# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - Part 1 - November 14, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 14, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6274 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6274?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-11-14 - **Last revised**: November 14, 2024 - **Length**: 31,500 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on November 14, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Zach Davis presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed five agenda items during the session, with four items receiving approval and one item being tabled for future consideration. The meeting included significant public participation, with 15 public comments heard throughout the proceedings and 14 formal motions and votes taken by the commission members. The commission successfully approved several key development-related matters, including Land Subdivision Items, Development Plans, Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit, and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. The only agenda item that did not receive final action was Postponements and Withdrawals, which was tabled for further review. The meeting demonstrated active civic engagement, with community members providing substantial input on the various planning and zoning matters under consideration by the commission. ## Attendance The meeting on November 14, 2024, had seven members present and four members absent. **Present:** • Zach Davis • Judy Worth • William Wilson • Bruce Nicol • Ivy Barksdale • Frank Penn • Mike Owens **Absent:** • Forester • J. Davis • Michler • Pohl No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission conducted 14 votes during the November 14, 2024 meeting, with most items receiving unanimous approval from all seven members present. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] The commission unanimously approved the September 19, 2024 Special Meeting minutes on a motion by Judy Worth, seconded by William Wilson (7-0). **Development Postponements** Six development projects were unanimously postponed to December 12, 2024: - PLN-MJDP-24-00079: THE MAXWELL (LYNHURST SUBDIVISION), motion by Mike Owens, second by Frank Penn [timestamp: 02:00] - PLN-MJDP-24-00074: HOOVER & FORD PHILPOT EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION PROPERTY, motion by William Wilson, second by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 03:00] - PLN-MJDP-24-00056: RED MILE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, motion by Frank Penn, second by Judy Worth [timestamp: 04:00] - PLN-MJSUB-24-00008: PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 1, PHASE 2, motion by Mike Owens, second by William Wilson [timestamp: 05:00] - PLN-MJSUB-24-00009: PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 2, motion by Mike Owens, second by William Wilson [timestamp: 06:00] - PLN-MJDP-24-00078: FRITZ FARM, TRACT C, motion by Frank Penn, second by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 07:00] - PLN-MJDP-24-00083: GEORGE WEST ESTATE PROPERTY (HOWARD PROPERTY), motion by Judy Worth, second by Frank Penn [timestamp: 10:00] **Approved Projects** The commission unanimously approved several items: - PLN-MJSUB-19-00006: One-year extension for TUSCANY, UNIT 15 preliminary subdivision plan, motion by Frank Penn, second by Bruce Nicol [timestamp: 08:00] - PLN-MJDP-24-00080: ARTHUR E. ABSHIRE PROPERTY (LEXINGTON CUT STONE AND MARBLE CO.) (MIDLAND STATION), motion by Frank Penn, second by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 09:00] - PLN-MNDP-24-00025: ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON, TRACT 1 (CHICK-FIL-A) widening access, motion by Frank Penn, second by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 11:00] - PLN-MNDP-24-00032: WIGGINS & COMPANY (CHICK-FIL-A) drive-thru changes, motion by Mike Owens, second by William Wilson [timestamp: 12:00] - Performance bonds and letters of credit approval, motion by Frank Penn, second by Judy Worth [timestamp: 13:00] **Short-Term Rental Regulations** [timestamp: 14:00] The only non-unanimous vote occurred on PLN-ZOTA-24-00007, approving staff alternative text for short-term rental regulations with a 600-foot buffer. The motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Mike Owens, passed 5-2. Voting in favor: Zach Davis, Judy Worth, William Wilson, Ivy Barksdale, and Mike Owens. Voting against: Bruce Nicol and Frank Penn. ## Public Comment The public comment period focused exclusively on short-term rental regulations, with 15 speakers addressing various aspects of the issue. Several residents expressed concerns about neighborhood impacts and housing availability. Judy Humble raised concerns about short-term rentals' effects on neighborhoods and housing availability [timestamp: 15:00]. John Grimes specifically discussed overconcentration of short-term rentals in the Kenwick neighborhood and called for stricter regulations [timestamp: 16:00]. Trish Smith requested better tools for citizens to access information about short-term rentals in their neighborhoods [timestamp: 17:00]. Multiple speakers voiced support for the Fayette County Neighborhood Council's recommendations. Lynn Flynn expressed support for the council's recommendations [timestamp: 20:00], while Mike Broward supported the recommendations and raised concerns about short-term rentals in Southern Heights [timestamp: 22:00]. Neighborhood-specific concerns were raised by several residents. Keena Coe voiced concerns about impacts on the Harrods Hill neighborhood [timestamp: 21:00]. Patty expressed concerns about affordable housing impacts in the Joyland neighborhood [timestamp: 25:00]. Tom discussed overconcentration issues in Mentelle Park and supported stricter regulations [timestamp: 26:00]. T Bergman raised concerns about the Mitchell Avenue neighborhood [timestamp: 28:00]. Walt Gaffield outlined specific requests for changes to proposed regulations to better protect neighborhoods [timestamp: 18:00]. Terry Lenny argued against including downtown neighborhoods as areas for increased short-term rental activity [timestamp: 23:00]. Some speakers supported short-term rentals. Kayla Preston shared her positive experience as a host and the financial stability it provides [timestamp: 19:00]. Daniel Rogers discussed providing furnished accommodations for professionals [timestamp: 27:00]. Danny Albertson highlighted economic benefits and requested fair treatment for hosts [timestamp: 24:00]. An Airbnb representative argued against using zoning to regulate short-term rentals and suggested alternative approaches [timestamp: 29:00]. ## Contested Items The meeting featured significant community opposition to proposed short-term rental regulations. Multiple speakers voiced concerns about the potential impact these regulations would have on both neighborhood character and local housing availability. Community members who spoke during the public comment period expressed strong opposition to the proposed regulatory framework. The primary concerns centered on how short-term rental operations might affect the residential nature of neighborhoods and whether increased regulation could worsen existing housing shortage issues in the community. The disagreement appeared to involve residents who were concerned about preserving neighborhood stability while also addressing housing availability challenges. Speakers indicated that the proposed regulations could have unintended consequences for the local housing market. *Note: Specific details about the participants, voting outcomes, and exact nature of the proposed regulations were not available in the provided meeting data. Transcript timestamps were not included in the source materials for this contested item.* ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 02:00] Zach Davis presented several agenda items that would be postponed to the December 12, 2024 meeting. Four development projects were moved from the current meeting's schedule: • **THE MAXWELL, HOOVER & FORD PHILPOT EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION PROPERTY** - This item was tabled and will be reconsidered at the December meeting. • **RED MILE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT** - The discussion of this mixed-use development project was postponed to allow for additional review time. • **PATCHEN WILKES UNIT 1 PHASE 2** - The second phase of the first unit of this development was moved to the December agenda. • **PATCHEN WILKES UNIT 2** - The entire second unit of the Patchen Wilkes development was also postponed. No specific reasons were provided in the available materials for why these particular items required postponement. The postponements appear to be procedural in nature, allowing the commission additional time to review the proposals before making decisions. All four items will be taken up during the December 12, 2024 meeting, giving stakeholders and commissioners more time to prepare for discussion and consideration of these development projects. The postponements were presented as a routine administrative matter without apparent controversy or extended debate from commission members. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 08:00] The Subdivision Committee presented their recommendations on various land development plans during this agenda item. Traci Wade served as the key speaker for this discussion. The primary focus of the committee's recommendations centered on the TUSCANY, UNIT 15 preliminary subdivision plan. The committee recommended extending this preliminary subdivision plan for an additional one-year period, allowing the developers more time to move forward with their project. While the extracted data indicates that multiple subdivision plans were reviewed by the committee, the TUSCANY, UNIT 15 extension was specifically highlighted as a significant item requiring board action. The one-year extension suggests that the original approval timeline needed adjustment, which is a common occurrence in subdivision development due to various factors such as market conditions, financing, or construction scheduling. The board approved the Subdivision Committee's recommendations, indicating consensus on the proposed timeline adjustments and other subdivision matters presented. This approval allows the TUSCANY, UNIT 15 development to proceed under the extended preliminary plan approval, providing the necessary regulatory framework for the project to continue moving through the development process. The discussion appears to have proceeded smoothly without significant debate or concerns raised, as evidenced by the successful approval of the committee's recommendations. ## Development Plans The Development Plans agenda item was presented by Traci Wade during the November 14, 2024 meeting [timestamp: 09:00]. The discussion focused on the review and approval of several development proposals. Two primary development plans were considered during this session: • **Arthur E. Abshire Property (Lexington Cut Stone and Marble Co.)** - This development plan involved property associated with the Lexington Cut Stone and Marble Company operations. • **George West Estate Property (Howard Property)** - This proposal concerned development plans for property identified as both the George West Estate and Howard Property. Wade led the presentation of these development plans to the board for consideration. The discussion covered the details and specifications of both proposed developments, though specific details of the presentations, any concerns raised by board members, or public comments were not detailed in the available materials. Following the discussion and review process, both development plans received approval from the board. The approval of these development plans allows the respective projects to move forward in accordance with local development regulations and procedures. The successful approval of both the Arthur E. Abshire Property development and the George West Estate Property development represents progress on these local development initiatives within the jurisdiction. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 13:00] The meeting addressed agenda item VII regarding the approval of performance bonds and letters of credit. Frank Penn served as the key speaker for this discussion item. The agenda item involved the review and approval of performance bonds and letters of credit as presented to the meeting participants. Performance bonds and letters of credit are financial instruments commonly used by government entities to ensure contractors fulfill their obligations and provide security for various municipal projects and agreements. Frank Penn presented the bonds and letters of credit for consideration by the meeting body. The specific details of the individual bonds, their amounts, associated projects, or contractors were not detailed in the available meeting materials. Following Penn's presentation, the meeting participants proceeded with their review of the proposed performance bonds and letters of credit. The discussion resulted in approval of the bonds and letters of credit as presented, indicating that the meeting body found the financial instruments acceptable and appropriate for their intended purposes. The approval of these performance bonds and letters of credit allows the associated projects or agreements to move forward with the required financial security measures in place, ensuring protection for the government entity in case contractors fail to meet their contractual obligations. ## Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments [timestamp: 14:00] The commission considered zoning ordinance text amendments related to short-term rental regulations during agenda item VIII. Daniel Crum presented the discussion on behalf of staff. The primary focus of the amendments involved implementing a staff alternative text that would establish a 600-foot buffer requirement for short-term rental properties. This buffer zone would regulate the proximity between short-term rental units and other properties or land uses within the jurisdiction. The commission reviewed the proposed regulatory framework, which represents staff's recommended approach to managing short-term rental operations through zoning controls. The 600-foot buffer provision appears designed to address spacing and compatibility concerns related to short-term rental properties in residential and mixed-use areas. Following discussion of the proposed text amendments, the commission approved the staff alternative language for the short-term rental regulations, including the 600-foot buffer requirement. The approval moves the zoning ordinance amendments forward in the regulatory process. The text amendments will modify existing zoning regulations to incorporate specific standards for short-term rental operations, providing a regulatory framework for these uses within the community's zoning ordinance. