board of Adjustment minutes were approved by the board without any noted corrections or amendments to the record. ## Public Hearing on Zoning Appeals [timestamp: 01:00] The board conducted a public hearing on various zoning appeals during agenda item III. The discussion covered multiple variance and conditional use permit requests that had been submitted for consideration. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included Raquel Carter and Meghan Jennings, who presented information regarding the pending zoning appeals. The hearing provided an opportunity for public input on the various requests before the board. The appeals under consideration included both variance requests, which seek relief from specific zoning requirements, and conditional use permit applications for proposed land uses that require special approval under the zoning code. This agenda item served an informational purpose, allowing the board and public to review and discuss the merits of the various zoning appeals. The hearing format enabled stakeholders to present their positions and concerns regarding the proposed zoning modifications and special use requests. The public hearing concluded without formal action being taken on the individual appeals, as this portion of the meeting was designed to gather information and public input rather than render final decisions on the zoning matters. ## Board Items [timestamp: 13:00] Chair Raquel Carter opened the Board Items section by announcing that any items a Board member wished to present would be heard during this portion of the meeting. No board members brought forward any items for discussion during this agenda segment. The section served as an opportunity for board members to raise additional matters not covered elsewhere on the agenda, but no such items were presented. This agenda item was informational in nature, providing a designated time for board member-initiated discussions or presentations that might arise outside of the formal agenda structure. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 13:30] Chair Raquel Carter announced that any items a staff member wished to present would be heard during this portion of the meeting. This agenda item was designated as a discussion period to allow staff members the opportunity to bring forward matters for the board's consideration. No staff members came forward to present items during this time. The Chair's announcement served as an open invitation for staff to address the board, but no presentations or discussions occurred under this agenda item. This item was informational in nature, providing a structured opportunity for staff input during the meeting proceedings. ## Next Meeting Date [timestamp: 14:00] Raquel Carter announced the date for the next meeting during this agenda item. The upcoming meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. This was an informational announcement with no discussion or debate required from the meeting participants. ## Adjournment The meeting was formally adjourned by Raquel Carter at approximately 14:30 [timestamp: 14:30]. No additional discussion or business was conducted during this agenda item, and the meeting concluded without further proceedings. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of September 2023 Board of Adjustment minutes - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — postponed (5-0): Postponement of variance request by RED DRAW DELAWARE, LLC - **PLN-BOA-23-00068** — passed (5-0): Variance request by Matthew Deluca to reduce rear yard setback - **PLN-BOA-23-00085** — passed (5-0): Variance request by Gibson, Taylor, Thompson Architecture and Design to reduce side yard for a deep building - **PLN-BOA-23-00092** — passed (5-0): Variance request by Ramon Hernandez to reduce side yard setback for a carport - **PLN-BOA-23-00094** — passed (5-0): Variance request by Joseph Costa to increase the allowable size of accessory structures - **PLN-BOA-23-00073** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit request by Traditional Bank for drive-through facilities - **PLN-BOA-23-00088** — passed (4-2): Conditional use permit request by Maryland Avenue Getaway, LLC for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-23-00093** — passed (4-2): Conditional use permit request by Jessica Justice for a home-based beauty salon - **PLN-BOA-23-00083** — postponed (6-0): Variance request by Joe Rayyan to reduce the setback of a gasoline pump - **PLN-BOA-23-00090** — passed (6-0): Variance request by Anne Ramirez to reduce setback for paving a driveway - **PLN-BOA-23-00086** — failed (2-3): Conditional use permit request by Phillip Petrie for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-23-00091** — passed (5-1): Conditional use permit request by Nicolle Girves for an un-hosted short term rental --- ## Full transcript Oh, I wish it could be Christmas every day So let the bells ring out for Christmas Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I saw the name of the group, but we just know that we made it back to stay. Well, I wish it could be Christmas every day. But when the kids start singing, I'll be back. Thanks for joining me. I'm Council Member James Brown here doing a council comment. There's been a lot of investment in parks lately, and I just want to talk a little bit about some of the investments that we've made in parks that we're going to see in our community centers throughout our communities. I'm here with Anthony Jackson with Parks and Recreation. Thanks for joining me. No problem at all. Happy to be here. Anthony, tell me what your position is again. I'm a recreation manager under our community engagement division, and I'm manager over all five of our community centers. Okay. When you first came into LFUCG and Parks and Recreation, You came in kind of working to program some of our neighborhood centers throughout the community. Yes. And since then, I think your role has kind of just changed and kind of matured as you have stepped up for the call, to answer the call across parks. Tell us, so here I know Dunbar Center just recently celebrated 100 years being a 100-year anniversary. It's been a community center for years. Can you tell us a little bit about some of the programming that takes place here and then at some of our other community centers around the community? Yeah, you know, Dunbar Center is known citywide for the gym. You know, everybody wants to come to Dunbar and play basketball. But, I mean, Dunbar is so much more. You know, we've recently started some cooking classes. We've explored the e-sports and video gaming. We have the classic game room. and our new director, Trudy, she does a great job with our arts and craft program. You know, they make some beautiful pieces. And, you know, with that, we're able to partner with, you know, some of our surrounding people like LTMS. They bring a group of kids, and we do all the programming for them in the afternoons. We have some other partners, Box to Box. They come in, use the gym, and not even for basketball. They come in and play soccer. So, you know, although, you know, we recognize the history, the rich history with the basketball, we are starting to expand and, you know, use the center for a lot of other things. Well, it sounds like it's a lot more than just recreation taking place in this community center. I know the legacy that the historic Dunbar High School has had in our community and all the work they still do to make sure that we're providing quality programming here. I know the trophy room. Oh, yeah. I just looked through the window. So it looks like it's off limits to spectators. Yes. Can you talk a little bit about, you know, in addition to all the programming, there is some recreation that takes place here. And I know one of the programs that we have is the therapeutic recreation program. Can you tell us a little bit about that program and what they do here and maybe what they do at some of the other facilities? Yeah, we have one of the best therapeutic recreation programs in the country. You know, they work with individuals with disabilities, physical and mental, from ages six up. One of the key programs they do here is the therapeutic fitness, where they come into the gym, they'll do a group activity, and then they'll go to the weight room and do some individualized workouts and exercises. Okay. So what do they do at some of the other facilities? I know at Kenwick, they have bocce ball over there. Okay. Yeah, I actually went and saw that yesterday and had no idea what bocce ball was. So they do bocce ball. I know they do archery at our arts work facility at Carver. Okay. Painting classes. They have a rock band. I think that also takes place at Carver. So they play the rock band game? No, they have a whole rock band. Okay. Guitars and all of that. Yes, yes. All right, yeah, that's a little out of my league now. I can play the rock band game, but I don't know anything about a real guitar, so to speak. Now, so that sounds great. I know it's been conversation at the council level and the administration about improving the facilities. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It is 1.30 by my clock. We will go ahead and we'll call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda, we actually have two sets of minutes for the board to approve. We have already seen those ahead of time. There's just one. Oh, it's just one? That's the September. Oh, September. Okay, not October. So we do have September minutes for consideration. If anyone's had opportunity to review, if we have any questions or changes. If not, I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the Board of Adjustment Minutes from September 2023. Thank you. Ms. Tucker has moved and Ms. Plumlee has seconded. Any further discussion? If not, we will open for a vote. Okay, that motion has been approved. the next item on the agenda we actually will i'd like to swear in any witnesses so if you plan to speak at all today either as an applicant or for or against any particular item i do need you to stand to be sworn in at this time thank you if you could please raise your right hand and repeat after me that I swear to tell the entire truth today and nothing but the truth. Good job. And then just at this moment I want to make sure everyone was able to sign in on the iPad in the front okay? Anybody having trouble with that? Okay. So the next thing I will do is sound the agenda. So I will call each case and make sure the applicant is here and also determine who is here aligned with the sign-in sheet to speak on behalf for or against that particular item. And the items that have been recommended for approval with no opposition or additional comment, those will be heard first on what we sometimes call the rocket docket, so we'll get through those most quickly. And then all other, if they've been recommended for disapproval, if we do have people here in the community to speak opposed or against or for a particular item, those will be on our herd docket. The first item is PLN BOA 2345, that's Red Draw Delaware. This one's actually continued from last meeting. Is the applicant present? Okay, if you'd like to come forth, please? I did have a notice that we were going to, you're going to do a new continuance or file a new motion, is this correct? We're actually requesting a postponement until the January 8th meeting. Okay, okay. And just for clarification, postponement's correct because it would be a new case completely with the new variance? I forget. The applicant has filed an amended application that includes a new variant, so they will need to postpone in order to hear that additional variance be heard. Okay, but it will be a postponement, not a continuance. