Do you have any concerns other than cars being broken into when we're out shopping? Is that one of the main ones probably? Yeah, I would say so. So what you get usually when people shop, especially at a mall or a larger shopping center, is they like to make intermittent trips back and forth to the car from in the mall, right? So they have too many bags and they maybe want to drop some off. So sometimes these criminals are out in the parking lots and they're watching for that, right? So they're watching for this family to bring out some gifts, put them in the car, and then go back inside. That gives them the opportunity to then go to that car because they know they're not going to be back for a minute and take advantage of the gifts that were just purchased and take them home from themselves or whatever else they may do. So just like we talked about earlier, even if it's in your driveway or any parking lot, just if you can, put them in your trunk if you have a trunk, if it's a sedan, obviously. If it's an SUV and you put it in the cargo area, we ask maybe bring a blanket or something like that, some jackets, and just try to cover them up the best you can. Because if a would-be criminal walks by your vehicle and they see shopping bags, they're more than likely going to take advantage of that opportunity and get into that vehicle. So with the increased amount of shopping, do we see also an increase with identity theft? And people noticing after the holidays, like, wait a minute, I know I spent some money, but I didn't spend this much money. Yeah, I think that we're all guilty now, especially with online shopping. You know, brick and mortar type of businesses is kind of becoming less popular. And now we're ordering more online. So I know there's a lot of interesting websites out there and a lot of interesting items that may be promising, you know, the best product ever. But I would suggest be careful with what information that you're providing these maybe less known or less reputable businesses online. And just maybe also obtain some credit monitoring. And that will add a sense of protection as well. So if there's any sort of transactions or purchases that you don't recognize, obviously you'll catch it on early and be able to stop that and prevent any further damage. So, absolutely. So we talked about a lot of different types of property crimes today, and I think the theme is we all can be a victim, right? So we need to make sure that we take the steps, whether it's making sure our house is locked, whether it's our cars are locked, nothing's visible in the car, being aware of your surroundings, right, whether you're out shopping, and making sure that we report any suspicious activity that we see. Yeah, by all means, please. If you see something that doesn't look right, give us a call, and hopefully we can get out and maybe get out with them and investigate their suspicious activity. All right. You all have done a great job today, and we appreciate that. But the whole purpose of this is to make sure that you, the public, never have to encounter the detectives, right? So hopefully you'll never get to meet them. Thank you. so I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the room. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. thing I would again like to remind you guys if you're on the agenda today on the docket or if you plan to speak please please make sure you signed in it makes it so much easier for us as we move forward and with staff and etc if you do plan to speak today oh I'm sorry let me go back it is 2024 first one of the year thank you first thing we'd like to do is approve the minute if the board has had an opportunity to review the minutes i'll entertain a motion or any discussion regarding the minutes it says october is it no it is october a little a little behind is everyone comfortable with the minutes as they were submitted And if so, I will up. Looks like Ms. Tucker and Ms. Plumlee, we have a first and a second. We are open for vote. All righty, the minutes have been approved, that motion has passed. The next item on the agenda will be the swearing of the witnesses. So if you do plan to speak either as applicant or opposition or counsel, if you could please stand at this time. And if you could please raise your right hand. And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth today? I do. Thank you. The next thing we'll do is sound the agenda. So I will run through the cases as listed on the agenda and ask if the applicant is here. If the applicant is here and the staff has recommended approval and there is no opposition today, then those items would be heard first. If the staff has recommended disapproval or we do have people that would like to speak from the audience in opposition to the particular case, Those will be heard after. The first item on the list is PLNBOA 23-45, that's red draw Delaware. Madam Chair, I think that one's supposed to be postponed until next month. The applicant plans to request it, but they do have to come forward. Okay, thanks. Thank you. So if the applicant is present. Good afternoon, Mark McCain, Vision Engineering. We would like to postpone the plan for one month. And I understand it was a new math recalculation. That's correct. The variance calculations were a little off, so they have to be corrected and sent back out for notice. So if we're okay with postponement, I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we postpone PLN BOA 23-45 Red Draw Delaware LLC's various requests related to 1535 Delaware Avenue until our meeting on February 12th, 2024. Thank you. It looks like Ms. Plumlee has seconded. Can we do a show of hands for the vote since we are restarting this computer again? Okay. Thank you all. All in favor of the postponement, please raise your hands. It does appear to be unanimous. Thank you. Motion's passed. We'll see you next month. Thank you. Thanks. The next item on the agenda is PLN BOA 23-83, Joe Ran, and this is a continuance. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Okay, that has been recommended for disapproval, so we will hear that case. Then we have PLNBOA 23-105, Turner Properties 4, LLC. Is the applicant present? Okay. That has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this case? No. Okay, that'll be heard first on the rocket docket. I mean, on the quick docket. All righty. Then we have PLNBOA 23-87, Central Kentucky Investments. Is the applicant present? Thank you. This has been recommended for approval. Is anyone here in opposition to this particular item? You will be heard second. Then we have PLNBOA 23-97, Noodles and Company. Is the applicant present? Thank you. been recommended for approval is there anyone here in opposition you'll be third on the then we have the l and the only twenty three dash ninety eight discount tobacco zone number one l l c is the applicant present this has been recommended for approval do we have anyone in opposition today you will be number four then we have p l and b l eight twenty three dash ninety nine moments traveler is the applicant present this has been recommended for approval is there anyone in opposition today thank you i will call you to speak for that'll be second on the herd docket and then on the agenda i show p l and b l eight twenty three dash one hundred three hundred sherman avenue This item has been withdrawn. Is there anyone here today to hear or speak for that particular item? Okay. Because we will not be hearing 300 Sherman Avenue that has been withdrawn by the applicant. Then we have PLNBOA 23-102, Kudit and Suat Apul. Applicant, okay. This has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this particular item today? Okay. That will be heard. That will be number three on the heard docket. And then lastly, I have PLN BOA 23-106 South Central Bank. Is the applicant present? Yes. Nick Nicholson here. I'm going to have the applicant. We request a one-month postponement to the February 12th Board of Adjustment Meeting. There are some site plan issues that we have to clear up, not related to drive-through, but regarding compliance with the zoning ordinance in general. And so we'll have some time to submit a new site plan and be back in front of you all next month. Okay, thank you. The applicant is requesting a postponement. I'll entertain a motion if we are agreeable to this. Madam Chair, I move that we postpone PLM BOA 23-106 South Central Bank, Inc.'s request for conditional use permit at property located at 473 East Main Street to be postponed to a February 12th meeting 2024. Thank you, Mr. Gross. And Ms. Plumlee has offered a second. And we'll take a vote by the show of hands. Okay. All in favor? Okay, unanimous. Thank you. See you next month, February 12th. Bring chocolate for Valentine's Day. Absolutely. Okay. Okay, so we will start at PLN VOA 23-105, that's Turner Properties for LLC. If the applicant can please come forward. Good afternoon, Zach Cato, Billings Law Firm for the applicant. Thank you. And this has been recommended for approval, but there are four conditions that have been listed. had opportunity to review yes i discussed a also a clarification with staff on one of those items number four i think we're in agreement on what it means i don't know if the board wants to amend the language of that note or not but my understanding is from talking to staff that note four would relate only to purely residential buildings and not mixed use or commercial buildings in this zone And we're okay with the condition on that basis. Okay. The board had opportunity to look at that item in particular, it's the fourth condition. Does the staff feel that any language needs to be added or is clarification on the record okay? I don't think we necessarily have to add any language, but if you all in the applicant would be more comfortable clarifying that, we're fine with that. The intent is that it be for only residential structures, not mixed use. Mr. Cato, is that okay with that being disclosed on the record? For purposes of permitting and having a single document to show the people that are reviewing the permits, I think I would prefer to have it in the certificate of land use. Do you have language that you have proposed to staff or you will propose to us? I would just ask that it says for any non-residential building or any mixed use or commercial building. That it's not required for any mixed use? That it would not be required. It would be required only for a purely residential building, yes. Staff, is that something you can throw in there? I think the cleanest way would probably be to just add a qualifier before the word residential. To say, and this is in the second line here, shall be installed between any solely residential structures and the railroad or something to that effect. Yeah. Would that be okay with you? That's acceptable for us, yes. Okay. Okay. Since our thing's not working, we won't throw it up on the screen. but if there are no questions I'm ready to move with that modification. I have a question. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on just a moment. Hold on just, we'll get the public comment in just a moment. So did the board have any questions of the applicant in particular? So should I hold it in advance? Do you want to? Well, it sounds like I can, if we make a motion, I think it'll be an easy quick. Open for a discussion? Okay. Yeah, but it looks like maybe we had an audience member who didn't raise their hand on the first go around. I can't tell if she can't hear in general or just can't hear this one. Okay, okay. So, okay. If we, I guess we'll go ahead. If you could sit just a moment, we'll entertain the question. Okay. slightly out of order but we're here second if you could come to the come to the microphone place with yes would you like we need to have you on the microphone so they're on the record uh... yes uh... ellie walberg property owner near project uh... i just would like someone to explain moving from 15 feet to zero feet does that mean there isn't going to be a buffer? I mean, maybe that's common sense to you. Okay, okay. We will let the applicant answer. Thank you. Or the staff, would you, staff can address briefly. I'm sorry, Zach. I think the applicant can probably provide clarification. They are requesting a reduction in the buffer from 15 feet to zero for the intent of not having a buffer between their structures and the railroad. What would be required by the zoning ordinance typically is a 15-foot buffer measured from their property line that they share with the railroad with certain contents. And given the existing circumstances of the property where there is a concrete pad adjacent to a retaining wall that abuts the railroad, they requested to reduce that down to zero to allow that paving situation to remain as it currently is today. Is that it? That's a fair summary. And just to clarify, this is a plan that's been previously approved by the Planning Commission as part of a PUD 3 zone. It's a planned unit development plan that had these exact site conditions. Nothing is changing. this buffer was something that was raised in the sign-off after the approval was granted that need to be dealt with in the future and so we're doing that but all this would do is allow us to build the improvements that have already been approved by the planning commission in the zone changes approved by the council so there wouldn't be any buffering adjacent to and to the railroad which there never has been any shown on this plan that was approved during the prior process either. And just for clarification, except for if we approve this variance, there will be the buffer behind any residential properties. If there are any residential, they're purely residential structures, we would have to build that buffer as being at those recommended by staff. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? If not, I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval. Mr. Clark, can you turn your mic on? No. Sorry. How about that? Good. Good, thank you. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 23-105, attorney attorney property for llc request variances to reduce the required property perimeter landscaping adjoining railroad from 15 to zero feet and reduce the required vehicle use area perimeter buffer from eight feet to zero feet in order to construct a mixed use development in industrial redevelopment plan unit development zone on property located at 125 turner comm commons Cummins way, including the four conditions and including the changes made in number four. So move. Thank you. And Ms. Plumlee has seconded. No further discussion. We will take a vote. And just to clarify before we vote, the changes number four, we're going to add the word solely between the words, between any, and residential, just for the record. Thank you. Does that work, Brittany? Okay. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Got it. Got it. Then I vote in favor. Okay. We'll take a vote. We're still by hand. Oops. No, yeah. All right, everybody. I don't know how we are. Scream, not scream. It's going to get better as the year goes on. it's going to get better good deal so we do have a unanimous vote i don't know if you guys can see it we can good luck with your project thank you okay the next item is plnboa 23-87 that's central central kentucky investments if the applicant can come forward please Good afternoon. My name is Drew Bollinger. I represent Central Kentucky Investments. Okay. Did you get the name done? Okay. Oh, I see it here. Thank you. Okay. So this has been recommended for approval and there are five conditions listed as a recommendation for the approval. Have you had an opportunity to review those? I have, yes. Okay, and are you comfortable with those conditions? Yes. Does the board have any questions of this applicant or their plans that they submit it? May I ask where the parking will be since the condition says not in front of the garage? Can you clarify that, please, sir? Yeah, so there's actually two individual garage that we'll be able to park in, and then as well there's a parking lot behind the building itself that will share parking. as both locations. And you've cleared that with the people who own the lots and so forth? I do, yes. Both are owned by myself. Thank you. Yep. Madam Chair, I move approval of PLNBOA 2387, Central Kentucky Investments, for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in historic district overlay, H1 zone in a mixed low density residential R2 zone on property located at 724 West High Street with the five recommendations and four conditions. Thank you. And just for clarification, it's five conditions. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Clark has seconded. All right, looks like we're open for vote. And you guys can see. I do. Looks like the motion has passed. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, the next item is PLN BOA 23-97. That's Noodles & Company. If the applicant can come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Tyler West, and I'm here to represent Noodles & Company. company. Thank you. So staff has recommended approval of the drive-through or the pickup window that you guys have requested. There are three conditions listed. Have you had an opportunity to review? Yes, we have. And are we comfortable with those conditions? Yes, we are. The board has already received those plans. Do we have any questions regarding those plans? And if not, I can entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move to approve PLN BOA 23-97, Noodles and Companies, request for a conditional use permit to establish drive-thru facilities accessory to a restaurant in a B1 zone, property located at 2468 Nicholsville Road, based upon the staff's report and subject to the three conditions therein. Thank you. Mr. Gross has moved. Ms. Plumlee has seconded that motion. And if there's no further discussion, we will open for vote. Motion has passed. Good luck with the project. Thanks. Have a great day. Good. good the next item is plnboa 23-98 discount tobacco zone number one llc the applicant can come forward please hi kimberly bragg architect representing the owner thank you did we get the name for the record i see you here as well good deal so the staff has recommended approval and there are four listed conditions there have you had an opportunity to review those conditions yes okay i made note in particular the morrison avenue curb uh cut did you see that yes item as well okay so the board has received those plans do we have any questions or concerns regarding those plans If not, I will entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve PLN BOA 2398, discount tobacco zone number one, LLC. Request conditional use to establish drive-through facilities necessary to retail use within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 717 North Broadway. Thank you. Also recommends approval based on the following four conditions listed. Thank you, we have a first and Mr. Gross has seconded the motion. Without any questions, we'll open for discussion, we'll open for vote. Looks like the motion is passed, good luck with your project, thank you. So now we'll go back to the HERD docket. Our first item is PLN BOA 23-83. This is a continuance. Mr. Joe Ryan and the staff has recommended disapproval, so we will allow the staff to present first. Good afternoon, Megan Jennings with planning staff. Today, before you, we have a continuance of this application that the board heard last month. During last month's meeting, it was identified that additional variances were needed, so the applicant re-notified and has come back today with some updated variances. The first variance, which was heard last month, is to reduce the required setback of a gasoline pump to a residential zone from 50 feet to 25 feet. Staff wrote a staff report on that, and we are not changing our recommendation from last month, and so our staff report this month and our presentation will cover these two new variances. The first one of which is to reduce the minimum required property perimeter landscaping between a business zone and a residential zone from 15 feet to 0 feet. And the second new variance is to reduce the minimum required vehicular use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet. First, I just wanted to review where this property is located in town. The property is outlined here in light blue. Hold on, let me get to the pointer. Nope, there we go. Okay, outlined here in blue. Out here on East Loudon Avenue as it kind of connects with Winchester right off the end of the screen there. The subject property itself is just over a half an acre in size. and surrounding uses feature a mix of both single-family residential and light industrial zones, which you can see here in this map of the surrounding zones. So the majority of the property that adjoins the subject property is zoned I-1, which is light industrial, but it does immediately adjoin a single-family R1C zone there to the west and has this pocket of R1C kind of catty corner to it across Loudoun Avenue. Zooming into the property a bit more, currently the property features a 3,000 square foot convenience store and has a total of six gasoline pumps under the current canopies that you see here in this image. In October of last year, the applicant got an approved development plan and was certified to add an additional two pumps here, so one more kind of fueling station, and to extend that existing canopy. Those are approved. They just haven't been constructed yet, and they are not subject to the variance application, but I did want to kind of update the board and the public on that. Along with adding those two pumps, they do have an additional building addition here, and that is reflected on their new site plan, which is submitted here. This is the updated site plan that the applicant submitted showing where these new variances are needed. It's along this section of the property perimeter. The applicant indicated that there is a five-foot-wide sidewalk there along that western property boundary that was installed just this year. So since the Planning Commission approved the development plan last year for this pump and this building addition, the applicant did install this sidewalk out of compliance with that development plan. And they also did not pull permits for that sidewalk. The variances that they have now requested are to allow that sidewalk to remain and to essentially permit the willful violation of the zoning ordinance in which the sidewalk was installed. The first variance that's new is the property perimeter along this property line from a business zone to the single family residential zone, which is usually a 15 foot landscape buffer, but can be reduced to 5 feet if a 6 foot tall fence is installed. The other variance is to reduce the vehicular use area perimeter buffer along that property line. It's required to be 8 feet and has some planting requirements as does the zone-to-zone screening. And the applicant is wishing to reduce both of those variances to zero so that they don't have to provide any of the landscaping or meet the distance requirements. This next slide just has the two more detailed listings of those two variances that they have now added onto their application. The first one is actually reviewing the distance requirement of the very first variance that was heard last month. So no gasoline pump shall be located within 50 feet of a residential zone, and they are requesting to reduce that to 25 feet. The second bullet here is that zone-to-zone screening between a business zone and a residential zone. As you can see, it's supposed to be or required to be 15 feet and has some landscaping requirements here with the tree and the double row of hedges or a six-foot tall fence. And if they do provide that six-foot tall fence, that landscape buffer area can be reduced to five feet wide. The next slide has the requirements for the vehicular use area perimeter buffers, just in more detail. First is that it needs to be eight feet wide and include some of the landscape materials that are detailed in the second bullet here, bullet point. And this last bullet point that I have added to this screen reviews the allowable fences for a property like this. On the site plan, the applicant did not include the location of a fence that is indicated to be provided. So staff was unable to assess whether or not that proposed fence is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. So I did just want to add that third bullet point there, which states that in front of any, in front of the front building plane of a building, fences are limited to a maximum height of four feet tall. If the applicant chooses to work with the neighboring property owners and locate it on their property, I'll go back to the, this aerial here. So if the applicant decides to work with these property owners, the fence is considered then in their rear yard and could be up to eight feet tall. But this property here is a corner lot, and so fences are prohibited from being taller than four feet, any closer than three. I said that kind of funky, I'm sorry. A six-foot tall fence is allowed along this section of the property line as long as it is no closer than three feet to the sidewalk. And I wanted to review that even though it's not on the site plan and hopefully the applicant can clarify where that fence is going to be located. I just wanted to clarify that for the board. Real question, Megan. So that fence at the three foot would have, no fence could be there or would have to drop to four feet? Drop to four feet. Okay. That's for site triangle issues backing out. Yeah. So the applicant did state that they worked with those neighboring residential property owners and have an agreement to construct a fence or a wall along that common property line, although we don't exactly know where or how tall that wall will be. I did want to review that information for the board and for the members of the public here. The applicant states that that proposed wall will be a visual and sound screen for the gasoline pumps and the lights that are often associated with heavy vehicular use sites. And the applicant states that it will help screen the neighboring residential properties from the proposed expansion of the gasoline, or I guess the convenience store and the gasoline pumps. Let me just see. Oh, in addition to the proposed wall, the applicant states that they can provide that required landscaping, or at least some of it, to the rear of the property back here. even though it's required along this property line they said they can at least provide some of that required landscaping material to the rear of the site. In general, staff is not in favor of this relocated landscaping as the intent of it is to provide additional screening in addition with either a distance requirement or a fence requirement to the immediately adjoining residential uses. And so relocating it to the rear of the site does not satisfy the intent of the zoning ordinance, and staff is not in favor of that particular proposal from the applicant. In general, staff cannot support this request for the two additional variances, nor can we support the very first variance either. For these new two variances, staff did not find that the applicant has provided sufficient information to determine that strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land. The applicant willfully violated the zoning ordinance by installing that five-foot-wide sidewalk, which prevents them from being able to meet both the zone-to-zone screening and the vehicular use area perimeter buffer requirements that are established in the zoning ordinance and which they were aware of when their development plan was approved last year. A combination of all three of these variances would completely eliminate any buffering and screening between the intense gas station use and the immediately adjoining residential uses. The applicant's proposed wall may provide some relief from the nuisances associated with this use, but the relocation of the required landscaping to the rear of the property does nothing to mitigate the site's potential negative impacts on those neighboring residential uses. So with that, staff cannot support the two new requested variances, and we are also still at disapproval for the very first variance, which is that gasoline setback distance. If the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Now, I just want to emphasize clarification for the board. We still need to vote on that request for the first variance. It's not listed here on the agenda today. but we would still need to vote for that particular item. Well, it is. It's on the agenda. It's not listed as approval, disapproval. It is. You'll see on the second recommendation is for variances number two and three in combination. So you have two sets of recommendations. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any further questions of staff before the applicant presents? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And that the applicant will come forward at this time. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, and I'm pleased today to be representing Mr. and Mrs. Rayon, who are the owners of the property. Joe Rayon is here with me in the fourth row, and Mrs. Rayon Rehab is at the store, as she always is, every lunchtime fixing hot meals for members of the neighborhood. And Bruce Nicholas here with me today as well, who is a long-time neighbor and customer. This is a continuation from last December and wanted to just review a couple of things we talked about last month on this one. And that is that the Rayons have operated this store over 20 years in this location. Prior to that time, they operated a store in Kenwick. Many of their Kenwick customers still come to this location after they moved. The building here was actually built by somebody else about 38 years ago. But they have recently expanded the store. They bought the lot next door and expanded the store, and they're expanding the store largely because this is a food desert in this area. By expanding the store, they will be allowed to extend the range of food that they sell at this property. As I mentioned right now, this is sort of a neighborhood gathering place. I've been there many times, different times of the day. Every time I've been there, there have been people from the neighborhood eating lunch here. They get a hot lunch, chicken, fish, beef, sides, desserts there. I've been there talking to Mr. and Mrs. Rayon, and many times I've been there when somebody not buying anything and not eating there is just there at the table talking to Mr. and Mrs. Rayon or to the other people who are eating lunch there. So it's a neighborhood institution, and the food is very famous, as I've discovered. A couple people have told me, hey, Mrs. Rayon does fantastic food at there. But they need the expanded gasoline sales to support the business, financially support the business, as well as the gasoline sales are a way in which that new customers become familiar with the store. They buy gas, they come in, once they're in there, they see that, hey, I could buy lunch here or I could buy food here. So that's how they build up the business for the food side of the business. We, as I mentioned to you last month, I have talked to the two neighbors who are greatest affected on this. If you could put back up the exhibit with our new revised site plan on there, that'd be fantastic. And I can show you exactly where the wall is going to be. I described it in my new justification, maybe not good enough about where it was, but on the plan it's going to be the wall will be right along the edge where the sidewalk is it doesn't curl it does not curl over to Loudon Avenue but it'll be light right along the edge as you can see we have hatched in the area where the five-foot sidewalk is located as well also the these are the two properties this is the mr melody's property who is here today miss baker's property who is here today as well those two properties front on meadow lane meadow lane comes off loud and comes up here and meadow lane as you all know comes up here and goes all the way to new circle road on the other side of the property we have contract street which is large industrial area as miss jennings pointed out to you. Of course, Loudon Avenue is the front. We have more industrial properties across the street from