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the September 19, 2024 Special Meeting minutes - **PLN-MJDP-24-00079** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of THE MAXWELL (LYNHURST SUBDIVISION) to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00074** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of HOOVER & FORD PHILPOT EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION PROPERTY to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00056** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of RED MILE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00008** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 1, PHASE 2 to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00009** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 2 to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00078** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of FRITZ FARM, TRACT C to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MJSUB-19-00006** — passed (7-0): Extension of TUSCANY, UNIT 15 preliminary subdivision plan for one year - **PLN-MJDP-24-00080** — passed (7-0): Approval of ARTHUR E. ABSHIRE PROPERTY (LEXINGTON CUT STONE AND MARBLE CO.) (MIDLAND STATION) - **PLN-MJDP-24-00083** — postponed (7-0): Continuation of GEORGE WEST ESTATE PROPERTY (HOWARD PROPERTY) to December 12, 2024 - **PLN-MNDP-24-00025** — passed (7-0): Approval of ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON, TRACT 1 (CHICK-FIL-A) widening access - **PLN-MNDP-24-00032** — passed (7-0): Approval of WIGGINS & COMPANY (CHICK-FIL-A) drive-thru changes - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00007** — passed (5-2): Approval of staff alternative text for short-term rental regulations with 600-foot buffer --- ## Full transcript Lexington Fayette, Urban County Government Planning Commission. First item on the agenda is the approval of the September 19th, 2024, special meeting minutes. Floor is open. Chair, I move for approval of the September 19th, 2024, special meeting minutes. Are we approving two at a time or one? We're just the September 19th. Okay. The October 10th are not complete. okay september 19th 2024 special meeting minutes as submitted thank you commissioner worth that was seconded by commissioner wilson any discussion seeing none we'll put that to a vote all right that carries unanimously thank you at this point without objection we'd like to move a few items on the agenda up just a bit the two staff items a and b pln mdb dp 2425 and pln md mndp 2432 we'd like to move those to the end of the development items i'll make sure i've got that right yes the development plan items so without objection next item on the agenda postponements and withdrawals mr woodall ladies and gentlemen the commission john woodall on behalf of the applicant and plan number mjdp 24 00079 the maxwell lynnhurst subdivision like to ask for a postponement of 30 days we after our trc and subdivision committee meetings my the applicants making revisions to the plans and we'll be prepared to share those with staff probably next week so i'd like to come back to you next next month all righty thank you mr woodall uh 30 days staff which meeting would that fall on our only meeting in december is december the 12th december 12th all righty thank you is there a motion mr sheriff yes sir mr jones sorry i'll I'll move for postponement plan MJDP 24-79, then Maxwell-Lindhurst subdivision until December 12th, 24. Thank you, Commissioner Owens. Is there a second? Commissioner Penn? Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Mr. Carter. Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I've got a couple of postponements on sheet 5, PLNMJDP 24-74, Hoover Ford Philpott, Evangelistic Association property lot for the fountains. I'd like to postpone this to December 12th. We still have a postponement recommendation and have some things we still want to discuss with staff. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Is there a motion? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 24-74 Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association Properties until December the 12th. Thank you, sir. Any second from Commissioner Barksdale? Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Okay, passes unanimously. Thank you. And then on page four of your agenda, PLNMJDP 24-56 Red Mile Mixed Use Development, I'd like to postpone it to December 12th. This one also has a postponement recommendation and we're still working through some issues with what the owner wants to present. All righty. Mr. Penn. You ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone it PLNMJDP 2456 until December 12. Thank you, Commissioner Penn. Ms. Wirth is attempting to second, so we'll take that. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. And Mr. Penn moved, so I'm guessing he's an aye on the vote. That's unanimous as well. Thank you. Didn't register. You have it, Paula? Okay, thank you. Oh, Rory K with EA Partners on page 2. Plan Major Subdivision 24-8 Patch and Wilkes Unit 1 Phase 2. Recommended for postponement. We had requested one month postponement while we work out the block length. One month to December 12th? Yes. Already? Do we have a motion for Mr. Kaley? Mr. Hohens, thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of Plan MJ SUB 24-8, Patch and Wilkes Unit 1, Phase 2 until December 12, 2024. Thank you very much. Second. Second from Commissioner Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will place that to a vote. All right, that also passes unanimously. Thank you. And top of page three, Major Subdivision 24-9, Patchen Wilkes Unit 2, request one month postponement to December 12th. We had to notify the neighborhood and I did not get that done in time. All righty. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, move for postponement of PLNMJSUB 24-29, 9 Patchen Wilkes Unit 2 until December the 12th. Thank you, sir. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. All right. That also passes unanimously. Thank you, Rory. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Any staff items? Staff does have one item for a postponement, and that appears. On page six of our agenda, item F, PLN MJDP 24-78, Fritz Farm tract C. Despite the recommendation of approval from the subdivision committee, the applicant wishes to postpone and are considering some changes to the site plan. So they asked for a one-month postponement. Okay. One month to December 12th. commissioner pin mr chairman i move for postponement until december the 12th of pln mjdp 2478 thank you sir second from commissioner barksdale thank you any discussion seeing none we will put that to a vote and that also passes unanimously all right any other postponements from staff All righty, so seeing none, we will move on to our consent agenda. Thank you, Chairman Davis and members of the commission. Our consent agenda, the printed one sheet page that was in the back of the meeting room, is for the commission to consider multiple applications with one motion if they have been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee and that there are no leftover discussion items from those meetings and if there are any waivers. So there are, I guess, five applications that can be considered by, well, let's make that four because one of them just got postponed, four items that can be considered by the commission collectively. In addition, if any of these, there's a desire to speak about them, we can remove them from the consent agenda and do a full presentation. So if you in the audience will let me know if there's an item you are here to speak about, just by raising your hand when we get to that, the commission will consider it with a full hearing. The first item appears on page three of our agenda, item A, PLNMJDP 23-40. for the South Broadway Place development, Phase 2C. And this is an amended final development plan for property at 1080 Export Street. Is there anyone here who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. The next item is on page four of our agenda, Item C, PLN MJDP 24-73 for Millstone Heights property. And this is for a final development plan for property located at 309, 315, 317, and 321 East High Street. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Okay, we just note for the commission that item has a finding related to an access easement that you have in front of you. The next item on our agenda, page 6, item E, PLNMJDP 24-77. for the givens property out lot one that's for property at 2305 remington way is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard and then again i mentioned fritz farm has been postponed so we won't have that approved and then lastly on page eight item i pln mjdp 24-82 for the lexmark international property Section 2, Lot 2, an amended final development plan for property at 751 Freight Boulevard. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Seeing none, Chair Davis, I think we can consider all four of those with one action. Thank you, Ms. Wade. And do we need to consider the findings separately or it's just together? Okay. All righty. Is there any discussion amongst the Planning Commission? If not, we can entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the consent agenda as provided by staff with exclusion of page six item F. That is the PLN MJDP 24-78 Fritz Farm Track C. Thank you Mr. Wilson. Second from Commissioner Barksdale, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. All right, that's unanimous. Thank you all. And if I'm correct, we're now on page two, final subdivision plans, PLNMJSUB19-6, Tuscany. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Yes, this item is in front of the Planning Commission because it was previously approved and certified by the Planning Commission. It was approved on November 14, 2019, exactly five years ago. and a preliminary subdivision plan remains active for five years, according to the land subdivision regulations. After that five-year window, an applicant, in order to keep working on the property, will need to request an extension of the approval of the Planning Commission, and those extensions are granted in one-year increments. The qualifier to that is that the applicant is responsible for providing information about what work has been accomplished on the site so that if no work has been accomplished, the commission is aware of that and may not extend their permission. So in this case, the applicant has requested an one-year extension for the preliminary subdivision plan that you see on the screen. It's for Tuscany Unit 15. It's for all single-family residential development. just as a refresher because most of you might not have been here five years ago the property does connect in the lower corner of the plan to fortune drive and will be a continuation of trade center drive as that roadway enters the property there's a bit of a traffic calming happening not a full traffic circle but sort of an oval and then allowing for a collector Street to proceed through the property having again a little bit of traffic calming in the center here but still allowing for connectivity on Haymaker Parkway so again you see some eyebrows and some a few well one cul-de-sac on the property and then the green space associated with the plan is known drainage areas but not floodplain so the applicant has submitted sorry there's our there is a little bit of floodplain over here on the right hand side so the applicant did submit a detailed letter identifying what they had completed since March of this year so although they did not do a substantial amount of work until march since march and until even last week the applicant has been working to proceed with this plan for the subject property and for that reason the staff recommends that we the planning commission extend the permission for one year at this time i believe you have the documentation in granicus for the activities that they have conducted since march One of the extenuating circumstances was that the property was owned by the Gatton Trust, and because of some changes there, that limited the amount of work that could be accomplished until it was transferred in March. All righty. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Do we have any questions for Ms. Wade at this point? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Kaylee? Rory Kaley with the partners here on behalf of the client. We're in agreement. We request re-approval. Sorry, extension. For one year. Extension. That's great. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Is anyone present who would like to speak on this particular development plan? Seeing none, do we have any final commissioner comment or the floor is open for a motion? Motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for extension of PLNMJSUDB196 for the reason provided by staff. Thank you. Commissioner Penn, second from Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. I was going to say Commissioner Nichol if you want to give a voice vote that's fine. Okay. Okay. All right. Sure. Okay. And that does include a yes from Mr. Nichol. So that's unanimous. Mr. Penn. Yes. There you go. That's a yes. Okay. So that puts us, if I'm not mistaken, to page 7, PLN MJDP 2480, the Midland Station. Okay. Okay, we're going to final development plan for PLN MJDP 24-80, the Arthur E. Abshire property, Lexington, Cutstone and Marble Company, Midland Station. The purpose of this development plan is to depict the construction of two apartment buildings with a total of 258 dwelling units with associated parking. This is located on the south side of the intersection of Winchester Road at the top here and Midland. The first 12 conditions are the standard sign-offs, and then the final conditions that we have that the applicant has addressed is to provide the cross-sections for Winchester Road and Owens Avenue which was included on the plan submitted on November 12th and then number 14 on your agenda it the updated site statistics box they also included that they have provided the documentation for lighting plan for article 30 of the zoning ordinance and then they're working with the division of engineer they'll be working with the division of engineering on resolving note number 15 regarding the 15 inch sanitary sewer main below building a that's to be relocated we do have some renderings as well All righty. Thank you very much. I will just add, unless Chris wants to, if you want to, go ahead. That the staff pulled this off the consent agenda because the applicant submitted a revised plan on Tuesday Tuesday, and then was in communication with the staff about widths of pedestrian ways on both Winchester Road and Midland that were different than what the commission had previously reviewed on all of our development plans, a reduction. And so we were anticipating that they were going to speak about that and a desire to reduce the pavement or the pedestrian improvements. And this morning they communicated with the bike and pedestrian planner and indicated they will be building what they had indicated previously, which is a 12-foot shared use path along the Winchester Road portion and an 8-foot sidewalk, which is required by the subregs, along the Midland Avenue portion. So I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record, that we all had the same understanding. Okay, all righty. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Is the applicant present and would like to speak today? Good afternoon. My name is Katie Beard. I'm with Prime AE Group, the consultant representing the developer on this project. But in reference to the discussion about the sidewalk along the front of the property, we did have a question that we raised to staff about revising that. It turned out to be too late in the process to make a change based on our discussion. And our client decided that they would like to move forward with the plan as is. So that is where we are. We are in agreement with all of the conditions and anxious to move forward. All righty. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application today? Seeing none, do we have any commissioner comments or questions? Mr. Owens? Thank you. I'm sorry, is this for the applicant? Questions for you? I don't know if it's applicant or staff. Either one of them probably could answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. just clarification parking wise it does appear that there's internal and external parking on in the in the chart the parking provided parentheses includes HC 159 interior and building a says building B hundred 111 exterior I'm just trying to get a clarification as to what's inside what's outside So it might be a little bit hard to read, but inside the building is the first floor of both buildings is primarily a parking garage. So these two structures and then the 111 spaces are behind the building and access Owen Street as well as Midland. Are you looking at the numbers? Are you looking at the numbers? 111 exterior. So, Tracy, are you saying both buildings have a total of 159 interior and 111 exterior? For the entire site. Okay. They have 270 spaces for the entire site. Just clarification. Okay. Thank you. All right. do we have any other commissioner questions at this time seeing none floor is open for a motion mr question nickel this project has gone through a lot of iterations and it has been on our agenda for quite a while and this we've seen continual improvements and this looks like a wonderful project for our community as we redevelop that area and with that being said i'm going to recommend a motion for approval of pln mjdp 24-80 r3 absher property lexington cutstone and marble company midland station thank you commissioner nickel we have a second from commissioner barksdale thank you any discussion on the motion before we vote seeing yes yes ma'am this is a clarification on 13 14 and 15 conditions are those completed and can be removed or do they need to stay on there at this point we leave them on there and then we'll just double check before we certify the plan all right that was it that motion carries Agrees unanimously. Thank you all. Next item on the agenda is on page nine, PLN MJDP 2483. Good afternoon. You also have a copy, a proper copy with revised conditions for this plan? This is the major development plan for 24-83 for George West Estate property, Howard property, amended. All right. There we go. Okay. This property is located out Georgetown Road, considerably far out from Georgetown Road. We have the development, this is split zone with, there's a zone line that goes through the middle here. So the front portion of the property is zoned B3, and the rear portion of the property is zoned AR for agricultural rule. Several years ago, they went to the Board of Adjustments and asked for, I guess, variants. the variance to be able to go into the AR zone 50 feet. I'm sorry, it's a conditional use, I apologize. Conditional use to be able to use the AR zone as allowing the B3 zone to merge into that. So that allows them to go a little further and that's where you'd come up with the driveway in the back portion of this property. and then it wraps around and comes across the side here because that was on the agricultural rule they currently have one structure on the property it's a C store with gas pumps here in the front so they're coming in to build this remaining strip center with two drive-throughs one on either end of the property they came in with a revision we have the first 11 conditions are are typical sign-offs, and then we have a couple conditions still left on the plan. Addition of a tree inventory map per Article 26 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is including tree location, species, and size on plan face. And then we have denote the lot coverage per Article 2-4 and 8-20 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Site Statistics. This is a B3 zone, so they have to show us that they can meet the minimum 30% lot coverage on the property. So we need to have that spelled out in the site statistics. The reason the staff is still recommending postponement is due to the fact of Article 26, part of the filing for new plans is for them to submit a tree inventory map at the time of filing. And they have not submitted that map and we've asked for that map as one of the conditions for them to show us the location of the trees on the property. Just before they submitted their plan, Article 26, which is our tree protection part of the zoning ordinance, has changed. So that has reduced the minimum size of a tree, significant tree, from 36 down to 12 inches. And then we still have a list of significant species that we also are wanting to have noted. So at this time, the staff recommends postponement because we do not have that tree inventory map submitted. So I'll leave it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any other comments or questions for staff at this point? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Carter. once again Matt Carter vision engineering so first of all we're in agreement with the conditions some things I wanted to point out this this plan you've seen it before it was a different layout but it was approved and And so this end here really is where it's kind of changed. It's got smaller, so there's less pavement. Before it was two buildings, but it was basically the same coverage of parking. Before we had a tree protection plan approved, and we're doing less of a development. we have gone out and walked the site and there's no trees labeled on there because none of the trees were significant. I understand y'all have come out with a new ordinance and the significant tree size has shrunk. so we can go add that but i just wanted to point out that all the trees are all in the back on the sides there's a few right in here and a few right there the majority of the trees we're not even touching and i don't see why we can't let this go forward and then we just don't get the plan certified until we've just added a few labels to trees. Nothing's going to change on the plan other than adding some labels if you don't approve it. So I would think you could go forward and just put a condition that this is satisfied before the plan is certified. So that's what I'm asking for. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Do we have any questions? the commissioners at this point i do yes sir mr pimp man we had this same discussion at subdivision committee about the tree thing why didn't you just put them on that plan between the subdivision and now just haven't had time the the the trees that are there are so dense It's, I don't know, I mean, we can't survey them. So it's mostly honeysuckle, but there are trees in there, and we're going to have to hire somebody to go out and clean the underbrush out just to be able to get survey equipment to it. It's just too thick. We're going to do that, but, I mean, I hate to put this off until that gets done. I understand. And a follow-up question to that is, do you believe that when you clean that out, there will be significant trees in it? Under the new ordinance being 12 inches, I'm certain there will be. But again, I would say 75% of the canopy is, we're not even touching. So one other thing I wanted to point out is in Article 26, it's not, I mean, we did submit a plan. They're calling it incomplete. But it doesn't say it can't be accepted in that article. It actually says it can be accepted. It's their choice. so i'm asking them to accept it and don't certify the plan until we you know make everybody happy okay thank you all right do we have any other questions for mr carter if not thank you would anyone from the public care to comment on this plan today. Seeing none, do we have any commissioner comments? Commissioner Wirth? I'm trying to decide whether to say this or not. Mr. Carter, our track record with your organization in trees is not great. and so my preference would be to have the documentation as it's supposed to be before we approve this. Well, I don't appreciate that comment at all. This is a different client. It's a different project. No trees have been removed, so I really don't think that's fair. Mr. Carter, can you walk me through the process again just so we better understand it? It looks like we're looking at the plan here. And of this plan, we don't have any concerns other than the lack of the information provided as related to the tree inventory map. Can you just describe to us so we understand, or at least so I understand, the practical process that you see happening if this were to receive a recommendation of approval with the condition that you've requested can you walk us through it walk us through the timeline and how it would how it could benefit the actual project moving forward without jeopardizing the trees. And this would be, this is a condition that you're requesting. So I'd like to hear your explanation of how you would meet the condition that you've recommended before we get to the final certification of the development plan per your plan. So outline the practicality of it and how it affects the project as a whole. All right, so let's back up. It's a jungle out there, let's just say that. So we've got to either hire somebody to go in and bush hog all the underbrush so we can expose every tree, or we're going to have to go in there with our own equipment, axes and machetes, and cut pathways in. GPS won't work. We've tried. It's too dense. Even with the canopy gone, it's too dense. So we're going to have to go in with a traditional total station surveying where we run a traverse through there and shoot the trees. another option would just be we could stand off to the side eyeball it look at it and guess but I don't think that's what y'all want to see I will say we have talked to the urban forester I don't know if he's here but he's very familiar with the site I assume he's been on it but we've been in contact with him so he didn't seem to have too much of a concern. Now he may have since met with planning. I don't know what became of that. So we're going to go through, do like I say, clear it in some fashion, identify all the trees and add those to the plan. And we have the species on there that we were able to identify standing back on the edge so we have the species listed all of all the trees on there we just don't have the sizes in the location so if this gets postponed I mean it's just going to push the process even longer and it's going to keep us from doing our construction documents and getting the thing bid so it can start working probably March so by not approving it today it's just pushing everything back and I just don't feel like it's necessary given that the staff has the discretion to approve it and then we're going to get the trees on there we're going to have everything on there that's required is the condition that you're recommending a condition that the tree inventory map would be approved by the staff before the certification of the development plan correct it would be approved by the urban forester prior to certification yes Could you add a step to meet with the urban forester to determine the plan before you bush hog? Yes. Okay. Before we do anything, we'll go out in the field with the urban forester. Okay. So I see your recommendation and I appreciate it. We have some words from staff because I don't even know if this condition is possible. We're obviously trying to, or at least the intent would be to have their project be able to move forward, but we're in a position where that may or may not be possible. So it looks like Mrs. Wade has some comments for us. Thank you. So I think the staff is most concerned first about the intent of our tree protection ordinance is to step one, identify where you have trees, and then step two, where are you going to preserve them? So without knowing if there are significant trees in the areas where they're proposing development here and then where the larger red building is and there's some shading, there's just, we're making the assumption that there's not and therefore it's okay to bush hog the entire site and remove whatever trees are there. And I think the intent of the ordinance is to identify what they are and then to the best of our ability, avoid removing significant trees. So without that knowledge, it leaves the staff at a disadvantage in terms of making a recommendation to the Planning Commission about whether this development that they're showing is appropriate, right? Can we work, we need to, to the best of our ability, work around the significant trees