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. For this particular I'm sorry, sir. Hold on. Just a moment, if you don't mind. So we would need a motion to postpone. Is it January the 9th? No. 8th. 8th. Okay. All right. We have a first, Bob is first and Ms. Plumlee is second. And we will open for vote. Okay. The vote to postpone has passed, so we'll see you in January. Thank you. Thank you. That was the opposite of what I just said I would do, but that's okay. You guys just follow along. PLN BOA 2368, Matthew DeLuca. Is the applicant present? Thank you. This one has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone to speak in opposition to this particular item? You will be first. Today. Our next item is PLN BOA 23-83, Joe Ryan. Is the applicant present? I know that the applicant is here, they may just not currently be in the room. Let me check my sign in sheet. Yeah, he has signed in, so we'll pop back. but that one's going to be a request for a postponement as well. No? Okay. That has been recommended for disapproval so that will be heard. The next item is PLN 23-85, Gibson-Taylor-Thompson Architecture and Design has been recommended for approval. Is the applicant present? No, sir. Is there anyone to speak in opposition to that particular item? Okay, you'll be number two. And then we have PLNBOA 23-90, that's Ann Ramirez, is the applicant present. Has been recommended for approval. Do we have anyone speaking in opposition? Okay. No, not yet, sir. I'll tell you when we're called, so that we'll be second on the HERD docket. Then we have PLN BOA 23-92, Ramon Hernandez is the applicant present. That has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone opposed or speaking opposition? Okay. That makes us number three. Then we have PLN BOA 23-94, Joseph Costa is the applicant present. It has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone speaking in opposition of this particular item? Okay, you will be number four. And then for our conditional use appeals, PLNBOA 23-73, that's traditional bank, is the applicant present? Hello, sir. It has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? okay will be number five peel and boa 23-86 philip petrie the applicant present okay that has been recommended for disapproval not just sir not just yet i was just one that has been recommended for disapproval so we will hear that case and i think that makes that number three on the herd docket okay then we have peel it boa 23-88 maryland avenue getaway llc is the applicant present that has been recommended for approval is there anyone in opposition to this item so that will be number six Then we have PLN BOA 23-91, Nicole Gervis, that has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? It will be number 7. And lastly, we have PLNBOA 23-93, that's Jessica Justice, is the applicant present? Chair Carter, we did have someone sign in for the Nicole Gervis case that said they wanted to speak. David Burdett? Yes, I know, I know, I think I think one. You wish to speak? Yes. About that case, okay. About the Nicole, okay. Nicole. Thank you. Thank you. My iPad keeps going to sleep. I'm going to have to change that setting. Okay. Okay, just PLNBOA 2393, that was Jessica Justice. I saw the applicant, was there anyone to speak in opposition to this item? So I think that makes you number, it's actually number seven. All right, we will go back to, and did I get everyone, all the applicants? So number one is PLN VOA 23-68, that's Matthew DeLuca, so if the applicant would like to come forward at this time. Hold on just a moment. Give me a quick second. Oh, they must be sorting. I said all the names are moving right now. That's good. That's fine. We'll go ahead. Did you have an opportunity to be sworn in, sir? Yes. I thought so. Okay. All right. So we have the request for the variance at 2116 more trace. The board has received the documents ahead of time. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? It has been recommended for approval. There are no questions. I'll entertain a motion. Questions, concerns? Madam Chair, I move to approve PLMBOA 23-68 Matthew DeLuca's request for evanguance to reduce the required rear yard setback of a through lot from 20 feet to 12 feet in order to construct an addition in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 2116 Mara Trace. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the two conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? And I'm sorry, while they're looking at that, did you sign in today? Have you signed in? No, I did not. Okay. Okay. I thought they erased you. I'll just add them. Okay. By they, I meant the powers that be, not you. I wasn't. So we do have a motion first for Mr. Walker. Okay, Mr. Sturtevant has a second. There's no further discussion. We'll open for vote. Okay. Looks like the motion is passed. Good luck with your project. The next item is PLNBOA 23-85. That's Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture and Design. Sir, you didn't sign in either, did you? I must have missed it. You're killing me. You guys are killing me like I thought I had it all together here. Please state your name for the record. Baron Gibson. Baron Gibson. Thank you, Baron. So this has been recommended for approval, just two conditions. Have you had an opportunity to look at those conditions? Yes. Okay. Are you okay with those items? Those are good with us. You do? We'll see if the board has any questions or concerns regarding this particular item. And if not, I will entertain a motion. I have Brandon or Harry here. I'll take the easy ones. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLM BOA 23-85. Sorry, I've been moved. Hold on, do something. No, no. Gibson Taylor Thompson Architects and Designs request for variance to reduce the required side yard for a deep building from 8 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 6 inches in order to construct, In addition, within a neighborhood design character overlay zone in the single family residential zone on property located at 477 Hart Road, based on staff's findings and subject to the two conditions. Thank you. And Mr. Sturtevant, are you the second? Thank you. No further discussion. We'll open for vote. There you go. Motion approved. Thank you. Just so some of you guys know we're trying to upgrade technology here, so I'm looking at two or three different places right now. I thought it was going to make us quicker, but we're good. The next item on the docket here is PLN BOA 23-92. That's Ramon Hernandez. The applicant can come forward, please. Good afternoon. Will you state your name for the record? Angel Velasco. And are you speaking on behalf of Mr. Hernandez? Yes, ma'am. Let's see here. And have you not signed in either? Sorry, maybe I get too early. That's okay. That's okay. Okay, this item has been recommended for approval. The board takes a look at the project. Is there any questions or concerns? If not, we will entertain a motion. I'd like for a motion to approve PLNBOA 23-92, Ramon Hernandez. request a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for an accessory structure that projects between the principal structure and the side lot line from six feet to one and a half feet in order to construct a detached accessory structure carport in a mixed low density residential r2 zone on property located at 321 peachtree road staff recommends approval Subject to three conditions that have been stated. And sir, I'm sorry, if I could just double check here, my apologies, but there were three conditions. Have you had an opportunity to look at those three items that are required? Yes. And are we okay with that, including the carport not being enclosed? Yeah, it will be like, it will not be unclosed, it's just a couple. Okay, good. Thank you. I'm sorry Ms. Plumlee has seconded. No further questions. We will put that up for a vote. You have been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Donna, I'm sorry, did you get his name for the record? Okay. Okay, the next one, let's see here. I have PLN BOA 23-94, Mr. Joseph Costa. Also not signing. I also did not sign in. Okay. I saw that. That's okay. It's the first day. We're going to get it right the second time. I apologize. That's okay. We know how to do it old school. We've been doing it a long time, right? So Donna, if you could state your name for the record, we'll get it. Joseph William Costa. Thank you, sir. I see your variance here on 461 North Lyme. The staff has recommended approval. There are three conditions that have been listed. Have you had an opportunity to review those? I have. And are you comfortable with those conditions? I am. Thank you. Give the board an opportunity to review or ask any questions or concerns. I have a question. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. Will this have heat and electricity? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Will there be electric and heat in the garage? Yes, there'll be electric. there'll be you'll turn on a light um heating would be i don't know i don't think so okay thank you thank you good questions any other questions or concerns for the applicant now i will entertain a motion Make a motion we approve PLN BOA 23-94. Joseph Costa requests a variance to increase the allowable size and accessory structures from 50% to 53% in order to construct an accessory structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area. And a historic district overlay H1 zone and a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone property located at 461 North Limestone. Staff recommends approval based on following conditions that are listed. There are three of those. Thank you and Ms. Plumlee has seconded so we will open for a vote. Chad just won. I see that. I'm missing. Oh, Ms. Plumlee. Your vote? It's okay. Thank you. The motion has passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Also a little set off because there's only five of us. So when I look at the number, I think I'm waiting on votes. Missing a couple people today. Here we go. Number five is PLN. This is a conditional use appeal. That's PLN BOA 23-73, traditional bank. Is the applicant present? Zach Cato of Billings Law Firm on behalf of the applicant. I see you. You signed in, Zach. I did. Thank you. Good deal. So this has been recommended approval and there are two listed conditions. yet an opportunity to review those? Yes. And are you fine with the conditions as written? We are. Okay. Does the board have any questions or concerns regarding this item? I do have a statement. I think this will make a vast improvement on that corner in front of the co-op. We think so too. The muffler shop there has since they left has been an eyesore. This will be safer and will provide a new benefit to the community there for local banking as well so it's a win-win thank you so i will entertain a motion I did it, I think. You have to read it. I'm sorry. Move approval of PLM BOA 2373, traditional bank, request a conditional use permit for for drive-through facilities for a proposed bank in a neighborhood business zone on property located at 457 Southland Drive. Staff recommend approval subject to two conditions and there were three findings. Thank you. And Ms. Tucker has seconded. We will open for vote. Wonderful. Motion passed. Good luck with the project. Thank you. And thank you for signing in. Okay, we're on PLN BOA 23-88. That's Maryland Avenue Getaway. And I do have, let's see here, the applicant come forward at this time. Let's see, you have signed it, but if you could state your name for the record. Amy Chambers. Amy Chambers. And this has been recommended for approval. There are four conditions listed. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Yes, ma'am. And are you comfortable with those? Yes. We've got that. Did we have an email on this one? No. Yes, we had received one email in opposition to this application. There we go, Mr. Ragla. Okay. all right does the board have any questions or concerns for the applicant if not i will entertain a motion May I speak? Yes. Okay. This again is a short term rental and I have concerns because in the project description, it is stated that there are a couple dozen short term rentals within 1,000 feet of the subject property. And we have no numerical values as to what is enough for short term rentals in an area. And so I would be opposed to this application because that sounds like a very getting towards a saturation number, even though we don't know what that number is. And if we keep approving these, then how do we ever get to, when we get to too many, how do we know we're there? So we could be there right now. Okay. My property is approximately a block from the- I'm talking to the board. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, you're fine. So that is just my concern with this one. this area is becoming saturated at this point. Okay, thank you. We'll get Brendan in a moment to get. Are there any questions? Any other questions? I'm going to sign in and you want to wait until the next one. This one. I'm going to stay. Okay, I'm just checking. Okay, all right, yes. Madam Chair, I move disapproval for BOM VOA 2388 Maryland Avenue getaway, requesting a conditional use permit for an unposted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 554 Maryland Avenue. And because in the staff report, it states there are a couple dozen short rentals in the field subject properties. So if you took 24 to 1,000 feet, you would get approximately 40, 50 feet. Every 45 feet, there's an Airbnb, and I think that is reaching a saturation pool. Thank you. Sorry, Ms. Plumlee. Your microphone was not on, so we didn't get that in the recording. Could you reread that, please? Your mic wasn't on, so we didn't get that in the recording. So the machine didn't pick it up. So I need to do it again. Yes, ma'am. Okay. My apologies. She's in front. Okay. For regarding PLM VOA 2388 Maryland Avenue getaway, request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short term rental in a single family residential 1E zone on property located at 554 Maryland Avenue. I recommend, I move disapproval because In the staff project description, it is stated there are a couple dozen short rentals within 1,000 feet of the subject property. And if you were to take that division, you would be having a property every 40, 50 feet. And I think that is reaching the saturation point. So moved. Ms. Plonley, in your motion, are you saying that there would be an adverse impact by the use, this conditional use in this area? Is that what your motion is based on? I'm sorry, I didn't hear her. In your motion to disapprove, you're finding that there would be an adverse impact by allowing this use. Okay. Okay. So do I need to come to you for findings? If you want to do a motion to disapprove, we might need to do a short recess, but I also would point out I don't think we've heard in response from the applicant in regards to the questions that were raised, so it might be appropriate, but I'll leave that to the chair. Yeah, I think so. I think so. So we want to suspend the motion for a moment and allow the applicant to please share your project with us and maybe address any other concerns. Our property is approximately a block or two from the apiary, which is a large wedding venue. They have large events almost every weekend, and I think it would be of benefit to local businesses for our property to become short-term rental. I've used a local designer. I'm going to have a 24-hour property manager experience stays, Emily Sharp. I've got the property up and very nicely and we have our own driveway with two vehicles that can be there. It's a stand-alone home with a fenced backyard and I'm going to have a sound detection system to deter any kind of parties and I have a security system already installed with cameras. I really think it would be a benefit to the area. There's also a bunch of really nice restaurants right there. It's very walkable. I think it would bring business to local businesses. There's a wine market right around the corner. I mean, with all honesty, I think there's probably quite a few short-term rentals because it's a thriving business area. It's within walking distance to Rep Arena. But the big thing is there's a large wedding venue. It's a very nice area, and it would bring, I think, a lot of nice clientele and travelers to the downtown Lexington area, which is reviving. I still stand by my motion. Just a moment. Now, what did we discuss regarding, let me just double check here. okay this one did not have we don't have any neighbors in opposition no and we're going to be using it for personal use also we just live in ashland so we come to lexington all the time we enjoy coming here we've come here for years we've lived there for over 10 years we have family in oneida so we travel through to tennessee often and it's a halfway point for us okay all right do we have any other questions of the applicant or does the staff have any we want to take a moment if we'll give the staff maybe an opportunity to? Did you? If you wanted to. If the board would like that. We need anything further from how the staff has recommended approval? We'll take a moment because it's our first one today. Okay. If you said we'll let the staff give their information. Oh, do what? No, just sit for just a moment. I'm sorry. We were on the not heard docket and then I I didn't know we had any opposition to it. Hello. Megan Jennings with planning staff. So I have some exhibits here that kind of address the concentration question that Ms. Plumlee brought up. First, this slide is a screenshot from that AirDNA website that we've referenced in the past. It's a kind of website that pulls all listings from both Airbnb and Vrbo. And as of right now, it's our most reliable resource as our own database is growing. So they've recently changed their mapping platform. So I apologize. It's in a different format than what the board has seen the past few months. You can see here they group together the listings into bigger dots. And when you zoom in closer, you kind of lose all the details. So this is the best map I have for the board to review today. That 1,000 feet, hold on one second, there we go, extends, the red star here is the subject property, and the 1,000 feet extends out over to Payne Street and then comes down. It doesn't actually hit this corner down here, but it does come over here to Jefferson Street. On this next picture, we still have until the January 11, 2024 deadline for all short-term rentals that existed before these new regulations went into place to come into compliance. But I went ahead and mapped those that we have already processed. As of right now, we've got 350-plus short-term rentals who have already been approved for a zoning compliance permit. These green stars represent the already approved short-term rentals in the neighborhood. So you'll see again, okay hold on one second, there we go. Subject property is outlined in red there and then you can see a little bit more detailed of where those existing short-term rentals are located. One other thing I did want to say, in the email that we received in opposition, that neighbor did say that there were other short-term rentals in the area, which we can see here in the map, and that they hadn't been causing nuisances with noise or anything like that, but they were concerned about a concentration, like Ms. Plumlee was stating. It is up to the board to determine kind of what a concentration is. And so I kind of will let you guys discuss that and of course answer any questions that you may have of our staff report or of the existing short term rental regulations. And so just from the staff perspective, I know there's no number of saturation, but are we weighting it like in this particular area where it is a largely commercial, like a destination district already, are those weighted differently? Are we considering those differently than ones that are in a strictly residential area? We haven't. I think those come into context when we kind of go through our staff report. This area does have like a mix of both single families, some apartments and higher density residential development and that Jefferson Street corridor is kind of commercializing in a way. I don't think that we really, I mean, we're recommending approval on that. We found, on this application, we found that the short-term rental was appropriate for this property and didn't have any concerns about concentration. We just had reported that there were a couple dozen in the area. And 1,000 feet means 1,000 feet to the north, to the west, to the east, to the south. So the total diameter of that is 2,000 feet. Thank you. Do we have other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. So we do have a motion on the floor now. Can I go back to that or do we need a new motion? Well, if you want to proceed with that motion, it might actually be appropriate to have a short recess because I wanted to discuss how that motion might need to include some language from KRS 100. Okay. So there was a motion. There was not a second on the motion. That's correct. There was not a second. A motion fails without a second. You can also withdraw it and we can make it again. Okay. Well, we'll take a recess and allow you guys to go and talk to legal. We'll take a brief recess. I'm sorry. I'm not sure. With regards to PLN, BLA 2300088, Maryland Avenue Getaway LLC, I move for disapproval of the conditional use permit on the grounds that the subject property is surrounded by a high concentration of short term rentals. Thus, additional short term rental would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood by further increase in the volume of traffic. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you. Any further discussion? Yeah, I plan on voting against this motion. I don't think that the record shows that there's a saturation. It looks like the aerial that was shown by the staff shows hundreds of units, dwelling units within this area, and we are looking at dozens of short-term rentals. I believe that this is an area with a number of mixed-use housing, both single-family condos, apartment buildings, other items. I think the short-term rentals allow people to get closer to tourism amenities. If the city has been pushing and building with the infrastructure, et cetera, so given all that, also I don't think one unit is going to cause any more traffic than if this were a long-term rental. on thirty days so given that a plan on voting is this motion thank you any other comment and i do uh... tend to agree with brandon it's mister gross as well just because this is just ideal area for the tights a commercial area incident destination area with the good mix of walkability and that type of thing as well so looking at each one i think the the area does matter saturation does matter but also area lends itself to be a prime location for such an item statements well any other comment been open to vote Okay. Missing one. Okay, so the motion has failed for disapproval. At this time I'll entertain another motion if there is one. Madam Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 23-88 Maryland Avenue Getaway LLCs request for conditional use permit for unhosted short term rental in a single family residential zone on property located at 554 maryland avenue based upon the staff's report and the staff's recommendation of approval given the testimony of the applicant set forth here today and subject to the condition set forth in the report so moved thank you and mr walker has seconded it we will open for vote Okay, so the motion has passed, so good luck with your project. Thank you. All right, I have one more on the, the before the herd docket so that's PLN BOA 23-93 Jessica Justice. Looking forward please. Jessica has signed in haven't you? I did not sign, is that the iPad? You're on here. Oh, did I? Okay. Well you were signed in. Thank you. Good deal, thank you. So this has been recommended for approval. The staff has felt it met the requirements for the conditional use for the home-based beauty salon. Do we have any questions? I'm sorry, I got off track. There are five conditions listed here. Have you had opportunity to review those conditions? And are you okay with those? Okay. Does the board have any questions for this particular applicant? I do. Thank you. Do you live here, there? Yes. Okay, this is your personal residence? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Tucker? Yeah, I was just concerned about, do you know how many people you'll have in and out there roughly on a daily basis? I just work while my kids are in school and so I see maybe three people a day, just Tuesday through Friday. And this is in an agriculture zone? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN BOA 23-93 Jessica Justice request for a conditional permit in order to operate a home-based beauty salon business in an AR zone on property located at 3750 Combs Ferry Road based upon the staff's report which recommended approval and based upon the five conditions set forth in the report. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any further discussion? If not, we'll open for vote. Thank you. Your motion has passed. Good luck with your salon. Thank you. Okay, we'll go back to the first to be heard. And that's PLN BOA 2383, Joe Ran. If the applicant will please come forward, oh no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's been recommended for disapproval, so we will allow staff to present first. Alrighty. So this application is a request for a variance to reduce the required setback of a gasoline pump to a residential zone from 50 feet to 25 feet in order to provide an additional gasoline pump on a property at 705 East Loudoun, which is zoned B3. The property is located here on East Loudoun, outlined here in blue. Just to the east off screen are railroad tracks that lead out towards Winchester Road and then farther down to the left off screen is the limestone intersection with Loudoun. We've got Meadow Lane here. The property itself is 0.64 acres in size, and the surrounding properties are a mix of single-family residential, which you can see here to the west of the property, and then light industrial zones here to the east of the property. Here, this is a zoning map of the surrounding areas. You can see the subject property is red for B3, while the residential properties are a mix of single family residential, and this light purple is the light industrial zoning. Subject property itself currently features a 3,000 square foot convenience store, which was constructed back in 2014 and which currently features a total of six gasoline pumps. You can see here in the aerial, there's one canopy here, and then so that has one kind of pull up station, and then this canopy has two different pull up stations. So a total of six pumps. In October of last year, a development plan was certified for this property, which adds an additional gasoline pump which is not yet constructed. So they do already have approval to extend this canopy along East Loudoun in order to install one additional, or I guess two additional gasoline pumps. Along with the additional gas pump, they are doing a building addition from along the westernmost side of the property here, which adds another 1500 square feet to that building. This is the site plan for their variance application. You can see here that building, it is approved, but you can see where that is located and then you can also see where this gasoline pump is located, which I think I spoke incorrectly earlier, I apologize, but this This is the proposed gasoline pump that needs the variance. The applicant is maintaining some parking spaces along the western boundary, up along the building frontage as well, and is maintaining the existing gasoline pumps here on the site. You'll notice too from this photo, the access points are staying generally in the same spot, the applicant is reducing the overall width. So currently there's one very large, I think there may be a slight curb in between there, and then there's an existing one here on the side street, which is Contract Street. So with this site plan, they are reducing the access points to this and this. And I apologize, I am slightly unprepared because I thought this one was postponing. I apologize. So this is not the site plan. This is a development plan that was approved. I'm reading the label now on this page. So this shows the building addition that was approved and the gasoline pump that was approved. So the applicant can currently construct that. And now I'll move forward. The zoning ordinance for additional gas pumps on this site, They have to be greater than 50 feet from a residential zone without a variance. And then the zoning ordinance also states that no gasoline pump shall be located within 65 feet of a single family residential zone. However, this dimension doesn't apply to gasoline or convenience stores that were in existence 12 months prior to the individual application. So they are able to utilize the 50-foot buffer or distance for their proposed gasoline pump rather than having to meet that 65-foot requirement. So this is the site plan for the variance. Again, my apologies. So you'll see here the building has that addition, and they are wanting to include an additional gas pump here on the west side of that front canopy. So Megan, real quick, would that be, so that additional gas pump and additional canopy is additional to what we saw on the development plan? Yes. Okay. Yep. So it's not they're squeezing another one underneath the canopy, they want to build an additional canopy. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. So the subject property, as we saw earlier, is zoned B3, but immediately to the west here, the property is zoned R1C. So that is where this 50-foot buffer comes into place. The applicant states that their convenience store has operated on the property for almost 40 years, and it serves as both a market and a food store. They state that it has been a community fixture and a popular lunch location for people in the neighborhood and also workers from the adjacent industrial areas. The applicant states that there is excellent pedestrian connectivity and activity in the area, which they benefit from with those lunch meals. meals and then the applicant also states that they are proposing to construct a fence or a wall along this westernmost property boundary in order to help Mitigate the headlights from cars and noise from the gas pumps to the neighboring single-family residential zones The applicant states that the requested variants will allow them to provide a modern market with fuel for the community and their customer base. They state that having four pumps along the Loudoun Avenue frontage is the most efficient way to utilize gasoline dispensing for this property. You can see they're kind of limited back here, and so they have the most room up front to work with in order to add an additional pump. They also state that about 20% of the site is not developable due to a steep grade change along the rear. So back behind the building that the applicant is stating that they're not able to really utilize that or push their building back in order to fit gasoline pumps without requiring a variance because of a grade change. Staff cannot support this request as it has not provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance or KRS 100. Staff is concerned that the additional gasoline pumps along Loudoun Avenue will create safety concerns for pedestrians who are wanting to access the front of the store. The applicant opines that the property serves as a neighborhood anchor and that a lot of people do walk to their property. However, the applicant doesn't include any safe pedestrian connection from Loudoun Avenue to the front of the building. And with the addition of this gasoline pump, which I'll go back to the site plan for context, staff is just concerned that the pedestrian connectivity from Loudoun Avenue to the building is quite limited without having some sort of interference or conflict with a vehicle. Although it's not mentioned in the staff report, staff is also concerned about other nuisances associated with modern gas pumps, especially being so close to a residential zone. The lights from the canopy are very tall and very bright, and in addition to that, Modern gas pumps often feature TV monitors, which play very loud advertisements the majority of the day. So these items are additional nuisances for which the 50-foot distance requirement is appropriate. And so staff is recommending disapproval based on those reasons. And at this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions from the board. Thank you. May I have a few questions. Did the applicant give you what their hours of operation were? I may have overlooked it. Mr. Murphy gave a short and sweet on the justification letter, which I liked. Yeah, they don't include the hours of operation in their justification statement or in their application online. then uh... and not sure business that not come across this in my um... uh... career practice do they even make pumps anymore that don't have built-in tbs i'm absolutely you can get a dumbed down pump is acting i guess i should i can't comment on that idea i mean yeah act okay right dot this i think uh... all in the market's the last question is you'd know why this wasn't resolved at the planning commission and why they went through the development plan process and then they came back to us instead of going back through the planning commission for amendment to the development plan um i think in order to amend the development plan they would have needed a variance anyway so they'll come to us first yes that works for me yeah sure thank you i think there was a little bit in the text about this but there will be be no additional underground tank? That's correct. It'll all be fed from the same unit? Yes. And there'll be no other construction associated with digging up the rest of the area in order to feed those new pumps? I believe that is correct. The proposed construction is only the additional canopy and gasoline pump, but I can definitely rely on the applicant to answer that question if I'm incorrect. another comment about the extension of the proposed pumps. It was stated in the description that it was popular lunch location. It looks like that that would cause a lot more congestion on that end of the property and trying to get in and out if you had a lot of vehicles pulling in there at one time. I believe staff would agree with that. Which follows up one more question for me. Did you have conversations with the applicant about adding in some pedestrian access points. It looks to me like the property abounding, the residential could possibly fit in the sidewalk and maybe having some markings from the Contract Street. I believe that they have talked with traffic engineering for crossing from Contract Street. Western boundary since they're zoned B3 has required zone-to-zone screening, which is addressed on the development plan. That is a 15-foot buffer, including some landscaping. The applicant in a meeting had previously stated that they've installed a sidewalk along that property boundary, but staff is concerned that that is going to interfere with the required zone-to-zone screening, and we have not seen an updated site plan to reflect that either. Is that something we're even allowed to? I guess it's dimensional. Are we allowed to allow them to have a sidewalk and a buffer? We could shrink the buffer, but we can't. Exactly. The buffer needs to be landscaped. Yeah. That's the point of it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions to the staff at the moment? Okay. Thank you all. Thank you, Megan. the applicant or would like to speak or thank you madam chairman i'm dick murphy i'm here representing mr mrs ryan joe ran is with me today up in the fourth row also with uh bruce nichols with it with us he's a long time excuse me Longtime neighbor and customer of the Ryan's station and market there. We're, just to give you a little more background on this, Mr. and Mrs. Rayon have operated this market for 20 years. It was in existence about 18 years before they bought it, but they bought it 20 years ago. They had previously operated a store in Kenwick. That was at the corner of Sherman and Menifee in Kenwick. And 20 years ago, they stopped running that store and were able to buy this store on Loudon Avenue. And it's interesting that many of their customers in Kenwick now come to Loudon Avenue for lunch or to see their friends and that sort of thing. So they've built up quite a bit, quite a following, not only with their old customers in Kenwick, but with the people in this area as well. I've been out there several times preparing for this case. Every time I come there, there are neighborhood residents getting a hot lunch there, chatting with Mr. and Mrs. Ryan or their sons who operate the store. Sometimes they're not buying lunch. Sometimes they just sit down and talk with them, say hello. come out there, but it's a fixture in the neighborhood. And as staff mentioned, the food is famous. I've talked to a couple people, told them I was working on this case, and they said, Mrs. Rand fixes great food. You've got to go out there. You've got to get a lunch. The day I was out there, they had baked chicken, fried chicken, meatloaf, fish, sides, desserts, and so it's a well-established operation and restaurant out there. there as well. But along with last year they were able to, a couple years ago, they were able to purchase the property next door and that has allowed them to do the expansion of the store which Miss Jennings mentioned to you. They've added 1,500 square feet. They've done that so they can increase the types of food that they sell at the store. There are not many food stores in this area of town and I think it's important that that be expanded. At the same time that this is an important fixture in the neighborhood, the sale of gasoline is important to the business as well because that's often how new customers come to know about what goes on inside the store. They come to buy gasoline. They come inside. They see they could buy a lunch there. They buy lunch. They come back another time, so they become a repeat customer of the store. So, sale of gasoline is important to the vitality of the business. They've expanded the business so they can sell more types of food in the neighborhood, and they want to remain a neighborhood fixture for many years to come. I wanted to clarify a few things about the plan. I've got a copy of the plan we can put up on the board here. digital version. Okay, you can use the digital version. This is the, yeah, this is our site plan and just a nomenclature on the pumps. In the business they say we have one pump serves a car on either side. So we have, oops. It's fancy. Okay. All right. So this guy, you just aim at the front screen, and it reflects on the back so you don't have to turn around. Okay. So we have this pump here right now. That's one that serves one on either side. This is the second pump. This is the third pump. This is the pump that has been approved on the planning commission development. plan and we're asking for this one because we need the variance in the 50 foot spacing from a residential zone. So we currently have the four pumps approved and we're asking for the fifth