us there. And this is our proposed site plan. And as I said, the wall would be along this line. And what we plan on doing is, after discussions with the two neighbors, we pointed out that if the wall is on our side, as Ms. Jennings said, have to, it would be limited to four feet. They both said that they needed it to be six feet tall. And it did, there's three reasons for the wall. One is the visual screening, second is the sound screening, and the third one is as a pedestrian barrier. What I've been told is that on the Melody property next to us, the pedestrians coming up Loudon Avenue will take a diagonal cut through the Melody property to get to the store. Rather than walking in here through the property, they take a cut through the backyard of Mr. Melody's apartment house. And I think Ms. Baker is here, she can speak for herself, but I think the cut through traffic from her is from people on Meadow Lane who just walked through the yard of her house to get here. So they both said that they wanted to have a six-foot-tall wall along the backs of their properties. We agreed to that, and we agreed to build it on their side, the neighbor's side of the property line, so that it could be six feet tall, because if it's on the neighbor's side, it's in their backyard, it's allowed to be six feet tall. If it's on our side of the line, it has to be four feet because it's in our front yard. So we agreed to build the wall on their side of the property line, but the wall would be a solid masonry, six-foot-tall fence built at the cost of the rayons and to be maintained by the rayons, and we would do an easement to be recorded in the clerk's office to establish that that will be built by the rayons at their expense and maintained by the rayons at their expense. On the screening issue, or the landscape easement issue, Ms. Jennings said she felt that the construction of the sidewalk was a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. We don't see it that way. We don't think it's a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. That was built because there was a discussion about needing to have a safe pedestrian access into the property from Loudoun Avenue into the front of the store. And I want to show you another exhibit here. This is the approved development plan. If we could put this on the overhead. You see there I've crosshatched or I've hatched where the where the sidewalk is and this is the approved development plan on the property. that a minute hopefully the development plan was approved in 2022 by the planning commission and showed the layout of the parking area and as soon as we get it up there I'll show you what I'm talking about here I happen to have a handout showing that I can just pass that around here Okay. Okay. Sorry. There we go. This is the approved development plan on the property. I think I've got to use this pointer to show it. This is the. Let me try this one. Could we zoom in a little bit more so we can see the boundary? Okay. Thank you. This is the approved development plan from a year and a half ago. This is the area here where the sidewalk is placed along the edge of the property. Now, what is that area? It's labeled as six feet with six foot tall solid fence. It's dimensioned off there as six feet. But in front of the building here, it's not labeled as to what it is. It's not labeled as a landscape area or a sidewalk. Now, in the very rear, in dots there, there is a mention of landscaping back behind the building. But if you'll put yourselves in the shoes of the rayons looking at this plan and seeing a six foot strip, which looks like a sidewalk, along the side of the property going out from the building to Loudon Avenue. I think it was not unreasonable of them to feel that that was the space for a sidewalk. Now we can argue all night about whether that's a violation of the ordinance or not, but this is not labeled from here to here as to what it is. It's dimensioned off and we show a six foot tall solid fence on the approved development plan from the Planning Commission. As I said, back in the back, there is discussion about landscaping in the back. But the law is that you cannot grant this if it's a willful, willful violation of the zoning ordinance. There's nothing willful about putting the sidewalk there. Why was it there? Because traffic engineering and others felt it was important to have a physically separate pedestrian access from Loudoun Avenue into the building. So the sidewalk was constructed. It is there. It is in the area which apparently should have been the landscape area. And for confusion or misinformation, my client apologizes to you. But I hope you can see from this that there is nothing willful about putting the sidewalk in an area which is apparently, apparently supposed to be a landscape area. We'll point out to you that having a six-foot solid wall along the property line will buffer the properties behind us, the apartment house and the single-family house, from the headlights, from the noise of the property next door, and also it would block the vision of any landscaping on our side from the properties on the other side. And the key thing for the neighbors was to shut out the pedestrian access, cutting through their properties to get to the Rayon's properties. We feel it's important to have that pedestrian connection there. We feel it's appropriate on this site to eliminate that required landscape area. As I mentioned, there is room in the back for additional landscaping. Now, that won't be a buffer to these properties, but we do have the wall for these properties, a six-foot wall, and it will contribute to the tree canopy to have it back here. Staff has pointed out we have an easement in the back. We do have a utility easement going through there. We have plenty of area outside of that easement to plant additional trees. And utility easements, as you all probably know, do not prohibit planting of smaller trees along with them. So we have a lot of room in the back to do additional planting. As I mentioned last month, the reason for the variance for the gas pumps and possibly for the landscaping is that we have this unusable land in the back that's 20 percent of the size of the property which there's a grade going up from the back of the property to property next door and it's not really usable when the property when the building was built 38 years ago it was placed forward here on it if the building had been placed farther back there had been plenty of room for all this on the front without any variances, but that's sort of the unique feature of this property is this unusable space in the back. I've discussed this with Division of Traffic Engineering. There was discussion last month about having another pedestrian access in from Contract Street. I agreed with the Division of Traffic Engineering to request you place a note on the property that the plan would be subject to the sign-off of the Division of Traffic Engineering so we can delineate an appropriate pedestrian access from Contract Street into the property as well. I think Traffic Engineering is okay with our pedestrian access in from Loudoun Avenue going back to the store. So in any case, we feel very strongly that there is no willful violation. I wanted to point out too that there will be no television screens on the gas pumps, that those, as you've probably been to stations where they have a TV screen, they make some noise, they make lights and everything. will be no television screens on the gas pumps in this location. And again, I feel that this is, after having been there, I've driven by it many times over the years, never been there. After being inside, I can see this is a neighborhood focal point out there. A lot of neighbors come there every day to eat or see their friends or to see the rayons or say hello to them. It's an important focal point. So I do have some proposed findings which approve this, and I'm going to hand those out to you now, which are based upon the reasons I set forth in my original application and in the... Those are simply based upon my original application and the supplemental application which we filed after the case was postponed last month regarding the landscape variances. And I do point out in item five that there was no willful violation of the zoning ordinance by the construction of the pedestrian sidewalk from Loudon Avenue into the building. So we understand the unusual nature of this, but I hope you understand that there was no intentional violation of the zoning ordinance. And I think many of us in the same position would have been confused about the nature of the strip along the west side of the property, since it wasn't particularly labeled, the width of it was, but it looks an awful lot like a sidewalk. But I think as you can see, this is a neighborhood institution. Mr. and Mrs. Rayon are expanding it to provide a wider variety of food options in the neighborhood, but they do have to support themselves, support the business with gasoline sales as well. and I think the neighbors are Mr. Melody and Ms. Baker are here to express their thoughts on the six foot wall along their side of the property. So that's our situation and our case. We'd be happy to answer any questions you all have about it, but we certainly hope you'll grant the variances that we have requested of you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Does the board have questions of the applicant at this time? Ms. Plumlee, yes please. Thank you. In your findings on number one, the applicant will build a wall, but how high would that wall be? The wall will be six feet tall upon agreement with the two neighbors. in number two, landscaping will be enhanced in the rear of the property with what? We had anticipated smaller trees back there, lower growing trees. How many in on center, off center, what? Well, we don't have a particular number. We'd be happy to entertain any suggestions on that, but we thought we could add additional trees in the back of the property. We did not have a particular number in mind. But we can add at least as many as would have been required to be planted along the boundary line there. I think they require one every 30 or 40 feet there. But we could plant at least that number. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have other questions for the applicant? I may after I hear from the neighbors. I do have one quick question, Mr. Murphy. Regarding the wall, staff has said that the space between your client's property and that first residential property would actually not allow a six-foot wall. Is that correct? It's a corner lot and it has to be four feet. Yeah, I can show on the aerial where that would be restricted to four feet tall when I come back up. So even in the event that we were to allow a wall, it could not be, it needs to be four feet. As I understand, it could be six feet, except possibly within three feet of the Loudoun Avenue sidewalk. It would have to go to four feet. Is that correct? I think Mr. Jennings is saying that is correct. So it would be a six-foot wall, except apparently at the point it got within three feet of the Loudoun Avenue sidewalk, we'd have to reduce it to four feet. Okay. Okay, and last question regarding the plan and the confusion about the plan. Who actually developed the plan? Where did the site plan come from? Who ordered this? Who created the plan itself? It was Barrett Partners prepared the plan for the Planning Commission, not the plan for you all here. But the Planning Commission approved plan was prepared by Barrett Partners. Okay, but Barrett Partners was working for the rounds? yes okay yes all right i didn't see a dimension on your plans the distance between the actual foot of the wall and the sidewalk you mentioned that the wall would be built on the adjacent properties correct the sidewalk will essentially be on the sidewalk on the rayon side will essentially be up to the wall okay so it'll be adjacent to it yes okay my other question was the sidewalk on the northwest side of the property which would be against the wall when it curves back around in front of the of the actual building is it the same elevation as the as the sidewalk in front of the building yeah the sidewalk in front of the building will be the same elevation as the sidewalk going out to loudon avenue the loudon avenue sidewalk going down inside the property is elevated above the parking area where the cars are and where the pump area is elevated so it separates the pedestrians, it elevates them up above the vehicular use area there. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, at this time if you take a seat and we will give the public an opportunity to comment. So I do have, I believe, four people listed here to offer public comment. If anyone listed would like to stand over here, we could just make a quick line. Public comment is allowed three minutes per individual. And this is either four or in opposition. Either is fine. Please just first state your name for the record before you begin. Thomas Melody. Thank you, Mr. Melody. We have three minutes set for you. Okay, thank you. I did not have the opportunity to attend last month's meeting. I was here for the one in November. I was unable to get away from work last month. But in that meeting, there were a number of things stated that would allow for buffering the landscaping and so forth. Those are now gone. The pump is also coming now to within 25 feet of our property line. What we had agreed to with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Rayon in November was that if they would construct a masonry wall at least six feet in height, we would be amenable to letting that happen. well those things have changed so i'm personally i'm distraught over that i would like to have known that everything was taken away in my world we call that scope creep and it ends up costing people money ends up causing people lose their tempers my greatest concern is my building is probably eligible for historic purposes but all the bedrooms are in the back so everything against the Mr. Rayon's property is dealt with by the people who sleep there. I have day shifters and night shifters in that building and the traffic is tremendous. Joe does great business there and I would not deny for one second that he's very much a central part of that neighborhood. But that traffic is such that the neighbors and I, our fences get kicked down. We used to have fences, we just gave up because they just get kicked down as people come in and out, which is why the masonry wall. Six feet. People probably aren't going to be jumping it. Secondly, the sound as well as the light. Okay. I really don't want to deny Mr. Rand the ability to grow his business. I'm an independent businessman myself, but I believe that there are some burdens that are being placed on the neighbors and the people who live in that area that have not really been dealt with. And I would like to see those resolved before I would sign off to say that that this would be okay with me. Real quick. So currently you're opposing the plan? Yes, sir, that's correct. Thank you. Oh, and I apologize. There was one other issue. The lighting. Of course, we looked at the site plan. The site plan does not show the additional pumps that are within 25 feet of our respective properties. There would need, I was saying, there were some things that would need to be overcome. One of them is that. that light has to be coming down and not across the wall. Otherwise, there's no point in the rack. Correct me if I'm wrong. They have to do that anyways. You can't have the light spilling over to the neighbors. Is that how it's supposed to work? In terms of parking lot lighting, that is true. That's the way the ordinance reads in terms of parking lot lighting. So in this case, the canopy can be lit. and oftentimes they have a minimum height to allow for trucks and stuff to get underneath. So we're looking at the canopy height being at least between 13 and 14 feet at a minimum to allow fire trucks to get underneath. And then a wall at only six feet, there will be light spillage from the, and I think that's part of the concern of the staff was at least landscaping in that location could potentially help buffer that because it would grow above the six foot height of the wall. And could we, if we were to approve this, would we be able to tell them for this portion of the canopy, you can't have illumination, only the can lights inside to light the, does that make sense? Because you can illuminate your canopy or not. And so would we be able to say you can't have lights, only interior lights that shine down? Potentially. Are you referring to just the canopy, but they're wanting to add these two additional pumps? Mm-hmm. You could, yes. But then you have the other canopies that are adjacent to it that will be lit. Yeah. And that's not to put to this current variance. So I don't know how that would work if you have a canopy with two pumps that you did not have lighting, but there were adjacent pumps that did have that. Yeah. Okay, just curious. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And do we have further public comment? Would you like to? Please first state your name for the record. Blenna Baker, I own 804 Metal Lane. Okay. And it has been a nightmare since the fence has been removed of all the traffic that's cut through to the grocery store. So that was why I would. If the contractor approached me last summer about Mr. Ryan putting up a six foot fence to get rid of the traffic on my property. And Mr. Ryan says he does not want to pay for that. As of today, he said he didn't want to pay for that six-foot fence. But I need something, the way he's built up the sidewalk, if there's not a six-foot fence, if there's a four-foot fence, the customers are going to go over it and back through my property still. Because it's elevated. Yeah, I have you listed. So you're in opposition of it as it stands. How? You're in opposition of the particular project as it stands. If they put, I've told them I would go donate the, I've had to clarify, it's a 12 inches, we would have to give up our property to do that. But if he will maintain it, but as of today, he said he wouldn't. But we need, I need a four foot fence, he'll just jump over from the sidewalk and still go through. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? I have a Carmen Calvin. No? Okay. Bruce? Where do you want to go? Yeah, we can go. Hi, I'm Carmen Calvin, 801 Meadow Lane. My property is right across the street from the apartment building that is having the problem. I am opposed to it. It's a major mess right now with all that traffic that's coming out of there. And someone said we lived in, we're in a food desert. We're two blocks from New Circle Road. We're not in a food desert. I've been on that corner 35 years. We're actually living in the property. We're not hard up for food. People in subdivisions go out two blocks for food. We actually don't need any more pumps. You go two blocks, long blocks down Meadow Lane. I've got Kroger's, Thornton's, and Chevron. So this has just been a mess. And someone said that it's a neighborhood store. Well, from our perspective of living on that corner, all the neighbors are not, we've had more trouble with that gas station. They're not in compliance with the neighborhood. They just don't consider us at all. I'm not against them having food, but I am against any more gas pumps. and he lit that corner up like daylight at night. And so everybody had to go out and buy shades so we can sleep well at night. It's too much light. Even the gas stations down on New Circle Road near my block, they tone the lights down at night when they close. It's just that I'm not for anybody not having their business. He should work with the neighborhood and I'm for a six-foot fence, whatever way you do it, so we don't have to see all those lights and traffic. It's really not conducive for people walking up and down through there now. That's all I've got to say. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. I think we have Mr. Nickel. Hello, my name is Bruce Nickel at 1604 Bonaire Drive. I'm here in support of Mr. Rayon's extension of his grocery store because I'm a customer. And I've seen the good that it does in the community. And the original development plan came through and showed approved the pumps that were approved. And when the request to add a pump was talked about, the recommendation was to speak with the neighbors and see if you can come to some sort of conclusion on how to meet the neighbor's needs. And my understanding that the neighbor's needs was a six-foot fence, and I thought that that's what they had agreed upon. I don't know what they've agreed upon, but I'm here in support because I think it's a major investment in a community that serves the industrial corridor and the neighborhood corridor. It can solve the problem with multifamily on the corner of the traffic that's coming through. and I think his investment's been appreciated in the community and the service he provides is fabulous. So I'm thankful for them as friends and business owners. So thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? No? Thank you. Staff will allow the applicant to address some of the concerns first and then staff speak. Mr. Murphy. I just want to clarify a couple things. We did have a meeting out in the hallway with Mr. Melody and Ms. Baker before the meeting today. And the discussion was that whether they would be wanting to have a four-foot fence, four-foot tall wall, which would be on the Rayon property, or six-foot tall wall, which would be on their property, as we discussed before. Either way, the Rayons will pay for it. It was just a matter of location, whether it's a foot this way or a foot that way. because if it's six foot tall, they still said they would pay for it, the Rayons would pay for it, but it would need to be inside the property line of the neighboring properties, which I thought was what we had discussed all along. They said clearly they wanted a six-foot wall, needed a six-foot wall. It will be a solid six-foot masonry wall on the property, not a wood fence, but a wall, six-foot wall, masonry wall on the property. It will, there's some concern saying previous fences had been kicked over. We don't think a masonry wall will be kicked over. We think it'll be more permanent. It'll be a better barrier for pedestrians. It will be a better lighting buffer and sound buffer, and it will prevent pedestrians from coming through. As far as lighting goes, Mr. Rand was agreeable to, I think, what Mr. Gross had mentioned about just having the interior lights inside the canopy down on that portion of the canopy, which is the new portion of the canopy on that to meet that requirement. so I think we were in agreement with what we discussed with the neighbors on that. It's still a six-foot-tall, solid masonry fence, if we can build it on their side of the property, which I thought we'd agreed to, and at the cost of the rayons. The only portion which would be within four feet tall is perhaps a three-foot long section right adjacent to Loudoun Avenue because you can't have a six-foot wall within three feet of the edge of the right-of-way. So it would be six feet tall the entire way except for the last three feet adjacent to Loudoun Avenue on that. So, again, I know not everybody in the neighborhood goes to this store, but it's important to the people who do go to the store. They have a real solid following there. And from being there a number of times, I know it's something that is really appreciated by the people who go there. We're trying to strengthen this store for all purposes, for the owners, for the neighborhood. We think this is a good way to do it. and I think there was no willful violation of the zoning ordinance involved here. Thank you very much, and we'd be pleased to answer any more questions you all might have. When you mentioned a masonry wall, is that a poured concrete wall? Yes. Or is that a concrete block? It's a poured concrete wall. Concrete, okay. And I'm assuming that it will have structural steel rebar in it? Yes, my people are saying yes. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, I spent some time out there across the street to just see the business and get a feel for it. I'd like your opinion about this. It seems like to me in some ways the situation is going to be better than it is now. And so would you express your opinion about that? Because it seems like to me there's some improvements here that may be effective for everyone. Yes, I think the improvements on the development plan will be, number one, have specified pedestrian access points, having a safe way for pedestrians to get in from Loudoun to the building. And as I said, we'd agree with the condition that traffic engineering sign off on this so we have a safe delineated pedestrian access way from Contract Street, the side street, into the side of the building as well. I think the development plan has more organized vehicular access areas as well on the property. So I think it will. Things are a little undefined out there right now on the track. And I think this will define things on the plan and separate pedestrians from vehicles. I was amazed at the business and the traffic and the people who come and go. And it seems like a very viable business. And so I was just wondering if this is going to improve the situation, then I'm not ready to make any kind of statement other than that. I just wanted to just clarify that I'd seen it and I understand what you're saying. Mr. Murphy, I'd like to go back to the sidewalk for just a moment. So whether it's willful or not, it's not been an approved sidewalk. It's not on the plan. I don't know. Maybe this is a legal question. It's not before us. to approve the sidewalk, is it? So any decision that we make here today, do we discount the appearance of the side? I mean... The approval of the sidewalk is not in front of you. It's just that the sidewalk is necessitating the request for a variance. So they are seeking the variance because they have a sidewalk where they would put the landscaping. But the sidewalk should be approved first, correct? Correct. There's no permit to even have the sidewalk there. It's not on the plan. Okay, correct, but that's not in front of you today. Whether or not you grant the variance because there's a sidewalk there is ultimately the question. But we could make a condition that they have to go get their permit. That's what we often will do if somebody's done something without a permit is a condition. They go and seek the permit after the fact and pay the fee and get the permit pulled. We've done that before with driveways and other things where people have done that. Yeah. The reason it's stuck in my head is because last week I wasn't, we're mentioning traffic, and I don't know if we have a representative here, but I wasn't sure that traffic would even approve where it was. Didn't we have some question about if that was even the best location for the sidewalk? I don't know, do we, can we have someone from traffic speak on that, please? yeah i'm a little confused um there was discussion of we discussed with traffic and came they didn't like we should put it there um but i'm not sure where else you'd put it uh yeah joseph edmondson division of traffic engineering i i think uh looking at the site and how it's laid out um it's probably the best location for a sidewalk connection to the building um i think what staff in their in our report or their report as mentioning is just having pedestrians going through the canopy and stuff could create dangerous pedestrian interactions with vehicles and things so i personally i think it's in a okay spot i know it violates the zoning ordinance and that's that's the issue that we're facing here so i'm sorry say the last part about the zoning ordinance just that as far as i'm aware it violates the zoning ordinance um but otherwise if they've gone if they've possibly gone through the the proper approvals. May I have your attention please? May I have your attention please? We are testing the alarm system. Please disregard any alarms. The further notice, once the test is completed, an amount will be made to resume normal operations. Thank you. I would say if they had gone through the proper approvals beforehand and came and got the variances first, that traffic engineer would be approved, would have to be okay with the sidewalk where it is, if that makes sense. So they've gone through the proper channels first. No, that's right. I mean, that's where you pull a permit to make sure you don't violate our ordinance. They've just done it kind of out of order, I guess. Does that answer your questions okay? It does. Thank you. Other questions? Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Tucker. I have a question. I'm not sure who to address this to, actually. So my concern is the safety of the pedestrians on the sidewalk. And then we're going to talk about taking the light away from the pump that is closest to the sidewalk. And that seems to be an area that is used even after dark. And so I'm just concerned about the safety of the pedestrians if we take away the light. But then I'm concerned for the neighbors if we keep it. And I don't know how to. Well, the light is currently bright right now for all of that space, if you see it at night. Yes, and I'm concerned about that for the neighbors, but I'm also concerned. So it will be brighter and not less bright. If we take it away, that, yes. I understand that. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. Megan? So I don't necessarily have an answer for you, Ms. Tucker, besides confirming that your observations are pretty accurate. A few things I wanted to address, things that were mentioned either by the applicant and Mr. Murphy or by members of the public. First, I just want to clarify that I'm not the only one making decisions for BOA recommendations. We have a whole staff in planning, but then also we bring in staff from other divisions that decide on our recommendations. So I just want to make that clear for the board and for the members of the audience. Second, I just want to address our willful violation kind of assessment with this property. If we could go to the development plan. So this development plan, no, there's not an explicit label on that boundary. But first I just want to point out that Mr. Rayon did sign this plan in July of 2022. As you can see on the right side, the plan was prepared by Barrett Partner Engineers. Thank you. Okay, and then note number seven states that screening and landscaping shall be as required by article 18 of the zoning ordinance. It is unfortunate that the applicant signed this plan and that it was certified when he was not aware that that note was approved and what it understood. or that it was not clearly communicated by the engineers. Like it has been addressed by members of the board and also staff, a permit was not pulled for this sidewalk, and Mr. Rayon was aware of what was approved on this development plan or may not have been aware, but it has been certified and approved. So that is staff's interpretation of this willful violation of the zoning ordinance by installing a sidewalk where there was required landscape buffer area from zone to zone. Now, I'll say in when this plan was certified last year, the ZODA for the Article 18, which brought in this vehicular use area perimeter buffer requirements, those were not a part of their approval. They were not held to those requirements. So their development plan did not have to meet that eight-foot VUA perimeter buffer. But now that they are wanting to add an additional canopy and change the parking lot, they are now required to meet those standards that are now in the zoning ordinance. So I just wanted to cover that. The LBA or the zone-to-zone screening has not changed since last year, but the additional VUA perimeter buffer has been added, and they do have to comply with their new site plan. I believe that is all that I wanted to say. Oh, one last thing. If the applicant did not provide this additional pump, I believe, staff believes that there is sufficient space for them to meet all of their requirements, to meet the zone-to-zone, meet the VUA, and potentially provide a sidewalk. I'm not going to design that for them, but not providing that additional pump could give them the room to meet all of those requirements. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have. Thank you. Does the board have questions of staff at this time? All right. Thank you all. No, thank you. Mr. Murphy. Just wanted to add one thing. My client asked me to tell you that if you want the sidewalk out, they will take it out. They will do that. If that is something that is important on it, they will remove the sidewalk on that. Any further questions, comments, discussion? It's a lot of moving pieces on this one. I personally would like to say I'd like to see some of the greenery there. I mean, the zone-to-zone buffering is important. Without the sidewalk already being in place, it looked like there was a simpler path. they could put up the six foot fence and reduce the buffer to five foot instead of the four the 15 foot so for me that would have been ideal to get both the fence and reduce the buffer to five foot but the sidewalk is there so i don't again this is a statement miss tougher i don't know Ms. Plumlee, yes. My opinion on this one would be in support of the staff in that it is a violation of the zoning ordinance of Article 7. So I think that's a question that we need to deal with. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comment? I wouldn't mind hearing from Harry Clark what your feelings are. Well, thank you. Do you want to share? I've tried to share that, and I have sympathy for a neighborhood business like this, and I think that's a personal opinion. I'm not sure it's based on our application as much as it is that this is a valuable business. And it seemed like to me that the improvements that are going to be made, particularly the fence, makes this a better place. And I know how busy it is because I watched it. And it's cars and trucks and people, pedestrians. And I'm not, it's not my neighborhood necessarily, but it is a viable business. And that's, as I say, I'm expressing a personal opinion. And I think it looks like to me, and I asked Mr. Murphy if indeed it might improve actually what's going on there now. And I think he answered that question in a positive way. So that's my feeling. But again, it's just a personal opinion. Thank you. So Mr. Gross, how are you feeling? You look perplexed. I actually think the proposed improvements, like Harry said, would be a lot better than the existing conditions are right now. And I know there's some technical problems with that, but I think ultimately they would be improvements. it would make the general population as well as the landowner more appropriate. Thank you. Anything further? Yeah, and I'm in the line with you guys regarding the improvements, but the improvements have been approved without these particular items as well. I mean, the extension is going to be done. The additional pumps are already approved except for the one extended canopy, right? Correct. So they've already been granted permission to add two pumps, and now they're asking you if they would be able to do four, right? So I'm not sure what's on site currently. Is it four and two? They're asking for two more. Yes. They call it one because it's one on each side, right? Vehicles, two vehicles, but yes. So without the approval, disapproval, they still move forward with the additional pumps, the extension of the building. That's shown on the development plan. It's shown on the development plan, except they would still be required to get a permit. But the buffering would still be required. Yes, the buffering would be required. All that makes sense? Oh, yeah. I guess my thing is I'm a little disappointed that there's not a fully fleshed out agreement with the neighbors. You know, that's something that could be resolved. You know, evidence applied to the staff that the wall could be built there. I was more pumped about the plan last month than I am this month, just given kind of what we heard today. There would have been a landscape colored rendition of the development plan put up on the screen that clearly showed this was green area and not sidewalk. So I'm not going to go as far as saying it was willful, but that dog won't hunt with me on. And that's the reason why it's not willful. And I don't want to have to, every plan I submit to the planning commission, have to label every single space as green space when that's why we submit a colored plan that shows the differential. Either way, if there is a majority and they want to come up with conditions, I would consider supporting this plan if somebody wants to take the charge on that. So that's kind of my feelings on it is I agree. I think this plan can make things better. I think the way things went around worked great. We've given forgiveness before on plans, but I think the whole part of we're willing to take the sidewalk out. We're not willing, you know, we're willing to put on the neighbors. It seems a little like it's not fully baked, which is why I'd hoped when we did the continuance last month. We would come in with like, here's exactly what we're doing. Six foot masonry, it's going to be X, it's going to be here. Neighbors are on board, but now the neighbors showed up and they're on board. So I don't know. We could vote. We could do another continuance. I'm not sure if that would help. I'm a little frustrated with it. That's where I am. So I could vote for support if the conditions were set right. But I don't want to take the lead on that at this point. Yeah. Ms. Plumlee would like to make a motion? Yeah, I think I'm going to go for disapproval at this point and we can move forward from that. Regarding PLN BOA 2383, Joe Ryan, an amended application to request variances, to reduce the required setback of a gasoline pump to a residential zone from 50 feet to 25 feet, We reduce the minimum required property parameter landscaping buffer for business zone adjoining a residential zone from 15 feet to zero feet. And reduce the minimum required vehicular use area parameter buffer from eight feet to zero feet in order to provide an additional gasoline pump in a highway service business on property located at 705 East Loudon. And I move disapproval because of the staff's three reasons. Thank you. Ms. Tucker has seconded, but just for clarification, you were requesting disapproval or moving for disapproval for all three of the variances? Number one, two, and three. I was going to do the landscape separate. Okay, no, that's fine. No, no, I was just double checking. We can move them all together. Okay. Let's go all together then. Okay. And with the landscape variance there, we'll also be free for disapproval by the staff. Thank you. And Ms. Tucker, does your second stand? Can I make a comment before we vote? Yes, please. I think the overall plan, like we said, is an improvement of what exists there now. It just seems to be there's too many moving parts that just have not been solidified at this point, which makes voting for this difficult. Can I clarify something? I'm sorry. On Ms. Plumlee's motion, I didn't hear all the findings that were read for the variances number two and three. They are different. Did I mishear? She said that, yeah. Provided by staff. Oh, okay. I didn't hear her. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry. Does it look comfortable? Okay. Okay, any further discussion? That we'll take a vote, see where we are. Okay. Okay. The motion actually has passed and the disapproval has been upheld. And at this time we'll take a short 10 minute recess. Brett, a quick break. Okay. Yes. Apples getting eyeballs. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Okay, staff is ready. We think we're good? Okay, we'll call back to order. And our last two items are both regarding our newer short term rental ordinances. So what we will do is allow staff to present first just to give us some context and then we'll hear those two cases. All right. Since, like Chair Carter said, since we have a couple short-term rental applications, both of which staff is recommending approval of, I'll just give one presentation which kind of summarizes the regulations and resources related to short-term rentals in Lexington. So first I've got a slide here that summarizes a lot of the regulations pertaining to short-term rentals. First, these new regulations were adopted by council this summer on July 11, 2023. Short-term rentals that were legally operating before this date can be grandfathered in and may not require a conditional use permit. They would only need to contact the Division of Planning for a zoning compliance permit, and then, of course, proceed with their registration with the Division of Revenue. As of today, I got an updated number from our planner who's been processing those zoning compliance permits. We have processed 566 zoning compliance permits of those pre-existing short-term rentals. The ones that were in operation before July 11th have only six months since the adoption of these regulations in order to be considered grandfathered in. So later this week on January 11th, any short term rental after that will, if their zoning requires it, will need a conditional use permit and then proceed with the division of revenue registration. short-term rentals, even those that were pre-existing with occupancies greater than 12, do require a conditional use permit to operate at that higher occupancy. If they are 12 or less, they may not require a conditional use permit and may only need the zoning compliance permit. According to AirDNA, which is kind of a third-party website, they pull all of the listings from VRBO and Airbnb. That website states that there are about 1,200 short-term rentals currently operating in Lexington. Question on point number four. Yes. According to AirDNA, that is pertaining to what time period? Is that up to date? I believe so, yes. Thank you. And you'll see in bullet point number five, I didn't update it, but we have now processed 566 zoning compliance permits there. Within the Code of Ordinances, so there are regulations both in the Zoning Ordinance and within the Code of Ordinance. In Section 13 of the Code of Ordinance, this is where these additional regulations for short-term rentals live. These are related to the business licensing and permitting, which is what the Division of Revenue is dealing with. And then the last bullet point here is from the Zoning Ordinance and states that short-term rentals shall not be utilized for private events such as weddings or parties in which the number of participants exceeds the maximum occupancy limit. So if a short-term rental was approved for eight people, they can have eight people there, up to eight people there. No private events shall occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., which are our noise ordinance hours, and that special events for a commercial purpose shall be prohibited at all times. So this is where you're either selling tickets for someone to come to an event, and those are prohibited at all times. Next, this is the AirDNA website that I referenced earlier. These individual purple dots represent those currently 1,200 operating short-term rentals. The websites, both AirDNA, Airbnb, and Vrbo, do not share the specific address associated with the listing due to proprietary information. So these dots are in the general location of those short term rentals, but not in the exact location. The next few slides cover the zoning ordinance regulations pertaining to short term rentals. The first two bullet points here are definitions within Article 1-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. First, that a short-term rental is the commercial use of a dwelling unit rented for 30 days or less. And the second bullet point here states that an unhosted short-term rental is where a primary resident does not occupy the property during the time of its rental, whereas a hosted short-term rental has someone present either on the site or in a dwelling unit on that property that acts as that primary resident. The term primary resident is defined in the Code of Ordinances and is regulated by, it's checked when the short-term rental registers with the Division of Revenue. These next two bullet points are within Article 313, which is kind of the main house for short-term rental regulations within the zoning ordinance. The first one states that the board shall establish a maximum occupancy for each short-term rental that they review. A general calculation is that a maximum of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional four individuals, or up to a total of 12 individuals, can be approved by the board. The board can increase the allowable occupancy when there's sufficient evidence that a greater occupancy will not result in overcrowding or create a nuisance. This next bullet point highlights four things that the board needs to consider when reviewing short-term rental conditional use applications. First, they need to look at the number of short-term rentals in the proximity of the property. Second, the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant of that short-term rental, especially if they operate other short-term rentals in Lexington. The third, that the board assessed the occupancy rate of other short-term rentals in the vicinity, including those operated by the applicant. So we're looking at general impact and kind of assessment of the overall impact of short-term rentals in the general area. And then the fourth one, whether or not other short-term rentals in the vicinity have been cited as a nuisance, including those operated by the applicant. So this is just further to allow the board to assess whether or not short-term rentals are a nuisance in certain areas. And then my last slide here, this is from Article 313 in the zoning ordinance. This is the zoning breakdown and the level of approval needed for short-term rentals by their zone. So for example, this first column here is our single family residential zones. If it's hosted, so someone, a primary resident is on the property at the time, the occupancy is allowed up to 12 people, and that does include the people who are hosting the short-term rental. Hosted with occupancies greater than 12 require conditional use, while unhosted do require conditional use. Another column, just for example, is down here in the business P1, which is our professional office zone, and then the MU zones, which are mixed use zones. Here we go. Hey Megan, before you change, can you go back to that? This hasn't come up and it wouldn't come up since it's not a conditional use, but on the B1, P1, etc., it says 25% max. Is that 25% square foot or how's that? 25% of units. So this last column here is the number of allowable units on a property. So if it had four units total, three would have to be professional or business, and one could be an ADU. Is that right? It would be a short-term rental. That's what I meant. Yeah, short-term rental. It is only out of the number of dwelling units. So if they had four dwelling units in a B1, say, above a business, then three of those would have to be used as long-term dwelling units, and one could be used as a short-term rental. It would not take into account the business use that was also occurring. So if it had a business with an apartment above only one apartment, you could not use it as a short-term rental? Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's it. So, yes, for example, hosted or whether the occupancy is 12 or greater, it would be considered an accessory use in these zones or an unhosted use is allowed to be a principal use, so they're allowed by right. That last column, like Autumn kind of just said, that's the number of allowable short-term rentals in assessment of all the dwelling units on a property. So in the single family, you're allowed to have one dwelling unit and one AD. if it's hosted or if it's unhosted, you're allowed to have one dwelling unit or one ADU. And then, like Mr. Gross had pointed out, there are some percentage requirements here. So in the higher residential zones for multifamily or group residential lots, there's a maximum of 10% of all dwelling units or one, whichever is greater. Those are allowed to be short-term rentals, where in the B1, those are the 25% of all dwelling units are allowed. I've got a question. Sure. In the zones allowed in the R1 zones at the top left, where you've got hosted occupancy up to 12, what is the verification process for the hosts? So when a short-term rental registers with the Division of Revenue, They sign forms stating that they'll be hosted and then they have to actually register a primary resident or have on record a primary resident. So that is the formal documentation of a unit being hosted because there is someone there as a primary resident. But is that basically on the honor system? There are certain documents that they have to provide to verify that they are in fact a resident, that they do live there full time. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Thank you. Yep. And I do have additional materials for the individual presentations, but I can bring those up if there are questions from the board or the public. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. So the first item is PLN BOA 23-99 Bowman's Traveler. If the applicants will come Ford, please. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you could please state your name for the record. Timothy J. Rice. Thank you. Thank you. If you would like to tell us a little bit about the project. project was my mother, my wife's, her mom's home for since the 60s and she passed away in July. We live in Naples, Florida. I'm fixing to retire. I sure hope so. I was going to use it as my summer home and my wife thought, well, why don't we try to Airbnb it? We had fixed it up it's a very charming home it's it's been regutted and we've gone through all the stuff that the county has asked for I said well I might as well follow up with it but I do have I have family members that will want to rent it but I would like to try to recoup some of my money back by renting it it's in a nice neighborhood big yard even allowed dogs and I was I have a rental agency that was supposed to represent me today but I came myself I flew up to do this she heard herself so I'm just just have a nice little house I was just gonna rent it out I have zero intentions to have it eight people in this house it's not big enough for that. And I probably will rent it out mostly to my friends, the horse people I know, and stuff like that. But I've come this far, I thought I'd finish up and get your blessing and hear if anybody has any arguments about it. That's all. Thank you. Does the Board have questions of the applicant? Okay. If you'll take a seat for a moment, what we'll do is we'll open for public comment. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. So if you would like to speak either for or against this particular item, if you could please line up over here behind the podium. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Meredith Cave. I'm here on behalf of Margaret Edwards. I appreciate y'all being here and giving me time to speak to you today. I want to draw your attention to some of the issues that we have with this application. I think first and foremost, we need to have some clarity on who's making this application. What you'll notice is that the conditional use application was made in the incorrect name. It was made in the name of Jane Rice. However, Jane Rice does not own the property. The property was conveyed to Jane Rice and her husband, Timothy Rice, who you just heard from, in October of 2023 to Bowman Travelers LLC, which is a Florida limited liability company, by virtue of deed, book 4041, page 277 of Record with the Fayette County Clerk. So you have a procedural hurdle, first and foremost. Bowman's Travelers has not made an application. Ms. Rice made an application, and she's not here today. Next, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that Ms. Rice lists on her application that she is a resident of Florida. Bowman's Travelers LLC is not a Kentucky LLC, but is in fact a foreign LLC doing business out of Florida, which is important for your consideration due to the definition of an unhosted short-term rental. To meet the definition of an unhosted short-term rental, the property must be a, quote, short-term rental in which a primary resident, as defined in Section 1376 of the Code of Ordinances, does not occupy the property during the short-term rental period. 1376G, which is where we find the definition of a primary resident, defines primary resident as three things. One, it can be the owner of the short-term rental, which in this case would be Bowman's Travelers LLC. Two, it can be the operator of the short-term rental. Or three, it can be an individual who's otherwise consents to be the agent of the owner or operator for the purposes of this article. So all three of these options, you have owner, operator, or agent, must have their primary residence as the dwelling unit utilized as a short-term rental or another dwelling unit on the subject property, which is not the case that you have here. Neither Mrs. Rice, Mr. Rice, nor Bowman's Travelers, LLC have their primary residence as the dwelling unit utilized as the short-term rental or another dwelling on the subject property because they are both residents of Florida and have their primary residences there. The application states that the property will be managed by a real estate company, which is in direct conflict with the ordinance as written because the real estate company is not the owner, operator, or agent whose primary residence is the dwelling unit, as we've discussed. So, the intent of this ordinance, and I know it's new because you heard an update on how this is supposed to work, right? So the intent of this ordinance, which defines the term unhosted short-term rental, the purpose of it is to allow residents to rent out their own homes for a short period of time. That purpose isn't being accomplished when your owners and hosts are out of state. May I continue or may I briefly sum up and finish? Thank you. So here the owner, Bowman's Travelers LLC, is not serving the intent of the ordinance by being a Florida LLC. 1650 Travelers Road in Lexington, the application states that the property has been transferred into the LLC for business purposes, but as of my search this morning, that property has not been transferred. Bowman's Travelers LLC is not registered to do business in Kentucky, so I think that's another hurdle that your applicants are facing. Moreover, this application seeks to use the property as an Airbnb, but as of a search this morning it's also listed on Zillow, Trulia, and Realtor.com. And I don't think that that was taken into consideration by the staff when they made their recommendation. So in summary, you've got some procedural hurdles here, and because this is one of our first times meeting one of these unhosted short-term rentals, I think it's important that those procedural issues are taken into serious consideration when these applications are being made. It doesn't meet the definition of a short-term rental, and we would request that this application be denied. You're going to hear from the friend behind me. He's going to present you a letter from Trigg Bowman to Mayor Gordon outlining objections the HOA has, and he also is going to present to you a petition signed by many of the neighbors objecting. So thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi, my name is Paul Harrell. I'm the neighbor across the street. Great. And I do believe we have received the letter from Trigg Bowman. I do. We have a copy of it. You all have a copy? Okay. Yeah, we have it. We do. Yeah. All right, so I'm the neighbor across the street. And so I kind of canvassed the neighbors in close proximity to this and basically have 12 signatures of those folks who are opposed to this for all sorts of reasons. Now I have my own reason. This cannot be good for the property values. It is certainly not an advantage to have this, right? because it's unhosted. You don't know who's going to be there. You're going to wake up every morning and there could be a different person in that place. And fundamentally, I think it's sort of chipping away at the value of our little neighborhood. So, you know, there's a group of young folks and there's a group of old folks. So I'm one of the older folks. So if I pass my house on to my kid, right, and he says, oh, man, this is a money-making deal. I'm going to go ahead and do this too. So it's just going to propagate. It's like a weed. It's going to end up looking like State Street or Waller Avenue or one of those guys where all of these houses have been converted from a single home kind of atmosphere to this whatever it is. The other issue is what happens when problems sort of exist? Who do I call? You know, it's 11 o'clock at night. You know during Keeneland, these guys are having six martinis. They're coming back. They got this place rented for the weekend. You know what it's going to look like. I guarantee it. You know, I've rented houses my whole life, and you think all these regulations and things that people sign or whatever, people are going to live by that. Hell no, they're not. You're going to have, there's going to be six guys in there, or potentially, and one of them's got a bud. He says, well, come on in, we'll split up the rent. You're just not going to know. And anyway, and then if a problem exists, who do I call? Do I call the police? Do I call Florida? Who do I call? It's just a pain. And the last thing of it is, if I, so the house, there's this little community that we have. There's older folks and there's younger folks, and younger folks have bought their houses, right? So the house next door to them has a younger couple with two kids, probably six and eight. They're going to wake up every day of the morning with their kids out in the backyard playing, not knowing who in the hell is next to them, right? And it's unhosted. Now, I don't have any problem with renting it. Hell, I rent houses myself. But I do have a problem, and I don't have any problems with one of those dots up there that says somebody is renting out a couple rooms in their house. They're there. They're watching it, you know. I watch every house that I rent. In this case, who is watching it? And it just seems ... Anyway, it's ... So if you put yourself in the house next to them and you have two young kids, every morning you wake up, you've got no clue who is going to be next to you. If your kids are playing in the backyard and this guy has dogs back there, what the hell? It just seems like they are. Thank you, sir. Did you have a petition as well? Did you want to submit that for evidence, the signed names? My position is I'm certainly opposed. Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you for your time. And oh, by the way, if I can ask you all a quick question, I just thought about this when I was walking up. How many of you all would like to have an unhosted rental next to your house? I mean, I'll bet you a dime to a daggone dollar that none of you all would raise your hand and say, I want that. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any further public comment? Would the applicant like to address anything in particular? Sure. Thank you. Thanks for your time. One, I did not know what I was getting into when my wife said come up here. I do have a legitimate leasing company. Been here a while. an agent that's on call. My intentions are not to do that. I've just spent over $100,000 on this piece of property. And I'm not going to have just turned down a rental because he had two dogs and didn't want to pay a pet deposit. So I'm very particular to who this house is going to get rented to. If I even rent the house now, I have no intentions of putting someone in there that, you know, I'm not a mind reader, nor is the other people, but they do background checks on these people that rent these homes. So I'm not going to have someone in there that's going to tear it up. It can hold up to 12 people. I don't want any more than four in there. So whether this gentleman is what he says, that's fine, but I have spent a lot of money and my other options is I'll keep it or rent it to my friends or I'll just put it up for sale. But I think that's who do you want one living next to you. People got to live somewhere. Lexington's a beautiful place to come. I was born and raised here. I still come back. There are a lot of people that would like that. The Keeneland folks, what if they have a cocktail? a big deal. There's a bourbon trail. There's all sorts of things that attract people here. So there's traveling nurses, traveling doctors. So I just didn't like the idea that I was put out that I was going to rent this to an animal, which I had no intentions of doing. It's a brand new home. I don't, you know, I'm not going to just here have at it. So If you approve it, that's fine. If not, we'll go to plan B and I'll work with you the best way I can. So that's all I know what to say. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Does the staff want to say anything in addition? I know we already have recommended approval. I just had a few clarification points. First, I believe Ms. Cave stated some of the defined requirements for what a primary resident should be within the Code of Ordinances. The primary resident only applies to hosted short-term rentals, and this application is for an unhosted short-term rental, so I just wanted to clarify that before the board. Also, staff does have a copy of the deed with Bowman's Travelers LLC listed as the current owner for the property. registering as a business will happen in conjunction with the short-term rental registration because they will register as a business in association with that short-term rental. So I wanted to clarify that that may yet to be done. Regarding calling in complaints with noise or parties, those complaints can be made to the police, while if there are complaints about occupancy, those can be made to the Division of Building Inspection, and they'll work with the Division of Revenue to confirm what they're allowed to operate as. I believe the applicant stated, and I just want to be clear, that they do have a local management company who would be managing the short-term rental for them if they do rent it and they are out of town. Does the board have any questions for staff at this time? No questions? Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you all. Do we have any further discussion? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would thank the neighbors for their opinion today on this. And my thoughts are a little bit on the other side in that it's very common today around town and around the whole country that lack a scarcity of affordable housing. And if one were to check realtor.com for Lexington, the median price for a household in November, December was $315,000. In short review, I think this house, the last sale was probably 324, a little bit over that. But what I'm, my point is, is that we're taking a very viable house away from affordable housing and putting it into a business. And so that would be my opposition to this application. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Clark? Well, I have to speak on this. Every comment that you made, sir, I agree with. I absolutely agree with it. But there are 1,200 of these things in town that we have approved in some way or another, either because they already existed or because they've grandfathered in. And I will say that with some deep discussion with council members, I do realize that there are problems. And the answer to your question, no, I would not want these beside me. But on the other hand, the law does not prevent this. The law gives us the opportunity to do this. As a matter of fact, invites us to do this. And I think that's the problem with the law as it's been adopted. I've spent quite a bit of time on this. It is very difficult sometimes to approve these things knowing how the neighbors feel. I feel that very deeply, but I also feel very deeply that the law is not written quite right. The council has given us permission to do this. They've given us a lot of flexibility. They admit that on purpose. given us the flexibility and I am not convinced that the Board of Adjustment has the right to make those kind of decisions based on a flexibility with nothing or nothing that is in writing that says you can deny this because and there's nothing there. There's nothing there flexibility with nothing so i i feel like i have to follow the ordinance and i've done that pretty consistently and i i feel i feel badly about that because we need more in here that gives us some reasons to deny and we don't have it and the my conversation with council has made that very clear we just don't have it i know that the council is going to come back to this at some point and make some adjustments i know they are and but until that happens i'm just i have a hard time denying something where i have no reason to deny other than my own opinions and your opinions thank you could i say something real quickly no i'm sorry public comments closed at this time the board's in discussion do we have further comment from the board And I agree with this, and I would just like to mention I did have some pause because of the, this is one of the first ones we've had where the owners were not local. So just in regards to having a leasing company or a real estate company that's representing you, it seems to me the successful short-term rentals have a good relationship and contact with the neighbors. They do have phone numbers. They do have noise motion detectors in place, cameras in place, so that the successful ones that I have seen before us actually go that extra step in assuring that that happens, and particularly with you being out of state, that would be important. That is all in place by the way, securing cameras front and back and windows. Thank you. Thank you. All righty. At this time I'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Madam Chair, regarding PLNBOA 2399 Bowman's Traveler, request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short term rental in a single family residential r1b zone on property located at sixteen fifty traveler road i recommend disapproval because of the adverse impact on lexington affordable housing situation in this particular neighbor and mr tucker has second in further discussion i will still say i agree with the helming unit being taken out in vitória will disagree with the affordability option of it this house would be well over there affordable attitude description if it does go on the market No further discussion. We are open for vote. Okay, the motion for disapproval has failed. Do we have an alternative motion? Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN BOA 23-99 Bowman's Traveler request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single family residential zone on property located at 1650 Travel Road, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. And Mr. Walker has seconded it. We'll open for vote. The motion has passed. Thank you, sir. Okay, so our last item is PLNBOA 23-102, Kudid and Suat Abul. If the applicant can come forward, please. Good afternoon, my name is Suat Gellaini. So we, back in 2017, were looking for a home. I have four kids. My husband and I live in Ashland, Kentucky, and we decided the kids were going to Kentucky, UK, state school. So we looked for a home to have them all together where I can also come and visit anytime they were homesick. We fell in love with the community. There was this home that was on the market for over six months, and so we went ahead and purchased it. My husband's employed by the University of Kentucky King's Daughters Medical Center, so he's a physician there. I know someone sent in a letter that they were disappointed that we bought a home for our kids to go to school there. Those kids, they speak of, one of them's actually right now doing residency in general surgery in Cleveland, and he married his medical school sweetheart, who's also doing her residency in Cleveland. My daughter is right now an M1, a medical student at Columbia University in New York. She also went to University of Kentucky. My other son is a fourth-year medical student at Ohio State University. He's right now in the process of interviewing. I don't know where he's going to be. So I still have one who ended up going to Ohio State pursuing medical school. We'll see. So this has been a blessing, and we love this home. We don't want to sell it. but it would be nice to be able to have someone to come and flush the toilets once in a while, run the water, because I'm not there every week. But once I want to come, I don't want to have it rented for a whole year. I want to be able to come and watch the games. Right now we are in empty nesters. My husband's coming more to the University of Kentucky. So we wanted to have a short-term rental, to be able to have people also have the possibility of renting it for their kids if their kids are homesick or if their kids need them. That's honestly what I was looking for initially for myself. Also, in June, when my son got married, there were no short-term rentals I could rent to have the whole family there to be able to celebrate his wedding and be there together as a family and go to the venue and come back and just be there as a group. plus i think they had the red mile festival in june so every hotel and everything was booked so i had to put my family and hotels further out that's basically where we're at here i am today requesting approval so thank you any questions of the applicant Okay. We'll give the public a moment to comment. And I do have cameras, and I will be getting a noise monitoring system, because this is our home. I don't want someone to come in there. I'm not planning on just making a buck. I'm looking for quality of tenants. I would love for my neighbors to have my phone number, to be my eyes. I don't want to just have anyone in there. It is our home. And I want to be friends with you. Please continue speaking the microphone. Sorry. I just want them to be my neighbors and understand that I'm not there to just make this a business. But 30 days rental is also a business. I just want to have something that we can just help with the mortgage but still have our home. So I'm sorry. I'll step away. Thank you. Thank you. So I have a few people here signed up to speak. If you would line up behind the podium and we'll allow three minutes per person. And as always please state your name first for the record. James Bean. I'm a physician. I'm retired. I live on Eldemere Road. That's one of the streets in Montclair. I've lived there for 40, almost 40 years. And in the 10 years before that, I lived in rental houses there and I've owned a house also in Montclair neighborhood for 20 years, which I let my kids use and then we let out to a medical student. I know all about it and I have great sympathy with the applicant. I stand in opposition and I regret to say it to the applicant, but I oppose it because of two effects. The first one you've already heard about, what kind of renters may show up, no matter what the rules are. What worries people in my neighborhood are the gunshots that went down on Windermere, a mile from us, in a short-term rental. We're worried about that. It may not happen here, but what does tend to happen is if you have one, then there tend to be more added. turns out to be a good business proposition. And there is a study that I sent to you last night, so you will not have had a chance to see it, but it is a study from Boston that shows in those neighborhoods where Airbnb proliferated, penetrated over the past seven to eight years, crime simultaneously proliferated. Now there may be other reasons of course, it's not lock proof, but it seems to indicate that it's not just who the renters are, but what the future is. We live in a wonderful neighborhood. I've lived there for nearly 50 years. We don't want to see it change, so it's more of a sentimental thing. It's not a law. It's not a legal issue to me. It's a heartfelt thing. I don't want to see our community change and the changes that may come as additional units are added. I know we're behind the eight ball. Over a thousand units in Lexington already. I had no idea. And if you look on the internet at the expansion of Airbnb and Vrbo, it's going sky high. So maybe I'm swimming against the tide, but I ask for you to consider to reject this application. Thank you. Thank you. Thomas Badgett. Okay. Thank you, first of all, for giving me a much-needed civics lesson. I haven't been in a room like this for a long time. As a property owner on Scoville Road since 1974, for. We are deeply invested in the neighborhood and the sense of community that we've helped develop there for over 50 years. We raised our family on Scoville Road and watched our son and his family do the same. We are currently renovating the property to move back because we recognized 50 years ago that it's an ideal location to spend our retirement years. Scoville is a safe, family-friendly, convenient location where we plan to frequently host our grandchildren and someday their families. There are many arguments against short-term rentals invading a well-established residency neighborhood. Number one, disruption of the community atmosphere. Short term rentals can lead to a higher turnover of guests, disrupting the sense of community. Regularly changing occupants may prevent neighbors from forming long term connections and fostering a stable neighborhood. Noise and disturbances. Short term rentals, and by the way, we've seen that because Scola Road is a place where Students like to come in group. It doesn't happen much anymore, but in the past. Short-term rentals may be less invested in maintaining the peaceful environment, and it leads to increased noise and disturbance. Frequent parties, loud gatherings, or unfamiliar guests can be a disruptive atmosphere for the permanent residents. We have security concerns. Short-term rentals can pose security risks as the transient nature of guests makes it difficult for neighbors to know who belongs and who does not belong. The impact on housing affordability, which has already been mentioned this afternoon, the rise of short-term rentals can contribute to a decrease in available long-term rental housing stock, potentially driving up rental prices and limiting housing options for permanent residents. Investors may prioritize renting properties on a short-term basis, thereby reducing the supply of homes for local residents. There is a strain on local services, an influx of short-term renters may place a strain on local services such as parking, waste management, and public infrastructure. Communities may find it a challenge to accommodate the increased demand for services for a transient population. is a loss of sense of ownership, short term renters may not have the same sense of pride and ownership as permanent residents. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Do I wait? Do I leave? Hi, my name is Ellen Gish and I live across the street on Scoville from the house that is the subject of this discussion. My husband, Ken Gish, submitted a letter last week. Did you receive that via email? And anyway, I will highlight the points in that letter. First of all, I think very importantly because of the issues that have been raised, the regulations that were cited earlier require the staff to consider both the number and proximity of existing short-term rentals in the neighborhood. And our, now, this location, as you probably know, is right at the intersection of, we're at Scoville and Cooper. We're right near the University of Kentucky campus. It is a big area for football games and all that sort of thing. There are, according to our research of looking on Airbnb, there's already five short-term rentals within a quarter mile of the subject property. So I am concerned that we are going to see a concentration of short-term rentals occurring, that we are seeing it. I know there's one right on Cooper, and I've discussed with a neighbor that she's having the issues that we fear, which are that folks rent it for a big football party and it's late at night and there's noise, and she's lived here for 23 years and now she wants to move. I live across the street. I have two young children. They attend the public schools. I pay local taxes. I don't have time to monitor this. I can give you my phone number, but I don't have time at 11 o'clock at night to be calling in noise complaints. I'm not interested in doing that. I am concerned that these will be here for the purpose. You're going to have people coming for football games in Keeneland and they're going to want to celebrate and they're not invested in the neighborhood like we are. There are lots of folks that do, you know, this is a really special neighborhood. You can walk to UK and I see faculty, students, I work at UK, faculty and students are able to buy a house in this neighborhood or rent long term, rent for the semester, walk to class, you don't have to have a car, you can walk to Kroger. So we're taking a house off the market that has, as the applicants indicated, been used very successfully for graduate student rentals. The folks on one side of me rent their faculty members at UK with young children. others. So, you know, I really am concerned that this type of use is going to become a concentration in our area and have an adverse impact on our community, and I have at least anecdotally know that it already is becoming a problem from the one neighbor I've spoken with. So I object to this. The New York Times recently printed an article on 12-18-23 how college football is clobbering housing markets across the country, and it's talking about just the scenario where an out-of-town commercial investor is buying out property, driving up the prices, because they can charge thousands of dollars, thousands, for a weekend rental for folks to come and watch the college football game. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your comment. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Dabney Parker, and I live at 1225 Scoville Road, which is across the street as well from this unit. I've only been there 37 years, so I'm a newcomer, according to our other neighbor that spoke. And some of this is what you've heard, but these are things that I have thought about, and I think short-term rentals tend to destabilize a neighborhood, and they hollow out the community. We already have two empty homes on the street and an empty lot, and we don't know where those are going to go. Montclair, as you've heard, is a very family-oriented established neighborhood. A house that sleeps up to 12 brings concerns to me about the purpose of the visitors. Being close to UK and Keeneland and so forth kind of screams party house to me, not a large family coming to celebrate. This particular application did use the word family about five times to indicate who would be living or renting there, but I'm sure that's not anything that could be enforced. To my knowledge, the owners have not actually lived there. They visited their children there, but I wouldn't think it was their home at this point, but that's just my opinion. Safety concerns have already been mentioned from the incident on Windermere. And we're not opposed to students and young people living there. We have long-term student rentals with graduate. I've had graduate students two doors down for years, and they're wonderful neighbors. And, well, I don't think it's healthy for neighborhoods. I think we have, I know it's a growing trend and there are enough in our particular area as has been mentioned. I do think what Harry said about the flexibility that the council has given you needs to be looked at some more. And I know it's a new area for all of us. But I think that the urban county government needs to proceed very carefully in the regulation of the short-term rentals to maintain healthy, stable neighborhoods in Fayette County. Thank you. Thank you. All right. My name is Mike Fetterspiel. I live at 1219 Castle Road, and I'm back up, or I'm catty-corner to this address. First off, thank you guys for allowing us to come up here and give you our opinions. I want to start off by saying that I want the board to consider rejecting this motion. The reason is I actually am a former police officer from here in Lexington. I've seen firsthand how large short-term rentals can deteriorate a neighborhood. Many times, you know, everybody can have the best intentions to rent to the right people, but you never know who's going to show up, right? And so police officers, you know, we mentioned that they can regulate who shows up or if there's an issue that they can respond to it. Well, a lot of times these calls come in as noise disturbance, right? Well, noise disturbances are very low priority. So it takes a while for police officers to get there. And as you can tell, Windermere was mentioned, that incident, and police were on scene at the time that that shooting occurred. Right? So you can tell that these incidences and large gathering people can go bad really quickly, and we want to avoid that for our neighborhood. Additionally, you know, I walk by this house every night, and the driveway is shared with their neighbors. I mean, it's wide enough for, you know, two properties, but it's still the same driveway. I do get concerned about, you know, 12 people, you know, if they have friends over and then parking becomes an issue. It's already packed on game days, which was probably what the primary use of this residence would be. Also, you know, during the week, if it is a long-term, like a week-long rental, is that it's resident-only parking on the street. So where are these other guests going to go? And as you can tell, our neighborhood is not a transit neighborhood. We've got several people up here speaking. Our neighbors know each other. They want to protect our neighborhood. And no one wants guests that just come in town for a couple days and party for a weekend, right? Everybody wants to know their neighbors. So thank you all for your time. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Caroline Feddersfield, and I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to give me my opinion. I grew up in the Mount Claire area, and I own property there, and I have two children who live right there in the neighborhood, Mike being one of them. To have a short-term rental so close to the university and the football field is an invitation for a neighborhood disruption. The property is designed to have large gatherings. It would be impossible for the out-of-town owner or his property manager to supervise who and how many people enter the house. This has been an issue for other large short-term rentals and Scoville would not be an exception. As other people have said, we should remind everybody of Windermere. Parking is a crucial problem. Scoville is permit parking only on the weekdays. I don't think that Mike said something about that, but it is only permit parking. The owner said in the application that there would be two spots in the garage, three spots in the driveway, and two spots in the backyard. Now if I was renting and I had my car in the backyard and the narrow driveway is blocked, I would not be happy. That is a huge concern. And I didn't really realize that backyards are a place to park. To allow a large short-term rental on Scoville could be the beginning of changing the character of the neighborhood that the neighborhood association has worked so hard to maintain. My question to you, like the other gentleman said, if you had a large short-term rental on your street where you were raising your families, would you be happy? If that's not the case, then I would like you to vote no on this. Thank you. Any other public comment? I'd like to give the applicant an opportunity to respond. This is how it spans. If you just want to rotate, this is how the driveway they're talking. Are you okay? We'll have to keep these. One by two. That's fine. Sorry, they're not very good. I'll give them a tell. Hi. Sorry. So just to address the parking, so this is a view of the house from the, looking at the house from the back. is you can see my car, which is a huge extended SUV. It's parked on the right side or on the left side. So there's ample parking still, and then there's a two-car garage in front of that, if you want to show them the... So this is looking now towards the other side, and there's a six-foot wooden privacy fence all around the property in the back. And this is showing you just the neighbor on the... There's no one actually in that house either. But that's showing you how it's enclosed. And if there's any other pictures. This is the driveway he's talking about between us and the neighbors. So she's to the left, I'm to the right. And my kids live there, I've visited, my husband has a F-150 truck. We've all managed, you live there. If they're renting, they figure out who's going to move their car back so the other one can move out. And my neighbor and I have this agreement where we just use one another's, so that if my car's parked, her renters just come through my driveway in between their other car that she has because she rents two houses. And then they just go on to their driveway. We have no issues. So we've worked it out. I have never had an issue. To talk about community, someone sent a letter saying that they don't even know who Barbara Antel is. She's my neighbor, she's had the house to my right. From before we bought, she is from the area and her mother lived on Cooper, her father on Henry Clay, her sister lives in town, but no one knows of her. So I've managed it remotely well for five years with three college students, undergrads, two dogs and a cat. I'm not planning on having renters bring their animals because it's too much work. There are cameras front and back, Noise monitoring devices, alarm system. There will be rules for the renters because again, I am protecting my own home, my own investment. I do not want the investment property to go down because it's bad for me as well, not just for my neighbors. There will be no parties per the rules. And I have someone locally who is available to help me. As they can tell, I live in Ashland, but the home's always looked perfect. yards always been kept up, so there's not been any complaint about that. And I will be present more often to monitor and to hand over if I'm doing this short-term rental. Let's see. And I do not expect 12 cars, and I do not want to rent to 12 people, but I'm just, per the rules, I just went with, like the other gentleman said, might as well. They complain about street parking, too much traffic on game days. Whether this is a short term rental or not, that's going to continue to be an issue because we are just the street right before Kroger Field. Everyone tries to come and find parking on our street. They even walk right through Scoville. Maybe there should be a no pass zone, I don't know. They just walk through Scoville, all by our properties to go through a, I'm not sure there's like a shortcut to Kroger Field from our own property, from the residential properties. They just walked right through there. And there are people on our street that are selling parking for $40 a car. They have about 40 cars in their backyard. I'm not sure why that's not a reason for more traffic in our street. No one complains about that. So loud music. There's nothing I can do about loud music on game days. You're sitting in my backyard and you can hear Kroger Field. You can hear every time they have the horn, and hopefully they'll have more horns. But every time there's a baseball, a football win, and the music is right there, or when band is practicing, there's always music in our backyard because of Kroger Field. We're right there. I'm just, sorry, I'm using the bifocals for the first time, so it's kind of difficult. Let's see. I know Windermere 2023, but unfortunately it's happening also in our private homes, our high schools too frequently, our grocery stores. This is not something that's going to happen just because of a short-term rental. This is something we have to work with politicians, gun control. I don't know. I'm not a politician, nor do I want to be. But my daughter was nearly hit on campus by a parent who was driving while she was biking. My son was thrown off his bike by a bus on campus. So these are not things, things happen. There's always something that's going to happen. I don't know what the difference between a 30 day rental or a three day rental is. They're still like, that's a short term rental. you're having people within 30 days or three days. And I do not think this property is going to be occupied much because it limits who's going to be able to afford or rent this property. I just hope you approve my application and see it from my viewpoint. I want to keep the property because I'm assuming one of my kids might be back working at University of Kentucky. I don't know, but hopefully. And it's not taking off a house of the market because I am not putting it on the market. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do you have any questions for me? Sorry. I think we're fine. It's staff wants to address a couple of points. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I just want to clarify a few things that were said. First the applicant did state that they are going to install security cameras and noise monitors on the property. I did want to say that the code of ordinances has protections built into it in place. If there are subsequent violations, a short-term rental license may be revoked by the Division of Revenue. The code of ordinance details how that would have to happen, but I do want to say that there are built-in protections if there are continual issues with how a short-term rental is operating. I do have up some, we've kind of seen the property now from the street view, but this is a screenshot from the AirDNA website. Our staff report counted about a total of 11 short-term rentals within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The red star there is an approximate location of the subject property. We take 1,000 feet from the west, the north, the east, and the south. So it's not just 1,000 feet diameter, but 2,000 feet. So we did estimate that there are about seven short-term rentals in that thousand foot distance. And I do have a map of the short term rentals that our office has already issued a zoning compliance permit for. Those are the green dots here on the screen. And it looks like there are about four within that thousand foot distance. So I just wanted to share those maps for the board. And I think the applicant has covered the parking situation. They have that two-car garage and then room for at least two cars back behind the fenced part of their driveway, which you can see here. And then they do have some room in their driveway for about three cars to stack. I believe that's all I wanted to mention, but if the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Thank you, Megan. Do we have any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you all. Any further comment? Now I'll entertain a motion. Let me make a couple of comments. I'm going to let my comments stand from the previous application. And I also want to say I understand your concerns. I really do understand. This is a beautiful street, one of my favorite streets at Lexington. And I've looked at the property, which I usually do, and certainly have the same concerns for you that I have for others that have come before us because they have exactly the same objections, which, of course, you do. And I understand that. Also, Ms. Kish, I appreciate you bringing up that article because I read it, and it does present some serious concerns about, well, SEC football primarily. and I shared that with council the two the members that I met with and to give them more information about this kind of thing so anyway and the advocate I'm glad you can hear the band because I have some interest in the band so anyway that's all I was gonna say that it's okay madam chair I am concerned because Because there is permitted parking five days a week on the street and with the adjoining driveway. And I think it's good that you've kind of worked some of that out with your neighbor. I did get in a stacking situation the other day. I was driving down a street and a car whipped out. And so I stopped and then here comes another one and they kept expecting me to back up. And then here comes a person out of a house taking their time, getting into a car. And then we backed up even more so the third person could get out. It didn't bother me because I wasn't in a hurry and I was just kind of interested in what was going on. However, had I lived on that street, and that happened quite often, it would be a problem. So those are the things that I'm kind of concerned about at this point. Thank you. Anything further? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the neighbors also for appearing and certainly I think that you find empathy with this board in your concerns. But as my colleague alluded earlier, we are somewhat restricted by some rules that were imposed earlier by council. I also realize that as you do, that you live in an ND1 neighborhood. And there is a lot of work going towards establishing an ND1 overlay neighborhood. And it's a neighborhood that anyone, it's a holding that anyone would be proud to have. And I think it affects the character of a neighborhood. And while ND1 is mostly architecture, it's also character. And I think you have a neighborhood with an outstanding character that you should be proud of. And I see where you want to protect that. But again, we are restricted by some rules also up here. So thank you for coming again. Appreciate that. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. anything further and if not i will entertain a motion madam chair i recommend approval plnboa 23-99 bowman's uh that's the wrong one nope uh plnboa 23 102 kudu and it's in the blue request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in the neighborhood design character overlay zone in a single family residential zone on property located at 1242 scoville road based on this based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed thank you do i have a second Second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any further discussion? Now we will open for vote. Thank you, the motion is passed. All right. the next item on the agenda is asking the board members have any items they'd like to bring up anything additional does the staff have any additional items today nope all righty well if not our next meeting is in the same location february 12th at 1 30 and i will see everybody then we are adjourned The End Full of chicken and a big cold jug of sweet tea. I make a little room and she climbs on up. Open up a throttle and stir a little dust. Just look at her face. She ain't a fool of me. She thinks my tractor's sexy. It really turns her on. She's always staring at me While I'm chugging along She likes the wind pulling while we're tilling up the land She's even kind of crazy about my farmer's tan She's the only one who really understands what gets me She thinks my tractor's sexy We'll be right back. Hey, it's Bajan Niko, and we are here with your next episode of Your Lex PD. We are here at the new East Sector Roll Call at the intersection of Clearwater Way and Saren Drive. Outstanding facility here, right? Very nice. State of the art. Yes. This month, the holidays are coming up. Yes. Right? So we want to talk about property crimes. And property crimes are something that obviously we experience year-round, but we think a little bit more about it during the holidays just because of opportunities. So today, let's go talk to a couple of our detectives about car break-ins, house break-ins, all these types of things that we don't want you to encounter. And hi, we are back with Lieutenant Barton and Detective McMillian with the Property Crime Section. So we're going to be talking about property crimes today. Can you describe what property crimes are? So property crimes are basically any theft or damage to any of your property that you may own, whether it be your vehicle, your house, your yard, an animal, or anything such as that. So any crime that's committed against the property, not your person. So that's what property crimes are. Okay. All right. Well, let's start with talking about your house, all right? And burglary, obviously, is something we always think about. Your house is your castle, right? We don't want anybody to go in. So are we having, do we see a lot of burglaries in Lexington? No, we have our fair share, of course, just like any other city.