because they have such an environmentally positive impact for Fayette County. so I don't think we're asking that they go and walk through the entire floodplain back here in the ag zone they're not developing back there what we are asking is that they follow the ordinance and identify what the significant trees are in the area where they're proposing development all we have is a shaded area that says we're going to remove those trees which I think the urban forester would sign off on if there's not any significant trees but if there are I think there needs to be a discussion about that that makes sense okay yes sir Mr. Owens thank you I'm sorry looking through all this notes on the plan that's under tree protection area it does say the last sentence no tree removal, grubbing or clearing in tree protection area shall be permitted for our approval of urban forest foresters. Right, and the tree protection areas are the ones that are really in the floodplain back here, where they're showing kind of the, it's kind of a cloud almost. It's the edge of the tree canopy. So they wouldn't be back there, again, unless the urban forester said, hey, let's go back and look and see if there's any significant trees back here. And again, that's not really what we're concerned about. we're concerned about where they're proposing development. That statement is done there. It's a gas station. From the park that you're talking about? Well, no, because they're not proposing those to be tree protection areas. They're denoting them as tree removal areas. Yeah. Okay. Do we have any other questions from the commission? Thank you. anyone from the public here today to comment on this particular development plan? Seeing none, we'll have discussion amongst ourselves. Mr. Wilson? First of all, Mr. Chairman, I understand where Mr. Carter is coming from, and I also understand also where the staff is coming from. And in this instance, I guess my question is, and the thing that I'm conflicted over, is that this has to be done before anything can be certified no matter what. And it seems to me that would have been a priority as a part of the development plan, is to get that tree inventory in and the manner in which the staff is indicated. To that end, this is not a vote, but my position would be in favor of the staff's position at this time. All righty. I'm certainly ready for a motion or additional comment if anybody has it. Commissioner Wirth. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for postponement of PLM-MJDP 2483 with the 13, am I looking at the right one? What? No, I've still gone to the purple. Okay, here we go. Peel and MJDP 2483 George West Estate property with the 17 attached conditions postponement based on recommendations by staff. Am I still on the wrong one? Okay. 13 attached conditions. We don't need the conditions. You don't put conditions on a postponement. Yes, the postponement is just for the reason provided by staff. The tree inventory map as required is in. For reasons indicated by staff. And before we move forward on that legal, would we prefer a continuation rather than a postponement? Considering there was a presentation on this, I think that actually probably would be more appropriate to do a continuation. Sorry. Being just one item that we're stuck on, I don't see any sense in going all the way back through and hearing this all the way through again. I think that the continuation would work. So if you're willing to amend your motion, please. I amend my motion to continue PLN MJDP 2483 for the reasons requested by staff referring to the addition of the tree inventory map. Just to make a note that at the next planning commission meeting, anyone who was not here would probably need to make a statement about actually going through and looking at the- Can't hear you. We can't, sorry. At the next Planning Commissioner meeting, when this comes up, and other several members that are not here, they're going to want to make sure they go back and watch the video where this was presented. If you're not going to bring everything up. Okay. If at a future Planning Commission meeting, this continuation is heard, if a Planning Commissioner was not present during this hearing, they would have to watch the tape first in order to vote at that time. And do we have a date for the continuation? Would that just be our next subdivision? Next planning commission meeting subdivision is 30 days, B1212 December. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have just a clarification. What is it that we anticipate happening between now and the continuation meeting? What specifically do we anticipate? A map? In which case they would have to do that anyhow, right? Mm-hm. Okay. Okay. So, question to you guys, is the motion as I worded it correct or do we need to make an adjustment there? Okay. Continuation to the December 12th meeting. So that's a motion from Ms. Worth, do we have a second? Well, I do have a question. Is that something that the applicant can get done? That's a good question. Mr. Carter. is december 12th a reasonable timeline for you to have that map finished uh yes and and i will add i just talked to tracy and the the only area we have to identify the trees is there where we propose to remove trees so that'll kind of help things okay okay so we have a motion and mr penn seconded any further discussion seeing none we will put that motion to a vote and that carries unanimously thank you now at this time we will go just a little out of order and here the two staff items starting on page 10 pln md mndp 2425 and then page 11 pln mndp 2432 Okay, this is Minor Development Plan 24-25, Ethington and Ethington Track 1. When we review Minor Development Plans, they come into our office. We also, if we have questions once reviewing these, we can also ask other divisions for their input and help on some concerns and issues. On this one, this is for the Chick-fil-A. We're at the corner of, this is Harrodsburg Road, Malone Drive, and right here is a Chick-fil-A restaurant. We have town homes, single family dwelling units. We have, Kroger's has some gas pumps up at this end of the area. And so they came back in with a, on a request of a miner to widen the access point here off of, and this is an access easement, into Chick-fil-A. And they asked to widen it for their purposes. With that, with that being the access point and this being a traffic situation, I talked with Traffic Engineering to get their input on how they felt about the widening of this access point. And they were not in favor of this access point widening, so that is why we're bringing this to you to review. I know Dave Filiatro from Traffic Engineering is here, and as far as traffic turning radiuses, he might be able to better explain that than I can. Okay, we go. Go ahead. What do we do? I have those four graphics. Oh, okay. Is it just the next ones? Oh, no. It's probably not in here. All right. Okay. Well, and of course, the applicant can express as well. I guess their concern was just with the turning radiuses vehicles getting into the drive-thru aisle. Typically, 30 foot wide is our typical commercial entrance. We have 36 on occasion. Usually, that's when there's loading. So for instance, one of the adjacent sites is a Kroger. There's one of their two entrances on the Cocos Way is 36 feet, and that was they justified it in order to be able to accommodate their fuel delivery, fuel truck deliveries. In this instance, I think we didn't see, I think there was concern about people being able to access the parking lot whenever the drive-through gets backed up, and that was the need for the additional six feet in order to basically add a full lane width. guess from our perspective that would get you a couple more folks what i'm but what imagined is that you'll get maybe two more vehicles and then it's you'll be back down on the coco's way still and then you have to go around the traffic in order to access the the parking lot furthermore just kind of looking at some of the operations it looks like and i didn't confirm so they might that the rightmost so if you're entering the right most drive-through lane is mobile pickup at least just based on what what we've witnessed and so the left is drive-through only so typically the left lane backs up and that's and then the right lane is usually has more space and people just drive on in so like i said they may be able to confirm that i do think if they had combined those two operations they would have a lot more space to queue for the drive-through and i'm sure that again how it operates is really up to them when it comes into the to the public right-of-way i think that's where the say so the discussion comes so i think they can accommodate the the turning radius by just creating that angle as you can i wish i had Oh, okay. This one. It's a little hard to see, yeah. Well, yeah, it looks better whenever it's darker, almost. You can almost see. So this little angle here, it's not, I think it comes, it swoops out right now. And so I think if they just created this angle, they could, because I'm, again, going backwards here. Really, that's existing. So that's what you have right now. So you see that that dash line is your curb line. So they're proposing extending at six feet and then Angling The little even smaller dashed line is their new angle and I think that's where they could accomplish that the turning radius issue They mentioned And then possibly altering their operations slightly to accommodate a lot more drive-through stacking like I said That's at least our perspective again 30 is what we typically sometimes we allow 30 36 on uh busier streets just to accommodate the the faster um ingress and egress but 30 is our standards and our subdivision regulations 30 we can go up to 36 for a commercial entrance if there's uh loading unloading issues related related so anyway all right do we have any more questions for traffic while he's here real quick go back to that picture can you go back which way the what's on the right hand side does that yeah i guess that's a that's an interstate that's a wb62 which is a pretty large semi-trailer i'm not sure if that's what delivers i would typically i would assume they deliver off hours but i that that's a pretty large truck i don't we wouldn't it'd be atypical to see one that large through there i think they're just showing i don't know that might be a question for the okay they sent us to this uh this week so all right if we don't have any more questions for staff we can hear from the applicant afternoon alan wiley with gbc design i apologize these truck turn studies did not show up any better than what they are. So these two studies are existing conditions out here. Currently, this version is showing a pickup truck turning into the Chick-fil-A entrance. I apologize again, they don't show up very well, but the truck actually does go into the out lane that is currently going out onto Cocos Way there. Cocos Way is a very narrow private road out there. We were told by Traffic Engineering they had asked for a wider pavement section when that road was put in and it was not installed, so it is very narrow. There is also, to the north of the Chick-fil-A here, There are townhomes that are going to be constructed up here, as well as parking spaces, parallel parking spaces, which will reduce the availability for delivery trucks to get into the site. On the right-hand side here, we are showing the WB-62 truck, which we have confirmed that is what delivers to the Chick-fil-A site. and as it sits there today because there is no one parking in these parallel parking spaces up here that truck can go into Coco's way and actually swoop over into oncoming traffic because they deliver early in the morning there's the availability to swerve over and get into the access drive if we so when they do that, sorry, we're going the wrong way, so in a proposed condition, if they're not able to go into that oncoming traffic, into those parallel parking spaces up there, they will actually start going over the grass and into the landscaping and jump the sidewalk that's there. If we are allowed to get the 36-foot wide access drive, if there are cars parked up there, they still have the ability to not jump the curb with that delivery truck and make it into the Chick-fil-A parking lot. And again, not jump the sidewalk, not disrupt the grass that's there. Chick-fil-A really would like to get two in lanes, one that goes directly into the drive-through, and then one that allows cars to bypass and go into the parking lot to park and go inside, and then to lane out. We need 36 feet in order to do that to make them comfortable for everybody. That's the reason for the 36-foot as well. This shows, again, a pickup truck making a right-hand turn into the parking lot, and it allows the outbound traffic to not be disrupted by a car making a turn into the parking lot. Didn't want to point out, Kroger, as mentioned, has a 36-foot wide access point as well. The reason we were given in the subdivision committee meeting was due to delivery trucks. we will have the same concern there as they do down there. Because they have a narrow access drive as well down in that area. Just a point of clarification. Did you say that Coco's Way was stipulated to be so many feet wide, but it was only constructed? We were told it was traffic engineering had asked for the pavement to be wider, and it was not made wider. By the developer? Yes. Green net, a plan approval process, I believe. David, do you want to? I think that's an important clarification. they were they were allowed so so that was a request and the developer went with the the existing cross-section so it was an approved cross-section it was approved by planning commission how many years ago but at the time we tried to get a larger cross-section because actually i think when i first started back here two years ago the developer inquired about making it public well it's not close to meeting public standards so that was a no and and and kind of the irony was we tried to make we tried to get them to build its public standards and and they did they chose not to do that so that's what he's talking it's an approved cross-section but it's not a not a public to typical public standards and the 30 sec the 36 foot opening or access that kroger has is that the one at the very end of the street that looks a little wider than the other kroger correct yeah they they that's they make their their fuel deliveries and they exit that that way come