pump to be approved. There's a question about where the tank is. The tank is back here. The location of the tank will not change. The tank will not change either. So the tank will remain over on the Contract Street side of the property. We have been in discussion and Madam Chair if I can I need to tell you we signed up on the sign up but we were out talking to our neighbor when you swore in the witnesses so we haven't been sworn in and I think Ms. Baker our neighbor was not either because she was out talking to with us in the hallway so I'm sorry I just remembered that. Pardon? Let's start over. Okay. Can we swear you in at this time? Thank you for your honesty. Raise your right hand, please. You all raise your right hand. Here, folks, yeah. Okay. Do you swear to tell the whole truth today? Yes, I do. Thank you. This paper was also sworn in on that as well. So the. We have been discussing this with, which button do I push? This one here? The right on the top. This with the Division of Traffic Engineering, had a couple meetings with them. We had talked about a pedestrian connection here from Loudon and here from Contract Street. In discuss, we had proposed a crosswalk right in here. The Division of Traffic Engineering thought that was not advisable because it was going to be a painted crosswalk rather than a raised crosswalk. They thought that traffic would just, pedestrian traffic walkers from the businesses on Contract Street would just come in here and lost eye to the front door. We do have a sidewalk along the side, which I'll show you a picture of. This is what I'm going to show you is along this side here, which will provide a pedestrian access from Loudoun Avenue. soon as we get that up here this is loud avenues down at the okay we're off that system i've got a laser in my pocket loud avenues down here in this area coming up from Loudon on a raised sidewalk into the front of the building. Their traffic engineer thought we needed to have a raised sidewalk in there to do this. So we have provided the raised sidewalk in from Loudon Avenue to the building. I want to show you one other picture. We have been in consultation with two of our neighbors. This is the apartment building located at the, against Loudon Avenue at the corner of Meadow Lane and Loudon Avenue. This is owned by Mr. Melody. This is, this is the apartment houses parking lot. This is not our parking lot there. Our parking lot is on this side of the silt fence. So this is the apartment parking lot. That car is parked in the apartment parking lot. What we had proposed was to construct a wall along the property line. Mr. Melody had asked for a wall because he said that even currently, people coming up Loudon Avenue to get to the store take a diagonal across from Loudon across his property here to get to the store so we've agreed to build a wall there at least four feet tall along the property line and Miss Baker is in the audience as well she owns the lot the house to the right of this building and we have agreed to build a six-foot wall along the rear of her property along our property line as well. This will be located on her property because if it's on her property it's in the rear yard and can be six feet tall. If it's on the Rayon's property it would have to be four feet tall since it's in the front yard. So the wall would be on the just inside the property line of the other properties. It would be built at the expense of the rayons. It would be maintained by the rayons, but it could not be removed without the permission of both parties. The future would be maintained, built, paid for by the rayons. And Ms. Baker, she'll come and speak for herself, but she has said that it needs to be six feet tall along her back property line. I don't think she objects to our use as long as the six feet foot tall wall is approved if we could go back to the digital site plan real quick mr. Murphy while we're looking at the sidewalk we looked at the sidewalk again oh I guess the first one yeah If the staff is saying you need to have zone to zone screening? Yes. So aren't we missing a variance request today? Very possibly. Okay. And should we wait maybe until next month for you guys to submit the paperwork for that variance before we have a hearing today? Have you finished a hearing today? A continuance? if a variance is needed for that we we didn't know whether we can average in the back and group our landscaping in the back of the building to remove the need for a variance in the front along this we think that may be possible it is not possible it's zone to zone screening that you need along the entire length and those requirements haven't changed. You can't average 20 feet back here and zero up here. What can be averaged now with our new regulations is the vehicular use area screening. But in this case, at this location, you need both. Yeah, okay. And I'm not trying to make your life difficult. I just want to make sure we take care of all the variances you would need for project in one swoop rather than us getting to the end today and someone saying well we're not going to and i appreciate that i appreciate that we have have tried to solve the pedestrian access issue which we think we have here very well and we think the wall will provide the screening both visual sound and pedestrian screening between between us and the properties behind us and the landscape variance may have gotten lost in the shuffle on that. The, let me, can I show you what I was going to show you on here and then we can decide if it needs to be postponed or not rather than stop me two-thirds of the way through my presentation here. The reason, the unique circumstance on this lot is the location of the building on the lot. Ms. Jennings had mentioned this is a .6 acre lot, 6 tenths of an acre lot, but the rear portion of about 35 feet cannot be used because of the grade. It slopes up to the property behind us. So when they did their addition, this is the existing building right here, the addition on the left side was done at the same setback, but this is an unusable area. So in an ideal world, if this were constructed new today, we would put the building farther back on the lot and we would have more room for the pumps up front. But the fact is they purchased this building built the way it was 20 years ago. It has the grade problem in the rear of the building and the addition they built needed to be at the same setback there. So that's the unique topographic aspect of this property, which I think justifies the variance for the spacing of the gas pump. As I said, we did talk to the Division of Traffic Engineering about this. I think they're good with our pedestrian access on the side. We have talked about this. would do this if requested, but traffic engineering said they would advise against having that access point on the side because there is good, fairly good pedestrian access in avoiding this this area of the property to come in here and down here and come on back in. So we, if we need to postpone, probably we could on this to get everything together at one time on it. We understand the situation. I think it may have been interpreted that the sidewalk is somewhere in this area and we're not totally sure where the property line is so we can get a proper measurement of that to see if we comply now or not on that. But anyway, I do have findings for you if you choose to take a vote on this rather than postpone it can i still ask a quick question so on that site plan that was showing you could put that back up what is the distance where you're saying the the sidewalk is to where we're actually proposing that last carport to go well this measurement is 25 feet to the property line so the sidewalk would be is it a five foot wide sidewalk six foot what is a six foot wide sidewalk so if it went up to the property line it would be about 19 feet to the gas pump from the edge of the sidewalk through there and so that creates a pretty tight squeeze well traffic engineering thought we had enough room for traffic on this plan and a couple more items um what were the hours of operation The hours of operation are 6.30 a.m. to about 8 p.m. And I wanted to throw a question to you about televisions on pumps. They have no televisions on the pumps. Do not plan on having televisions on the pumps. We will not be adding a tank. We'll be using the tank that's the existing tank, which is already there on the property. so we won't have to be digging a tank up there are those hours of operation for the gas pumps or just the restaurant i think it's both okay the gas pumps can be operated 24 hours a day mr grant i've got another question for you on the you mentioned a four-foot wall uh on the back of the property that the borders with the apartment house what was the uh the reasoning behind the four foot wall there versus the six foot wall on the other side i would think that the six foot all the way down would would cut the noise down and the light down on both locations miss baker's property is right here that's where i had mentioned the six-foot wall right mr melodies is here that's where i mentioned the floor but we could go six feet tall on that one too i think he's he's orally i don't think mr melody is here today but he's orally told me he he was fine with a six-foot wall on his side of the property line as well okay one last question uh i noticed from the from the photo on google earth that on the east end of the of the main building is is that the main door for the restaurant operation the main door is in the front is that correct yeah there there is a side door on the east end though right and the customers can use the side door right yeah there is a the secondary entrance is right here which customers can use the main entrance is in the front well i noticed the parking area on the east side and it looked like that that would be the easiest access to pull in if you were going into the restaurant just wondered if that was the main thoroughfare for your restaurant customers a lot of them do come from the contract street area so i'd say it's a mixture of some park here some park in the front oops done that again how do i get that back there we go okay and i go back on fall upon the side of that entrance is there a way to have a other than the painted some kind of pedestrian access i'm not sure if the dumpster enclosure could be moved up a little bit and the reason i'm asking is because the people coming out all the workers are on contract street to get to that they could walk you have in them or and or through the parking lot which occurs all the time at the speedway at seventh and uh... broadway uh... but having an actual like walkway i think would be nice if they could that could be fit in within we can work with traffic engineering about having a defined walkway for them on their traffic engineering has been has made good suggestions on this property and we will continue to work with them on that i personally i mean i like having corner markets in our neighborhoods unfortunately what used to be a corner market with no parking you just walked in has evolved to where gas stations are an an integral part of a lot of those operations nowadays. I like the sidewalk, I'm okay with the wall, but I think I still feel that the whole thing works sort of as you're presenting. And I'd also probably want some kind of condition that that new pump can't have TVs, just the one within the 50 foot at least as a condition to the approval. But I'm still concerned about not having all this approved in one full package. So, and I think staff would probably want to look at some of those issues too. The sidewalk wasn't designated on the development plan, I don't think, if Megan can show us the development plan. So that was constructed outside of the development plan approval for the site. And if we continue this, we could hear from Ms. Baker and we could hear from other witnesses. They don't have to come back if you guys can come to a resolution. But I'm just concerned that we would be approving something, but not everything you're doing is in front of us to approve. I understand, and we would be agreeable to continuing it. I think it would be good if you could hear the other witnesses who are here today. Yeah, I hate for Ms. Baker to have to come back. second time if she's not needed. One last comment. I'd like to see that six-foot wall behind the apartment side also. It's going to be six-foot. It should be all the way across. Yes, sir. I actually have a question regarding the wall as proposed because it's not on the property or on the development plan. I mean, can it be used to satisfy requirements for their project on their property? So the landscaping requirements are typically between a residential zone and a business zone, a width of 15 feet with trees