around and that was that was the justification at the time for allowing them to have 36. all righty thank you david yep mr penn yes uh traffic before you before you get back to your purge uh this thing's only been in existence two years it's been two years worth of operations And I just don't understand how we got in this situation within a two year period. I don't remember this plan, but I was on the Planning Commission obviously when it happened. But I drove out there to look at that and it's tight. And I didn't really realize how long those delivery trucks were because I don't have any farm wagons that long. But it looks to me like that because the street wasn't widened on the original development plan, that that would give us a reason for doing, for granting this. And I just wanted to get your comment on that. I mean, I think overall, if you look at, you know, especially if you're an outside look at it, 36 to 30 is not, it's not like it's a huge, it's just kind of one of those things. The justification, I'm not, I guess they use the WB 62 for delivery. I mean, they've obviously been able to do it, it may be however imperfect. perfect. So we've tripled again we try to stay to that 30 really more of a planning across the whole city that's our typical that's what we want to stay with and I guess the initial discussion too was about ingress and egress for those vehicles and from that perspective we didn't see a benefit from the change. Again I guess there is a consideration as far as that street being more narrow that is that is a the case so. Well if you took consideration those townhouses is going to be built does that change your opinion any well i think the townhouses are are there currently they're not there oh okay not the first floor okay i mean i'm just trying to i'm trying to justify the seat it's it's it's it's a better justification I think then the ingress and egress because I think that that issue wouldn't be resolved with this change I think the only thing you again because you're gonna if they're if they're stopping point is that the access point if there's it's backing up to there you're gonna have another one more vehicle they can back up into it and you're still gonna have issues with it queuing onto the street which is my understanding was what the primary concern was which I think has more to do with the mobile orders taking using the right lane and and not a combined service but again that's their prerogative as their business operation. Okay, I was just trying to get your take on it. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this proposed plan today? seeing nobody commissioner comment personally i'm a little empathetic because i do know how narrow that that street is behind there and it does as mr penn said it does get very tight right there so i i do see some hardship on the part of the applicant justifiable Mr. Nickel. Another thing to consider is as we continue to solve our new zoning reduction in requirements for parking, we're trying to utilize more public streets for parking. So that's something else that we need to take into consideration, that when the development plan, I would assume, came in for the townhouses, some of the parking requirements were met by off-street parking and the off-street parking of the townhouses, I think, added additional consideration in making a decision. All right. Do we have any other comment or would anyone like to make a motion? Thank you, Mr. Pimp. First of all, I will say before I make this motion that I haven't gone out there and looked at it and having understood the development plan and I didn't realize the street was that narrow until I went out there and looked at it. I'm going to move for approval of PLNM NDP 2432 for the reasons that. 25. 25? Okay. All right. I got you. It's 25. for the reasons that the development plan built out what created hardship for the thank you mr pen second from commissioner barksdale thank you just to clarify the commission is approving the request to widen their access to 36 feet from 30 okay All right, do we have any comment? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Thank you very much. That passes unanimously. Thank you, applicants. Next item on the agenda, PLN MNDP 2432. Okay, this is another minor development plan, 2432 for Wiggins and Company for Chick-fil-A. This one is located out off of Nicholasville Road. This being Nicholasville Road, New Circle Roads down here. This is the Chick-fil-A that, in concern. They were wanting to add some additional drive lane space and change the configuration of the parking. again, I contacted with traffic engineering. The applicant has been in discussion for quite a while with traffic engineering about the best way to handle making the extension of the drive-through lanes. And I'm going to look to David again because I know that him and Steve Parker have been working with this applicant to make sure that it meets public safety. And they've made some concessions and made some changes for that parking area. And Dave's more familiar with that. David Filiantra again, Traffic Engineering. So this one, there was a development plan that came through four years ago, I think, and they had some changes to that median and the entrance over there at the main page. page well it is south south on nickelsville road but they were never allowed to actually carry those out because they don't own the land and the landowner was would not agree to those alterations and we do have we have some complaints about the drive-through backing out onto nickelsville road currently in the main the peak hours as surprising as it is so this was a sort of middle ground we got to where they could have come better accommodate their their drive-through traffic while you know while getting overcoming some of the concerns or not concern the constraints they had by not being able to go off their site so they're they're actually going to improve other parts of the site that they also don't own but at least they could get the approval so that on the east side of the page there those landscaping islands and things like that that's not actually not on their their land but they've agreed to do that as far as a in order to better the site is overall so this is something we kind of came into they obviously mostly worked with with Steven Parker and this is the solution we came up with it's still atypical that medium is still going to be there we think with some some bollards and some other markings that it'll be safe for those to travel through that area but it's going to look little eye which is why it's here for you today david do you do you have safety concerns or sorry do you have any safety concerns or no see well so the where where that island is on the on the north side of it that's actually where you would exit there's not actually a way to access so so traffic and then traffic does it's got an arrow pointing one way to the east but traffic already has two ways through there uh we did talk with uh the state about potentially because both of those uh openings are 24 feet each and we talked about closing the northern opening and making that right in right out at the the at the south what am i doing uh this so we talked about closing this and just making this portion so that it would be even less likely to be a confusion uh the state had concerns about closing an access point without the agreement of the of of this owner and so ultimately we weren't able to do that because i think that would have really made it completely clear that uh but uh they've agreed to put up a ball or not ballards but flexible delineators uh through here to indicate that there's no there's no access and then they've opened this act originally we discussed they wanted this whole thing to be the drive-through they've opened this up so if folks do want to come in and access through here there's there's no issue so okay do we have any other questions for david at this time mr owens um so david what is being proposed is outlined in green correct The area just to the left of the number 469, is that still access into the rest of the development? It looks like it's part of the – Yes. Yeah. So it's two-way through that point. So I think if I could zoom in, you would see there's a one-way towards the drive-through and then a through left into the development. That's not too much of a conflict point? I don't think so. They have a stop bar. It'll be it'll look more like a traditional intersection and give it again given the constraints of That they're encountering these b6p's are strange, you know 50 years after they're built sometimes there's Circumstances, so I think we try to work with them to get to accommodate all you know all the users While allowing them to get the things you know the operational needs that they need they have And all property owners are in agreement of this? I don't I don't know We did send letters to the Red Lobster as well as the shopping center, property owners, and then property owners directly across Nicholasville Road from here. We, the staff, did not receive any communication from those owners, but I do understand that Chick-fil-A has been working with the shopping center owner. Obviously, that's how they've gotten these improvements worked out. Okay, thank you. All right. If no other questions, thank you, David. Applicant. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Scott, representing Interplan here for Chick-fil-A, Nicholasville Road. I have a quick presentation here because there is obviously a lot of history. As David eloquently put it, there's been a lot of work put into this project. Since 2019, this project has pretty much been going on. We've actually split this project into two phases in order to give us a little bit more time to try to solve some off-site traffic issues. So if you don't mind, can you go to the second slide? I hit it. Got it. All right. So I just want to go through some of the quick site conditions. I know you guys have been sitting there for a while, so I'll try to keep this pretty brief, but there is a lot of history that went into this. Obviously, at the very beginning of this project, we wanted to expand our site. You guys have probably seen a lot of these Chick-fil-A's throughout Lexington that have two lanes all around the building, and that is because of the traffic that Chick-fil-A's have, and we're trying to mitigate the issues that are around our property. We're trying to be good neighbors, be good community. So I'm just going to go quickly through here. This is kind of what the conditions here are shown on the screen are actually what's there today. We've got canopies over the right side of the building and the left side of the building there. The one on the right side is only a single lane, and that is really what's kind of hindering this site right now. it only has one lane, two lanes, and two lanes. And that was because we were unable at the time to come to a conclusion for solving this side of the site. You can kind of see there where the, let me see, how do I do that? I guess I figured it out, yeah. So right here, you can see this is where the drive-through is kind of pulling in. So we have right now, like I said, single drive-through lane and our drive-through overflow right there. What came up back all the way in 2019, and believe it or not, I've been working on this project for six years, rather, is the off-site driveway. And we obviously recognize that there were things out there that were not on our property, but that we wanted to solve for everyone's sake. And we spent quite a lot of time and effort since 2019 in order to try to solve these issues. This is the Chick-fil-A property. The property that they actually own is this one here. And we're actually working to, we basically have an easement over the rest of that. with the landlord that owns the property up here. So here you can kind of see this is sort of what is intended for these driveways. It's not exactly how they're being used. Right now, people are going in and out of them. You know, there are two driveways. But essentially what we're trying to do here is try to limit, we're trying to limit the ability for people to make decisions. So we came up with all these plans here. We spent much time with Stephen Parker and even with David trying to come up with some solutions here to do some off-site work. We were unable to come to a conclusion with all those, and I'll go through the 75 slides here because there's not how many options we went through. Ultimately, back in 2021, we decided to at least give some alleviation to the operator that's running this store, and we proposed this plan here. you can see that there's two lanes on the north and the right side of the building, and on the south side we have just a single lane with a single canopy. What we're really electing to do here is to expand those into two lanes and pull that drive-through lane a little bit farther back because that's where the cars are sitting now, which will allow us more car stacks and more efficiency because we'll have two order points under that blue canopy that's shown right there. So this is kind of just a better picture of what's going on here. Extending the drive-through lanes, it's a little hard to see the difference between the green and the yellow. But the drive-through lanes being extended, obviously, you've seen it throughout Lexington, is a way for us to pull cars onto the site and have a second order point. So we have two people taking their orders on those lanes. And then we're also adding, as part of this deal, we recognized that there's some improvements to the off-site areas here. We are also including some green areas in order to help improve the site as much as possible for safety and for traffic. Focusing kind of in on the bottom here, as David already talked about, we are trying to extend the drive-through lanes here, so we'll have delineators and a curb island there to try to prevent people from being able to stack in the wrong directions and, again, allow the drive-through stack not to tail out nearly as far as it would normally. We do have, and you already mentioned before, I'm just kind of repeating him, we have, this is two-way right here, so people can come in and out from this section over here. And over here we have a left and right and then a north direction. So quickly go through this here. Like I said, just really quickly, we spent about six years trying to solve this situation. Staff's support and help through this has obviously been very, very important. We've kind of come to some compromises that will help that we can both live with. And that's really what we're doing here is we're trying to finalize the site, help solve the operators issues which are mostly about the drive through lanes and do the best possible improvement we really can for the conditions that we're kind of left with which is our site only. Questions? Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application? Seeing none, do we have any commission or comment? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens, thank you. thank you for you didn't want was that you what is the motion that you would like to i what are we approving here you you are approving a minor development plan so there aren't any specific conditions but what we heard today was there's a been in kind of a negotiated agreement that will have less of an impact on the red lobster property than they had originally proposed and so i think the government staff is in support of the layout that you just saw and it's an improvement from where we even started a few months ago. And I'm recalling if I'm correct that at subdivision committee we heard that Chick-fil-A had made a lot of efforts to get all the players to the table and had been very difficult to get one of those players to the table. Yes. and this is the best solution they could come up with without getting the kind of cooperation they needed from another party is that right correct okay yes sir uh i'll move for approval of the changes that have been made uh that we've seen today Mike Owens, can you use your microphone? Thank you. I have to. I'm sorry. I'll move for approval of the changes that we've seen today on plan MDDP 24-32 Wiggins and Company, as has been shown and stated today. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Commissioner Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that motion to a vote. And that carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. All right. Now we're going to drop back into order on page nine, number three, performance bonds and letters of credit. And we should have a memorandum from Mr. Fairchild in our stack. Do we have any discussion on the performance bonds and letters of credit or a motion? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I move for approval to release and call bonds on the projects that were presented on the white paper to us. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? Seeing none. vote on that motion. And that carries unanimously as well. All right. Now, that takes us to page 10, public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments, PLNZOTA 24-7. Mr. Crum. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next request before you is an Urban County Council-initiated Zoning Ordinance text amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to update our short-term rental regulations. And so with that, I'm going to give an overview of kind of how we got here, the history behind the short-term rental language that we have on the books currently, go through the proposed language that the Urban County Council initiated and recommended, as well as the staff alternative language that we are recommending approval of today. So you have the most updated version of that language in front of you in Granicus. There was one minor update that we made to correct a typo that we noted in zoning committee. So when we get to that portion, I will talk about that. But otherwise, it's the same language that was passed on to you earlier this week. So as far as the existing regulations regarding short-term rentals, the ordinance really came on the book about a year ago in July of 2023. It set a framework for utilizing dwelling units within the urban service boundary for short-term rentals. So the framework that was established basically made differentiation between a hosted short-term rental, where the owner and the occupant of that property is present during a stay, and unhosted, where the property is being rented without the owner-occupant being present. There was occupancy calculation, so limits on the number of individuals that could stay and how it was treated. based on the number of bedrooms in the home. So the occupancy calculation that they came up with was two individuals per bedroom plus four, with a max occupancy limit of 12. So for hosted short-term rentals, they could operate based on that calculation as long as they didn't go over 12. But any unhosted short-term rentals in residential zones or hosted that went above that limit had to go to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration. When the Board of Adjustment was considering these conditional uses for short-term rentals, they were directed to kind of consider the number of short-term rentals in the vicinity, the compliance record of the applicant, occupancy of other short-term rentals in the area, as well as any history of nuisances. Once again, this framework did not allow for short-term rentals in agricultural zones. And so kind of since that period, there was a grandfather period that was set up for existing short-term rentals that had been operating. And then once that period was up, the Board of Adjustment was hearing new applications or applications that didn't come in during that time. I think it's fair to say that we have seen a large number of applications since this ordinance has taken effect. in any given Board of Adjustment agenda, short-term rentals usually vastly outnumber all of the other applications kind of combined. In that time, we've heard some concerns from neighborhoods who are seeing these applications, as well as some frustration from the Board of Adjustment themselves on needing further guidance on how to interpret the language and needing kind of more protections in place to really protect neighborhoods and balance this use out a little bit more appropriately. The Urban County Council-initiated text, which I'll kind of go through momentarily, kind of piece by piece, made several adjustments to this, ultimately with the goal of providing additional protections for neighborhoods and kind of giving additional clarity on the things to be considered as they are looking at these applications. So this is kind of a large bullet point list of the different aspects that the Irvin County initiated. One of the things that they did was they took out the ability to have a short-term rental in a principal dwelling as well as an ADU. So previously you were able to, if you had an accessory dwelling unit on your property, you could rent your principal residence as a short-term rental as well as the rear. So now it's limited to one per property. It clarified some of the language regarding short-term rentals in the P1 and the B1 zones, essentially allowing for lower numbers there. There's been a change in the occupancy calculation, as well as the considerations for the Board of Adjustment to think about as they are evaluating these conditional use requirements. There will be separation and concentration requirements that we'll outline briefly, as well as the process for asking for relief from those spacing and concentration requirements. And just to provide an update to everyone, the council has initiated a second text that is dealing with short-term rentals in our agricultural zones. It is a separate consideration, and it will go forward before this body on December 12th and the committees the week prior on that. So once again, kind of different angles, but this is really looking at providing further guidance for the urban zones and the urban considerations there. So going through, this is screenshots of the proposed text. So the staff alternative language that you have in Granicus, the red represents the insertions or deletions from the Urban County Council, and the blue represents the planning staff's modifications to those. So this existing framework on the front end is basically untouched. So the way to read this is the, this unfortunately doesn't have lines, but it's a chart that lists the various kind of categories of zones and how they are treated based on whether they are hosted with an occupancy of less than a number, hosted greater than that number, or unhosted. So still sticking with that same kind of framework. The first thing you'll notice is the occupancy limit has been reduced. That maximum number without requiring additional approval from the Board of Adjustment is reduced from 12 to 10. Additionally, they removed the ability to utilize both a dwelling unit and an ADU, so it's now one or the other. They did make some changes in how the commercial zones have a calculation for the number of units they're allowed to have. Essentially, before, it was a percentage, but if you were a B1 property, for instance, that had, say, three dwelling units, you couldn't ever achieve a 25% maximum because that would be less than one. So that's to clean that up and let those smaller B1 developments, neighborhood business and commercial zones, still able to use this in a still limited fashion. So larger developments will be fine with the 25%, but we wanted to kind of treat those a little bit more equally there. So that was the language recommended by council. We did not have any additions or deletions there. Once again, they've made changes to that calculation on how many folks can stay at any given short-term rental. So it is now two individuals plus two, I mean per bedroom plus two with a maximum of 10. There were some changes to the considerations that the Board of Adjustment has made. So the first thing that they did was they changed the paradigm on how we look at the number of short-term rentals in 1,000 feet of the subject properties. So what was previously just a consideration, something for the board to weigh and interpret, has been moved to a firmer requirement that we'll talk about later on in the presentation. They also wanted to modify some of the considerations for whether the property was in an area that had a mixture of land uses or zoning categories that may create a high demand for short-term rentals. We heard some concerns from the neighborhoods about this provision and thought we wanted to add some additional clarity of what they're considering. So when staff has been evaluating these Board of Adjustment cases for short-term rentals over the past year, one of the things that we've looked at is these close proximities, these areas that we're seeking tourists, seeking activation and kind of seeking kind of greater utilization where it makes sense. And so where we landed at was kind of the close proximity to the downtown core or these mixed-user entertainment areas. Now, that is still a somewhat broad category, but it provides the Board of Adjustment better kind of guidance on what they were looking at. Once again, they have the ability to still look at these criteria, and it's just a consideration. So they are still able to make their own determinations with that. The last thing that the council added was considerations for if this is an area that is vulnerable to involuntary displacement based on socioeconomic demographics. So this is, once again, looking at some of these areas that neighborhoods in transition, other aspects of a neighborhood that may make them vulnerable and give the board additional kind of leeway in considering those factors as they weigh whether to grant any particular conditional use. One of the things that was added was some clarity on the grandfather provisions. So this is already passed, but it was just adding some language with regards to the grandfathering process, which already occurred. There was some slight changes made to as far as just clarity and just overall formatting. So we are not proposing a change of the 500-foot requirement with that. The council, in their language, kind of changed one of the core considerations. So with what was previously something for the board to consider is now a firmer requirement. So as of this point, conditional uses are required to be at least 500 feet from another short-term rental that has either received a conditional use or is one of those legal nonconforming uses. So that spacing requirement, which was just something to think about, now has a much firmer application. The same goes within the requirements for proximity and concentration. So as a part of the staff report that's generated for Board of Adjustments, one of the components of that is the number of short-term rentals present within that 1,000-foot area and what that is a percentage of all of the residential dwelling units there. The council initiated text recommended that that not exceed 3%. Staff in our kind of year-long review and kind of going through these applications found that 2% really was closer to an appropriate number there. So we are actually recommending a reduction in council's concentration maximum and then some small formatting there. So those two things are going to have kind of a large impact in reducing the areas that are kind of available moving forward to be eligible for short-term rentals. Any existing short-term rentals that have already received approval would still be allowed to operate, but as all conditional uses for short-term rentals are evaluated, any change in ownership or the sale of the property to a different individual would result with them needing to come back and, if so, could result in a situation where, what was previously a short-term rental no longer moving forward would be able to be one if the ownership changed because they are not able to meet these two requirements and can't get relief from any of the provisions that kind of modify that. So council kind of stuck that framework in there understanding that there are a couple of situations where relief may be needed that this sort of 500 foot and thousand foot buffers respectively may not be capturing kind of the whole picture. So what they provided was an outlet for relief from those provisions. So if an applicant is within 500 feet of another short-term rental or they are greater than 2% as proposed by staff concentration, then there is certain considerations that the Board of Adjustment can weigh in potentially granting a short-term rental at that location. Now what the council had kind of advocated for including, which is the cross-out language at the top, spoke to evaluating, first, the over-concentrate, is granting this going to cause an over-concentration of short-term rentals in the area, and the second, its impact on affordable housing stock. It did give several reasons that the Planning Commission, or not the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment would have to take a look at. The first being adjacent to non-residential zoning that allows for principal or accessory uses. So essentially, if it's near a commercial area, you are already seeing kind of commercial traffic, commercialization, and it sort of already has an increased impact. So I wanted to kind of weigh that as they made their consideration. The second, that there's a separation of some sort, whether that's an environmental feature, some other barrier such as a collector or higher roadway that would separate the short-term rental from some of the others that are causing that concentration issue. The third is it's in an area, or that a short-term rental that is sort of included in that calculation is located on the very perimeter, so providing some additional clarification there. And the last is that a neighborhood plan encourages short-term rentals. So staff took a look at that framework, and from that kind of distilled the list you see below an M that is not crossed through. So some of the changes we made were just sort of moving things around. But one of the things that was highlighted to us that came from one of the Board of Adjustment members was the question around affordable housing. So affordable housing has a textbook definition in our ordinance, but is a very technical one. And it seemed that that language was being used in the more general sense. And so we opened it up there. We removed the specificity of just limiting it to the affordable housing and really just opening it up to housing stock in general. So once again, letting them still make a call, but not having them be beholden to and honestly knowing information that may not be sort of publicly available as to the worth of the house or that particular area. The other changes that we made, and that was one of the things that was a typo in the last report, we changed the environmental feature. So what was, it was supposed to reflect a change shown right here where it says minor arterial. That was not carried forward in your previous text. So essentially upping the requirement to a more significant roadway, something that really serves as a barrier because collector roadways can be still found in neighborhoods and still operate kind of cohesively within that. So staff has several maps that will be kind of accompanying these next couple slides. This sort of illustrates the exceptions as kind of laid out here, one, two, and three, and where they might apply. With respect to the fourth consideration that council recommended that a neighborhood plan encourages this, that's not something that staff really sees as something that's going to occur in the future. When you're looking at a neighborhood plan, more likely than not, you're going to be looking at trying to maintain home ownership, and the comprehensive plan itself is really aimed towards kind of providing housing, maintaining housing, and so such a consideration is unlikely. But just to kind of give us an example, before I begin, these are all example maps. So these do not correspond to any actual application at all. These are just used for illustrative purposes. So these have not been evaluated. No one is proposing them. This is just to kind of give an idea of when these different considerations can come into play. So this is an example of one of the concentration maps that the Board of Adjustment sees. What you would have is you would have the subject property shown in red, that 500-foot buffer around it, which is used to determine if there is any short-term rentals within that 500-foot buffer. And that blue line that you're seeing here all the way around the perimeter is the 1,000-foot buffer that gives us the concentration number. And so the exceptions under the proposed ordinance as proposed, any short-term rentals located within that red area there, which you can see shown in this instance, we have the existing short-term rentals mapped out. So these little green dots that you're seeing here, here and here, and kind of around the map there, represent short-term rentals. So in this instance, this is a property that has other short-term rentals within 500 feet, so they would have to use one of those three criteria outlined by staff in order to make a case for even being able to be heard and reviewed and approved. So this is a property that is located off of Waller. I mean, so Waller is here. The railroad is running kind of diagonally through the screen here. So this illustrates one of the first considerations in that there is a significant environmental feature separating the short-term rental from the other short-term rentals that are causing them to not be in compliance. So here we have two short-term rentals within that 500-foot buffer that are on the opposite side of a railroad, so they're not connected. Here the applicant would have the ability to make a case that there is an environmental separation from those two uses that would not negatively impact the neighborhood here. You'll also notice that the 500-foot line that kind of rings around the proposed site here bisects another property that does have a short-term rental. So that's where the council's provision about there is a short-term rental located on the perimeter. So with this only having a concentration of 1.76%, this would be an instance where the concentration threshold is not being exceeded, and the applicant would be able to request but not necessarily be granted a short-term rental despite there being some located within 500 feet. As another example, we have, this is off Southland Drive. So the subject property here, shown in red, unfortunately the zoning isn't present on this map, but along Southland Drive is a kind of C of B1 zoning. So this is an instance where the property doesn't have, has a short-term rental within 500 feet, but it adjoins that commercial zoning that allows it by right. And so the council's initiated text and staff's continuation of that gives that additional consideration because this is in an area that is already sort of commercialized and experiencing that commercial traffic. And when you are joining an existing business and business zoning, that has different impacts than being located in the middle of a residential area. So here, once again, the concentration is less than 2%, and the applicant would be able to make a case to the Board of Adjustment because of its proximity to those commercial uses. The third map we have here is an example of a case that would not be able to be heard under our current requirements, or would not meet any of the three requirements that are set forth in the ordinance. So once again, you've got the proposed residence here, that 500-foot buffer. There is a short-term rental existing within that 500-foot buffer, but it is not adjacent to that zoning. It doesn't have any environmental or roadway separation that would cause it, and it doesn't meet any of those three criteria. So under this, the applicant really would not be able to make a justification for adding that short-term rental there. and the Board of Adjustment would have the grounds to deny that. So once again, going over the staff alternative changes just very briefly, there's some formatting and clarity changes, kind of clarifying the high demand as we discussed earlier, inclusion of the Division of Revenue Information, and reducing that concentration calculation from 3% to 2% to kind of reflect the areas that we're seeing. The maps that you saw were predominantly single-family areas and still had proposed an existing short-term rental uses, but we're still well below the 3% and we're somewhat close to the 2%. So we think that is a better metric to use to evaluate the real impact on a neighborhood kind of level. Once again, we broadened the housing stock consideration, increased that roadway requirement that the applicants can use as a justification when they don't meet the separation or the concentration requirements, And we removed the ability for that neighborhood plan because we find that that's sort of an unrealistic situation to occur. So with this, we are recommending approval of the staff alternative text. We find that it will add some additional protections against over-concentration of short-term rentals and provide the Board of Adjustment with some stronger language to kind of lean on and some more direct feedback on that. It provides enforceable limitations on hosted and unhosted short-term rentals in order to prevent adverse impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of the local community. Now, we have received several comment letters regarding this application and these changes. Those are present in Granicus on your screen there to consider. But staff is recommending approval of the alternative text as updated before you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of staff at this time. Thank you, Daniel. One quick clarification question that I have is on page two, in the amended paragraph number two, when you were reading that text near the end of the sentence, you said close proximity to the downtown core or other mixed use or entertainment areas, but what's written is entertainment uses. Do you know which is, I know we made several very small amendments at the committee level? Yes. So the entertainment uses is the language that staff is recommending right now. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for Daniel at this time? Mr. Owens. Just one. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In that same area on page two down at the bottom, under maximum occupancy, the way I'm reading it, it says maximum two two individuals per bedroom plus an additional two or a total of ten, whichever is less. So three bedroom house, you could have eight, not ten. Yes. Okay, thank you. I've got a question. Did you all, has there any work been made to address agricultural tourism or in natural areas? in our agricultural zones yes and i understand that there's also some natural there's some zones that are considered in environmental and entertainment i believe where you have yes activities going on there yeah so that those largely are going to be occurring in areas that are going to be outside of the urban services boundary so that short-term rental text that is going to be coming to you all in committees on the 5th of December and then being heard by this body on the 12th is going to address within the agricultural zones where those really are going to be occurring. So the AR, the AN, and the AB as well. So those are currently excluded. So really these are addressing just these zones that are outlined within those considerations. Okay, and can you explain that? What is the AN zone again? Yeah, so that is our natural area, so those are essentially near. Yes, that's what I was getting to. Yeah, so that's really down sort of by like Jessamine County, that section of the county outside of the urban services boundary. So it will provide some considerations for those areas. Staff has not yet generated any reports or alternative language, but those will be coming. Okay, because I think it is important to address those for agricultural and economic development. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I do have a question. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I don't know if I was reading that right. So the STRs that were kind of grandfathered in, they have until a certain time. So, yeah, the grandfather period for those has already taken place. So this is just clarifying that. So that was earlier this year. And so there was a period from when this was initiated in July. They had to January the following of that following year to get in, get a zoning compliance permit. And then they were allowed to continue to operate. Everybody past that cutoff date has had to come back to the, has had to come to the Board of Adjustment and go through the normal process like any new operating short-term. So they're already in there. Yeah, so that's that. Just clarification on that point, based on a letter that someone submitted. When they come back through that process, is that area treated as new ground? Are people going to be asked to shut down operating STRs? Yeah, so any existing short-term rental that has received the zoning compliance permit and gone through all the channels with revenue, is able to continue to operate even if these provisions here change. Where they would have to come into compliance or where they may end up in a situation where they couldn't continue operating is if they sold the short-term rental, and because the short-term rental regulations require that with a change of ownership, reflecting kind of new management there, they have to go back before the Board of Adjustment to be reevaluated. So any of those that are currently existing that exceed those concentrations would have to kind of go through the same process again. In other words, this person who was worried about whether their existing STR might be eliminated in the second round, that's not going to happen? No. Okay. One other related question, and this is not the ordinance, but the context in which you started out. One of the early slides, there was, I don't remember the terminology, but basically it was the history of the property and whether there were complaints or compliance record. Is somebody tracking complaints, and are those reported to the BOA when these kind of applications go forward? Yeah, so one of the things moving forward, and I think it was mentioned in some of the information provided from some of the neighborhood groups, is we are finalizing the process to have essentially a short-term rental hotline that can be called. Additionally, you know, complaints to the various bodies that kind of regulate the different types of police reports, zoning enforcement, code enforcement, all of those are kind of weighed in and synthesized as staff is evaluating that. and the owner's compliance history with coming into compliance with the requirements is presented. The police information, the information that we have from code enforcement and these other bodies are all incorporated into our staff reports. So multiple pieces of information that are kind of scattered based on what is particularly not in compliance are all kind of used in those considerations there. Right now they're scattered, but do you have a comprehensive database? So the Division of Revenue