and shrubs, and then no fence is required. And you can, by ordinance, kind of swap out and reduce the width down to 5 feet and put up a 6-foot fence. so it still requires five at a minimum in all cases of landscaping in there. So the fence is an option or wall. It doesn't really matter. So we can't take that down to zero? Not without a variance. That's what I'm saying. With the variance, we could take that down to zero if we decided to allow them to keep their sidewalk where it is. If they file that variance. Not today. No, that's right. It hasn't been notified. Yeah. Okay. Well, in order to save room on that side, you could put up an eight-foot privacy fence also, correct? Um... Six-foot, eight-foot privacy fence? Six is what is allowed in the side. That'd be the same height as a wall. There's a caveat on the side street. Side yards? I think it's six. I'm assuming it would be a concrete block wall, is that correct? Yes, concrete or poured concrete. okay okay if a six foot privacy fence would suffice also my concern too is for um the pedestrians because that development plan we have up there there's just those two pumps in the front now and then one on the side and then you're going to add one and then you're going to add another one and the times that i've been by there there's a huge amount of pedestrian traffic and they just walk in there I mean there's not a lot you can do better you can try to have them use a crosswalk but so my concern is the more congested that area gets possibly the more dangerous it might get so well we'll work with traffic engineering to get a defined pedestrian way from Contract Street we have the sidewalk coming up from Loudon now but to get one on that side of the building. Thank you. I think at this time we'll allow public comment and then decide if we'll move forward with the continuance. If there's anyone here that would like to speak. Hello hi my name is Bruce Nickel at 1604 Bonaire Drive and I'm calling as a customer and a friend of the Rayon family. I've gotten to know them after I became involved in the neighborhood through development about five or six years ago. So I've got a development and a business there as well. And this has become a big part of my daily commute. It's really a nice oasis in an area that doesn't see as much development as other areas of town. And one of my favorite things about this development is that it serves an underserved community. Because as you go on the other side of Loudoun, where you have railroad tracks and you have 7th and some other streets down towards town, we get a lot of, Joe gets a lot of pedestrian traffic for people to come in to eat. It's a wonderful place to come get a fresh meal. Now it's been upgraded where you can have fresh food, and the pumps are what is allowing Joe to do this remodel. I kind of got involved as a customer when he came to me, and he said, do you know anything about development plans? And I said, I do. I'm on the planning commission. I know a few things about it. So I spoke with staff and said that I'd be helping Mr. Ray on out. And the first comment I made was, you need to reach out to your neighbors. And so Mr. Murphy and Mr. Rohn met with two of the neighbors on Meadow Lane, the corner of Meadow and Loudon. And those two houses have some real concerns with the way the neighborhood is functioning now. What's happening is we have pedestrians coming down Loudon. They're cutting through a multifamily building on the corner of Loudon and Meadow. And then also we have people cutting from, I guess, the northern part, from the north side of the building. they're cutting down Meadow Lane and through Ms. Baker's property. And it's become a concern. And on the development plan, it showed a six-foot privacy fence, just a six-foot structure. And so when Mr. Rayon spoke with the neighbors, the idea was to put in a permanent retaining wall. And I thought that was a real creative solution. And so what I'm here to do is to say that what I've seen is an impressive way with a developer, property owner, to work with the neighbors to try to solve some neighborhood concerns. And the way that that is solved is through his investment, Mr. Rounds' investment. Mr. Rounds' investment is made possible by the pumps that provide the gas service. So thank you all very much. And I just want to give my full, I guess, full-hearted support to the Rayon family and this project. Thank you. Ms. Baker. I'm going to Baker, though. I don't want to say no for Meadow Lane. My concern is all the cut through with no fence. I'm sorry, yeah. Can you say your name again? Glenna Baker, I own 804 Meadow Lane. My concern is all the traffic that's cutting through my yard, since the destruction of the fence between our properties. So I'm requesting, talk to the contractor and all, this six foot fence, because since I've dug down about two foot in my yard to take the fence out, If they don't have it six foot, they're going to jump over the fence and the same issue is going to continue. Thank you. Do you need a back of this? Yeah. I think there, I sense, I think Ms. Baker's issue can be resolved with the fences being proposed. I think there may be a path forward on this with staff and with or and or the board. I'm not sure if we're there today. I feel comfortable. We could, you know, hopefully something can occur before our January meeting. And so if the applicant is comfortable with it and he's nodding his head he is, then I, unless there's any objections from the board members, I'm going to, or if they have questions today, but I'm going to move for a continuance to next month to get a little bit more detail on what we asked for. That's okay. The staff still has recommended disapprovals. Yeah, right now it's still. That's right. Yeah, this will give them time to work with the staff and resolve some of the issues that were fleshed out today. So with that being said, I'm going to move for a continuance of PLNBOA 23-83, Joe Ryan's request for the variance. It would be to take this to our next meeting in January, which is January 8th, 2024 at 1.30 p.m. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. Sturdivant. Okay, we're open for a vote. Thank you. So we have voted for the continuance. We'll see you in January. Our next item is PLN BOA 23-90. That's Ann Ramirez. This has been recommended for approval. If the applicant can come forward. Oh, please. I have to do the presentation. Yeah, do you want to present? Yes. Hello again. This next application is a variance request to reduce the required setback from the side and rear lot lines from 2 feet to 0 feet in order to pave a driveway on a property located at 141 East 4th Street, which is located in the infill and redevelopment area and is located in an R4 zone. The applicant is requesting this variance in order to pave a driveway along the rear of the subject property. The property itself here outlined in red is located close to the corner of East 4th Street, which runs here, and the side street, Johnson Avenue, which is here. In the vicinity, we have North Limestone here, and Martin Luther King, North Martin Luther King Boulevard is located here. The subject property itself is 0.17 acres in size and is located in a neighborhood that is mostly single-family residential uses. The Lexington Traditional Magnet School, which is located here, is in the vicinity, as well as the Living Arts and Sciences Center, which is just off screen to the south. Zooming in a bit to the property, the property itself is 45 feet wide along East 4th Street and is 170 feet deep here. As you can see, there is a section of the parcel which extends to Johnson Avenue in order to give the owner access to the rear of their yard. The home itself extends across the majority of the width of the property, and so the applicant is not able to fit a driveway from 4th Street to the rear of the yard, hence this little additional section of the parcel there. The existing single family residence was built in 1908, and the section of the parcel along the rear that extends out to Johnson Avenue is only 11 feet wide and extends 60 feet along the rear of that corner parcel there. A non-conforming gravel driveway has existed within this extension, which leads to the rear parking area since the year 2000. If not earlier than that, that's just as far back as our aerial photos will go. The applicant recently purchased the property and wants to make improvements to it by paving the driveway and that rear parking area. So bringing it into conformance, no longer being gravel and being a paved parking area and driveway. The applicant states that on-street parking is prohibited along East 4th Street and on-street parking is limited along Johnson Avenue. And so therefore they would like to improve the existing gravel driveway so that they are able to park on their own property. Due to the size of the parcel and the size of the home, access to the rear of the lot is limited to this extension. within the zoning ordinance article 16 states that pavement or paved areas and driveways have to be at least two feet from any side or rear lot line and due to the limited size of that extension being only 11 feet wide if they were to meet this requirement their driveway would only be seven feet wide so the applicant has submitted this site plan which shows the proposed driveway here They are proposing it to be 9.5 feet wide, and they do have a rear parking area here that can accommodate two vehicles. The rear parking area is in conformance with other requirements in Article 16 for maximum number of parking spaces for single-family residents within the infill and redevelopment area. and the applicant states that this variance would allow them to bring their non-conforming gravel driveway and parking area into compliance with material requirements of the zoning ordinance. With that, staff is recommending approval. We find that the size and shape of the lot and the limitation to that driveway being located in that extension are special circumstances and justify the need for the variance. The location of the driveway is restricted to that narrow portion and due to it being only 11 feet wide, paving a modern sized driveway would be difficult if not impossible without a variance. Staff also states that a gravel driveway has existed in the same location for over 20 years and paving the driveway should not adversely affect the surrounding area. Staff does acknowledge and is aware that the existing curb cut along Johnson Avenue is in kind of poor shape. And so along with our recommendation of approval, we are asking that the curb cut be repaved in conjunction with the driveway and in accordance with the Division of Traffic Engineering Standards. If the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Thank you. Do you have any questions for staff? Thanks. The applicant would like to come forward? I'll take your name for the record. Ann Ramirez. Michael Brewster. My husband. You signed, Ann. I see the deal. Okay, would you like to tell us a little bit about the project? Yeah, sorry, I wasn't expecting to have to speak before you all, but we just bought the property about a year and a half ago. We've been trying, it was in kind of rough shape, it had been used as a long-term rental for quite some time. We've just been trying to make improvements where we can. And so the gravel driveway has been there as long as we've known about it, and we're just trying to make it into a paved concrete driveway so it looks a little nicer and is compliance. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. And then we do have Mr. Scherer would like to speak. Yes, I would. And I do have a graphic I would like to share. Now, I emailed this to you. Could you show that? Yeah, I can show that. I'll have to keep a paper copy. Oh, that's fine. Oh, I have to find that. Oh, okay. I'll hand you down to the board. Hello, my name is Boyd Scherer, and I live in 412 Johnson Avenue, and you can see, I guess, the map I'm presenting here. So we've been there, my wife and I, since about 2008, and it has been a gravel lot, and parking area has been there. Now, when we acquired the property, it was consolidated. So that little sliver actually was combined with our property to the left in 412 and was split and given to 141 East 4th Street. Now what I would like to state is that while I understand they want to do improvements, and I respect that, I do want to point out that we have significant runoff issues. The property, do I have a pointer? Yeah, it's on the top button, and you just have to hold it down. Oh, because it doesn't work on those guys. Well, anyway, so our property is 412. If you look to the bottom, there is a, I guess, an apartment complex that tried to pave, extend their parking lot, and they tried to do it by the night without approval. and when they graded the property in preparation for asphalting it, it flooded our backyard 414, 416 during a heavy rain event. If you look at the map shown here, we are down slope of this property. And if that's paved, and I haven't seen any plans for mitigating storm water runoff, that water will be in our yard. It will flood our property. And now if I would have seen a plan, maybe they have a plan for a five-inch curb downslope to prevent water from running into our yard. I would, you know, think that we could probably talk through that, but we haven't really talked much over this. A third issue is that we have four, I'll bring up three, I shared with you some printouts. that the property line is somewhat in dispute. We had a couple of surveys. We had a previous survey, and when their survey was done, we appealed to the surveyor, and they came back and fixed it, but our survey doesn't quite agree with their survey. So this zero-foot setback would be right on the property line that we are not sure that we both agree on. And lastly, I think putting a concrete pad right there where people turn in, which is so narrow, there could be a potential for cars running off into our yard, missing the driveway, going into our yard. But the main issue, of course, is the runoff downslope into our yard. Were these issues brought up with engineering? We just got notified of this meeting last month, I believe, and I haven't, oh, are you talking amongst yourselves? Planning staff, is this runoff an issue that we need to have resolved? If the area meets the minimum requirements, when they pull their paving permits, the Division of Engineering would be pulled into that workflow reviewing the paving permit, if it's required, if it meets the minimum requirements. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I don't know, Mr. Sturman, did that answer your question? I don't know if it did or not. Okay. I think if drainage is an issue, it should be looked at. I think they're a lot more qualified to make that decision than we are. We could put together a condition that water quality look at this. That's who takes care of these things? Generally, it's the Division of Engineering and their new development section would look at something like that in terms of assessing a water quality issue before it's built. But we could add that as a- A third condition. A third condition. That way your water issue would be looked at by the Department of, the Division of Engineering prior to any permit being issued. And they may have some suggestions on slopes and grade and possible detention. Is that what you're looking for, Bob? What about the property dispute? Unfortunately, it's a civil issue that's outside of our purview. They would have to take that to court. I would agree with that. You kicked in the legal real quick. I did. Thank you. So if the applicant... So if a condition is added... to have that division of engineering review that you guys are willing to work with them on making sure that water situation is not one? Yeah, of course. Just to confirm, the curve that he mentioned, that is something that we've discussed with our contractor and was going to be there. I didn't know how to draw it on that little map. Okay. Are you guys writing something out for a condition, Megan? you are okay perfect okay okay give us a second moment thank you Thank you. You know how much law voter I've watched? I was an understudy, but Judge Judy was. Judge Judy was my idol. Thank you. Thank you. You're a little bit of a great business. I do remember that. Thanks for watching. My grandma. Thank you. Thank you. we're going to just yeah Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to approve PLN. Hold on, just a moment. Let me call us back into order. There you go, I'll entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve PLN BOA 23-90 Ann Ramirez. Request a variance to reduce the required setback from side and rear lot lines from two feet to zero feet in order to pave the driveway within defined infill and redevelopment area in a medium density residential zone on property located at 141 East 4th Street based on approval of staff and recommended conditions including condition number three which had been added all construction plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Division of Engineering to prevent stormwater from impacting adjoining properties. Thank you. Second. Second. Mr. Gross has seconded. Any other questions or discussion? If not, we'll open for a vote. Wonderful, motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Okay, our next item is PLN, BOA. You need a minute. Yeah. Should we take a reset? We'll hang on. Let's just take a ten minute. We'll take everybody get where they need to go. Ten minute, we'll go back, we'll wrap up really quickly. We've just got two left. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Ted is actually recusing himself from this. So we took a break unknowingly. So we will call PLN VOA 2386, that's Phillip Petrie. It has been recommended for disapproval, so we will allow staff to present first. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next application before the board is a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental located at 316 Nelson Avenue, which is located in the infill and redevelopment area and within an R3 zone. The applicant is requesting a short-term rental for up to eight individuals. The subject property located at 316 Nelson is highlighted here in red. in red here. It's at the northeast corner of Nelson Avenue, which connects then with East 3rd Street here, which turns into Winchester and Midland, which then shoots into downtown. The Isaac Murphy Memorial Garden is located just to the southwest of the subject property, which is also the trailhead for the Legacy Trail and is in close proximity to the Town Branch Commons Trail as well. Within the area, there is a mix of zoning districts featuring everything from R3 to B1, B2A, and also I1, so a mix of residential business and industrial zones. And the surrounding area features a mix of single family residences, a mixed use development which is located here, as well as retail and residential and light industrial uses. Zooming into the property, the property itself is just under a quarter of an acre in size and contains a one story, 1600 square foot single family residence which was constructed in 1904. The structure itself features three bedrooms and two bathrooms, and the applicant is not proposing any expansion of the existing structure in order to accommodate the short term rental use. Within the zoning ordinance, there are several things that I want to cover really quick in regards to short term rentals. First, this first bullet point documents that within the R3 zone, an unhosted short term rental is conditional use. And then within Article 1, the definition for short term rental is the commercial use of a dwelling unit that is rented for less than 30 consecutive days. And then further on, an unhosted short-term rental is defined as a short-term rental in which the primary resident does not occupy the property during the rental period. In Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance is where the majority of the regulations for short-term rentals reside. This first bullet point states what the board needs to take into consideration when they're reviewing the short-term rental conditional uses. The four items in particular that are called out are the number of short-term rentals in the proximity to the application, the subject property, the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant, the occupancy rate of other short-term rentals in the vicinity, and then whether or not short-term rentals in the vicinity have been cited as a nuisance, including those that have been operated by the applicant. 3 also states that the board shall establish a maximum occupancy for short-term rentals based on the number of bedrooms. The general formula for this occupancy calculation is a maximum of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional four bedrooms or a total of 12 individuals, whichever is less. So for this property, since it is a three-bedroom home, they can have up to 10 individuals, but they are only proposing a total of eight. This is the site plan that the applicant has submitted with their application. The home, as I stated earlier, there are no proposed additions in order to accommodate the use. And I wanted to point out the parking is to the rear here, which kind of exists today. The area can accommodate up to two vehicles with the spacing and general geometry in order to get turned around and backed out the driveway. This property will be the applicant's first short-term rental. This first map is a screenshot from the AirDNA website and shows other short-term rentals in the area. I believe the star is missing. I apologize. The subject property is located right here on Nelson Avenue. Third Street is here, and Midland Avenue is here. The map's a little washed out on the projector, so I apologize. But as you can see, and these should be individual properties, the AirDNA also will map a short-term rental by its revenue that it's brought in. So that's where those numbers are coming from. but there are some short-term rentals in the general vicinity here. Next, I have a map of short-term rentals that have already received zoning compliance permits. These were issued as of last Friday, and the green stars are short-term rentals in the vicinity that have already received zoning compliance permits. So these are units that were existing before these regulations went into place, and they have gone through our office and the proper permitting in order to get a zoning compliance permit. And I just want to state this is not a comprehensive picture of short-term rentals that may be permitted already in this area. Short-term rentals have until January 11th, 2024. If they were pre-existing before these regulations went into place, by January 11th, they are able to come in and get a zoning compliance with our office and, of course, register with the Division of Revenue. So I'll update this map after January 11th, but as of right now, these are the short-term rentals in the area that have already received their zoning compliance permit. This is our first short-term rental that we're recommending disapproval of based on its location in the census block group, one of the top ten in the area that's identified within the Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force report. So in our staff report, we mentioned several maps, and I wanted to review those in front of the board today. The top ten priority areas that we call out in the staff report are taken from kind of a conglomeration of four different maps. This first map is a map of medium income at less than 30% of the area median income. And this is by Census Block Group, not Census Tract. And I want to next call out where the subject property is located. So you can see here where that star is located. That's where the subject property is. The darker color shows the census block groups with the highest percentage of households with median incomes less than 30% of the AMI. And one thing I want to point out about how this map is formatted, the census block groups that are numbered are the top 10 census block groups within this database. So you'll see on the map the numbers 1, 8, 5, 2. Those are the top 10 census block groups. And the subject property is located in the fourth highest census block group for this map. The second map that's considered and identifying the priority areas is a high minority population. The subject property is there where the star is, and it is also in one of the top ten census block groups for the highest minority populations in Lexington. The third map that's brought into this is a map of the low mean home sales price. The darkest area, or the darkest color, are census block groups that have a mean sale price of less than $114,000. The subject property is located here, where the star is. It's not in one of the top ten, but it is in the darker color symbology level for this map. And then the fourth map that's considered is the low owner occupancy rate. The subject property is there where the star is, and it is also in one of the lowest grouping of home ownership within census block groups. It's not numbered. It's not one of the top ten, but it is in that category. So all four of those maps are kind of merged together, and we come here to this final map, which is an intersection of those top ten census block groups, which identify priority areas for vulnerability of involuntary displacement. The subject property is located there where the star is, and it is one of the top ten census block groups that were identified within these four maps in this data analysis. With that, staff is recommending disapproval of this application. We cannot support this application because it will have an adverse impact on the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood by removing an existing housing unit from the market that could otherwise be utilized as a primary residence for an owner-occupant or a long-term tenant and is located within one of the top ten census block groups as identified in those previous maps. Staff has concerns that the short-term rental use would heighten issues with gentrification and displacement with a neighborhood that is already vulnerable to involuntary displacement. In addition, there are already around 20 other short-term rentals in the immediate vicinity that are available for those who are looking to utilize a short-term rental in the vicinity. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Do we have any questions of staff at this time? No. Okay. Thank you. I appreciated that direction and some clarity in how to make a decision, so thank you. Thank you. We will have the applicant come forward at this time. Thank you. and state your name please for the record. Philip Petrie. And the staff has recommended disapproval and they've gone over the reasons why. Would you like to share a little bit about your project or comment on those? Sure, absolutely. First, thank you so much for the hard work. Hearing all the reasoning behind it, it's helpful to understand what you all go through to make these decisions. Before I get into the specifics of this property, I think I want to give a little bit of context as to why we decided that we wanted to do a short-term rental. So we own a fair amount of residential and commercial property. Most of our property is residential. Sure, most of our property is residential. And we did an audit of our properties sometime about a year ago, and we discovered that we had tons of properties that were under-rented, which had been fine, until we started seeing property tax increases, interest rate increases, and insurance increases. And we realized we had to do something or in the long run, we'd have a problem. So we went and we met with each one of our tenants to be able to figure out what would an increase look like for them. And what we discovered was that there were about 21 tenants that if we'd made any substantial increase at all, it would displace them. Of course, we don't want to do that. We've had a lot of these tenants for many years. We have meaningful relationships with them. And we thought to ourselves, well, what can we do to solve this problem so that we don't have to displace? It was 21, I believe, 21 tenants who absolutely could not sustain any rent increase beyond like $15 a month or $10 a month. And we thought, well, we don't do short-term rentals, but we could find a great property manager and we could do a short-term rental. So we started considering areas, looking for a property. And this property in particular stood out to us specifically because of the location at the beginning of the trailhead right across the street from the Met, largely surrounded by commercial in the very beginning of the property where any potential increase in traffic wouldn't be disruptive in any way. We put a large privacy fence up and we rehabbed the entire thing. It's gorgeous inside now. So the point of it was to do a short-term rental. We believed going into it that we would not be, well, we thought it would be an immediate approval. So did the property managers that we've talked to. And so we completed the rehab. It's now been sitting vacant and furnished for, I don't know how many months, but for a while, which is understandable. You all are trying to implement new systems. So this property, though, if we're dealing with maintaining affordable housing in the city, if we didn't do a short-term rental, this property wouldn't solve that problem, right? Because this thing, if we put it on long-term rent, it'll rent for $25, $2,600 a month in a heartbeat. So we're not solving the affordable housing problem by keeping this as a long term rental. As a short term rental though, we really believe that it will be a net gain to the city because of the quick access to the trail right there next to the Met. And I think all the people that I know at least, like Mr. Holbeck and some others in the area, love the idea of having one there. We were not able to find any other short term rentals in that vicinity, including your DNA. So I'm not sure, not questioning the data. We just haven't been able to find either a property manager who has one there or those results on AirDNA. So up until this, we believed we were the only one in that immediate vicinity. So while we and I have compassion for the need for affordable housing, obviously, I work really hard to try and keep our homes affordable and try and be an engaged landlord. And we work to care for our tenants and they stay for a long time. for us, this is a tool to be able to maintain that affordable housing. If we don't do this, it'll be a midterm rental. It could be a long-term rental, but it won't be on the market in any way that could impact the neighborhood in a more positive way than it is. And I will say it is a benefit to the neighborhood already. If you drive through there, you'll see the difference in the way that the neighborhood is when you pull in just from the time that we've owned it because of the work that we've done on it. So those are my initial responses and thoughts. Thank you. Do we have questions of the applicant? Nothing. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Would the board like to discuss or would we like to entertain a motion? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak? I can't remember from earlier. Sorry. No. We had a letter. I didn't hear a question. She was asking if there was someone else on here to speak. Our remaining folks are with the last one. Okay. So staff has recommended disapproval based on the priority area designations. If we need anyone would like to make a motion along those lines. Are you ready? I'm ready. Thank you Madam Chair. From PLM BOA 2386, request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short term rental within the defined infield and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone. On property located at 316 Nelson Avenue. I move disapproval in agreement with the staff for the reason so stated. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a second? Ms. Tucker has second. Any further comment or discussion? If not, we will open for a vote. Yeah. I'm sorry, we'll update it. It's a, did you, motion to disapprove, right? Yeah, disapprove. Okay. Thank you, the staff's disapproval has been held up. And Chad Walker refused himself, did we note? Thank you. Okay. Which one's our last case? Our last case is PLNBOA 23-91, Nicole Gervis. Yes, we'll find Chad. Okay, okay. So give him a quick second. Thank you, Chair. switch the case on here for us. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Gervis? Thank you. The staff has recommended approval on this particular item, but if you'd like to tell us a little bit about your project first. Sure. I'm originally from Montgomery County, Mount Sterling, Kentucky. My children are at this university here. I have a daughter who works for the University of Kentucky and one in school there now. This is a property my husband and I purchased to have a place to visit, live when we are visiting our children. And we just want to short-term rent it when we're not there. But we spend a lot of time in Kentucky with our family and our children that are in the area. Looks like up to six individuals. Correct. Do we have any questions? I know we do have public comment on on this one i just wanted to see if the board had any questions of the applicant no okay give us just a moment and i believe that is mr burdette Thank you. for three months. I've been seeing people in and out, moving around, you know, and it's been kind of disturbing. And then I found out that's what they were doing. So, like, that's an old neighborhood. I've been there for 27 years. And it's, I noticed it's been changing, But I just totally don't agree with it to have it. And along with the changes, Friday, the house on the corner, I've been noticing too much. Church vans come in, moving me in and out. In the morning, leaving, a lady put this in my mailbox Friday. there's two guys that I've seen over there. One has raped a 14-year-old. One has raped a 16-year-old. That corner is where all the kids get it on and off that bus. And I'm wondering, you know, with all the changes going on, nobody saying nothing. And, you know, it's pretty disturbing. Is that for this particular property? Now this is just, I guess my comment is the change is going on. You got people living there and rapists. This fly, this lady gave two guys pictures of it. And that's what's going on in that neighborhood now. I heard a B&B is next street over. A gentleman on key said there's one over there. you know and you know to like uh... get approval and then check with the people later delivered in the neighborhood that's what counts me this this going on and you know i don't know who proved with them people to be a real and he is at that bus stop every day I just, I don't approve it. I mean, I'm not approve it, but I don't like it. I got opposition about it. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Thank you. The applicant would like to respond. I've owned the property since September or August, and I've been there a lot. Like as I previously mentioned, I bought the property originally to be closer to my children and my family. I spend a lot of weekends there myself, so it's not always available for rent. So that movement and activity has been me moving in and coming there on the weekends to visit my children. I also have installed a security system with several cameras around the property to monitor the comings and goings when it is being rented and looking into the noise level monitoring system that I've heard about here today too. But all the motion is from us. Okay, so how often do you anticipate having it leased out or available? You say you're here most weekends? I'm here a lot of weekends, I would say 50%. About 50%. About 50%. And then we do have all street parking and a one car garage that's available for people who are using it for the short term rental. So there's no disturbance on the street as far as cars or vehicles being left there to impede traffic. um just a minute do we have any no sir i'm sorry we've already had public comment but thank you do we have any other questions of the applicant okay thank you thank you so we're open to discuss or to entertain a motion i have a question um do you know how many short terms are roughly in that area, please. Oh, that's blurry. Okay. So this is the screenshot from AirDNA. The subject property is where that red star is located here. Hold on. Let me get to the... There we go. So within the 1,000 feet, there are a handful of other short-term rentals, according to AirDNA. And then this is our zoning compliance permits that we've issued so far. Looks like there's just one up on Keys Road. Will you go back to the last one again? Yeah. Those mouth, it condenses it so much. Yeah. You can see here, Keys Road here. Then Broadway runs up this way. Then we've got the Fair Lawn, which is on the next street, just off the screen there. Thank you. Yeah. I just want to make a comment, may I? Yes, please. Thank you. I empathize with the objector in that short-term rentals does change the character of a neighborhood, and somehow the stability might come into question if we continue with short-term rentals. And I appreciate him being here. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLM BOA 23-91, Nicole Gervais? All right. Request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone at property at 1109 McLean Drive based upon the staff's report and its recommendation and the testimony herein and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any further discussion? Now we will open for a vote. Am I missing one? It's everybody. Thank you, thank you. The motion is passed. Good luck with your home. Does the board have any other items? Nope. What about the staff? Does staff have any items? Yep. We have great cookies, we have macarons, we have snacks. We're ending the year on a wonderful note. Yeah. All right, if nothing further, we are adjourned. Thank you. We'll be right back. I'm sorry. So don't save it all for Christmas Day Find a way to give a little love every day Don't save it all for Christmas Day Find your way Cause holidays have come and gone Love lives on if you give on Love How could you wait another minute The hug is warmer when you're in it