did put out an RFP and then chose a vendor for a system, and they are using Granicus, which is a, obviously we use Granicus for a different purpose, but the system is a product of the Granicus company, and they use that to keep all of the complaints that are coming to revenue. and we are working with the division of police to kind of marry our information with the information that they have so that they can, when they go on a call, know where short-term rentals have been approved and have that information before they even go to a party or something like that. Then they'll be able to report that back to us quickly, us and revenue, in case there needs to be some revocation or some other action associated with an operator. So we do have the new system, and it actually is, I think, working fairly well. Daniel mentioned the hotline. The director of revenue, Wes Holbrook, mentioned before we got started that that should be up and running even by the end of this week, so tomorrow. But we aren't yet advertising it on our website because the website is getting a major redo, makeover. And so once those kind of line up, that will be on their website more. But they are working with Airbnb to notify all of our licensed businesses that the hotline will be available and so forth. All right. Do we have any other comments or questions for staff? Mr. Penn. So let me follow up on that, Tracy. This basically is a privilege, not a right. In other words, you're applying for short-term rental to the Board of Adjustment. As long as you play by the rules, as long as you report your revenue to the right people and get your permit, it's a privilege not a right and let me follow up because i see you i don't mean if you sell the property the right goes with the property what i mean is if short-term rentals become excessively party excessively complaints whatever the board of adjustment can pull it pull their permit or how does that how does that work sure in the code of ordinances there's a kind of partner section that gives the division of revenue the ability to monitor the compliance issues. And part of that is parties or police responses to the property. And if they have two that are substantiated and meet the criteria in the code of ordinance, then the division of revenue can nullify their license. At that point, they would notify the Division of Planning, and we would nullify their conditional use as well. So your conditional use is only going to remain active as long as your license is active and in good standing. I think it's very important to get on the record. Thank you. I do have another question about the statement of whether the property is located within a neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement based upon socioeconomic demographics. What does that really mean? And if all the other protections are in place, what difference does it make where it's located? Because in a way, you're kind of saying if you're in whatever demographic, socioeconomic demographic, then you can't earn additional income by having your house as a STR. It's kind of what it says to me, but help me understand that. Yeah, part of our current considerations, and included in a component of every staff report that we do for Board of Adjustment conditional uses for short-term rentals, is a kind of a section that deals with the mayor's neighborhoods and transitions. So based on several factors, home ownership rates, racial demographic, socioeconomic information, kind of has identified some areas that are prone to displacement. So what this language is intending to do is to address situations where there may be involuntary displacement. So this is not something that is a hard and fast requirement. it's something for the board to consider. So if we have an area that, based on all of those factors outlined in the mayor's report, may be an area that is kind of subject to those issues, that they have the ability to consider that as well. It can be an opportunity for extra income. It can also be a loss of a housing unit and is now sort of a fully commercialized use rather than a resident living there. So having to kind of weigh that, the board is able to consider kind of the personal situation there as well. If it's an instance of someone who lives in the property most of the year but wants to rent it out on weekends, that may be viewed differently than I'm not going to reside there, no one lives there full time, and this is just a, you know, this is the full use of the property. So it gives them, in that instance, kind of a way to kind of weigh that and how that can sort of interact with issues of social justice and equity that can exist in the community. I just think we need to be careful of that, you know, how we apply that because it's bordering on you know fair housing violations possibly i mean you know so i think this that's just something i think you know if we are applying that you know that fair housing has to be considered because as a as a realtor it just does not feel very comfortable to me when you start uh well the the fair housing applies to the the person using this as a residence not necessarily the person who's using it as a transient room um for you know two or three days at a time so that part of the using that part of the dwelling unit isn't guaranteed as mr i'm talking about as far as me being an owner of an str if you know all you know All those things considered, it just makes me a little bit uncomfortable, that's all I'm saying from a fair housing standpoint. It starts feeling like I'm being targeted because of where my house is. Or, you know, not targeted, you know, that I could be unfairly judged just because of where my house is located, if that makes sense. I mean, not a huge stopper here, but I think it's just something that we have to be cognizant of. You're saying the open to interpretation can go either way. Right. Before Daniel ends, I just want to ask if there's any additional information our staff can provide to you before we move on to public comment. Our commissioner, Keith Horn, just wanted to know if everybody was clear about hosted versus unhosted and what really these regulations are geared towards our unhosted short-term rentals. So if someone lives on the site and or is a full-time occupant of the site, hosted is a principal use or an accessory use in even our residential zones. These apply to the unhosted, where there's no one available on the property while it's being made available for rent. And that's usually where either locally or nationally the issues have come up in terms of the parties or noise and our vehicle parking, that kind of thing, trash. Greater impacts on neighborhoods for the unhosted rentals. With the one kind of qualification that the occupancy still applies kind of across all of that. My assumption was we were talking about unhosted all along. Okay. Is that a bad assumption? That's correct. These changes are related to generally our conditional use permits, and those are for unhosted. Thank you. I've got a question about the blue text that indicates staff alternative text. Was that staff alternative text that was added to the document provided by council to us? Yeah, so if you're seeing blue text, that is a new insertion. If you are seeing that cross-through text, that's generally language that council had proposed, but we are recommending a deletion of or rework of somewhere else in the document. Okay, so this is something that we will vote on today. will go to council and they can review the blue text or the changes and make whatever decision that they feel appropriate that is correct all right do we have any other commissioner question or comment before we move to public comment thank you daniel thank you all right i have been given a list of folks who would like to speak and i will go through the list i'll call a few names so that we can kind of form a line uh if i call your name and you do not wish to speak you don't have to get up of course it is the policy of the planning commission that every citizen has three minutes uh we do have a timer just please approach the podium and state your name at the planning commission we do not permit the borrowing or the lending of time but everybody is entitled to three minutes so we'll start with Judy Humble, John Grimes and Trish Smith. Good afternoon Mr. Duncan and members of the Planning Commission thank you for hearing us today my name is Judy Humble I live in Kenwick and I'm introducing a group presentation on the SDR ZODA which will include asks for some additional changes. Our group is led by Walt Gaffield who's the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and it includes members of the Fayette County neighborhoods who have been working on this presentation. We had a group of representatives from about 25 neighborhoods all highly concerned and several of them have been able to join us today. The packet that you have just received includes an outline of our presentation so you can follow along it also includes a list of our asks and in particular it includes a research report that was put together by the Kenwick STR team is not exhaustive but it was representative of the research we found the findings are on page seven or eight of that packet and it demonstrated pretty much across the board that unhosted STRs contribute to an increase in housing prices in a community. They contribute to a decrease of available housing stock. That seems to go without saying. They also affect rentals. They contribute to a decrease in the availability of long-term rentals in the community, as well as increasing the rent. And that's pretty much across the board what we found. So that's one impact when they reach a certain mass. And then there's some other aspects as well. So our group has been deeply concerned about the impact of short-term rentals on the community and the neighborhoods. We have spent over a year observing the problems associated with the rapid growth in our community and living with them. These include saturation of some vulnerable neighborhoods, residents' burden with disruptive behavior from STR guests, and the constant loss of houses from the stock available to our residents during a time when our housing crisis has been front-page news. In response, we've worked hard. We've met with council. We've accumulated hundreds of signatures on petitions. We have gone downtown to oppose the deluge of new applications, and we have sat through countless long BOA meetings. Many times, these efforts have felt futile. even though we have contributed hours of work. So we have placed our hope on this revised ordinance, and we've hoped that it would better protect the needs of the neighborhoods. I will say that we recognize that some of the revisions in this ordinance definitely represent steps in the right direction, and we are very appreciative of those. Still, we have identified certain points that could permit existing problems to continue, and we strongly believe that the changes we will recommend today will add protection for all Fayette County neighborhoods while continuing to offer opportunities to parties who want to create new unhosted STRs. And I think if you look at a map of several of the neighborhoods, like the one that's up there now, you can see that even with the new density and distance requirements, there will still be room for additional STRs in this community. So we're not trying to close the door. We believe these requests are fair-minded and reasonable. Ms. Humble, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Pardon me? I'm sorry to interrupt you. You're a little over three minutes. Can you make up? I'm sorry, I can't. You're a little over three minutes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Our next presenters are John Grimes and Trish Smith. Yes. Thank you so much. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Hello. My name is John Grimes. I live on Sherman Avenue in Kenwick neighborhood. I have 11 STRs on my street. Kenwick is north of East Main Richmond Road across from the Henry Clay Estate. East Main is a major arterial road. We have a small B1 zone between Kenwick Table and Wilson's Grocery Store, and we back up to National Avenue. The current situation is that we have 31 STRs. All but one were grandfathered in under the prior STR that defined and legalized them. All of Kenwick would violate the density limits of this proposal, and most of Kenwick would violate the distance limit by our methodology. I want to stress the need to count all the STRs. We need to know what's going on on the ground. Count the hosted, the unhosted, the conditional use, those grandfathered in, all of them. And it's my opinion that Kenwick already has an overconcentration of STRs. This slide shows the impact of the relief described in 3-13 M1. It shows a large area around the B1 zone at the corner of Kramer and Aslee where the density and distance limits would not apply. The distance from B1 is set at 500 feet because of the term adjacent is very vague and developers are going to interpret that in the broadest possible way to their advantage. These B1 zones located in neighborhoods are all over town. They are typically an asset to the neighborhood and serve the people of the neighborhood, whereas STRs usually serve out-of-town people and out-of-town visitors, and this is an important distinction. And we have a major arterial road, East Main, Richmond Road, and this will again create a sizable chunk of Kenwick where the density and distance limits will not apply. And I'm unclear about the G2 clause that says, quote, the BOA shall take into consideration close proximity to the downtown core and or mixed uses. Kennewick is close to downtown and has mixed uses and a high demand for short-term rentals. So this makes our whole neighborhood vulnerable to these exceptions. So how will these play out in your neighborhood, I would ask. So this is really shown in over-concentration. Staff recommends approval because it provides greater protections from over concentration, and I don't think it does. It seems to be directing more STRs into the downtown neighborhood. It says it provides enforceable limitations. Well, I asked you specifically, how will the 10-person limit be enforced? Before trouble happens, before the police are called, how are you going to enforce that? How can you have rules that are unenforceable? I have some issues about the map, but I'm not sure I'm going to get into that. We use a calculation looking at property, not dwelling units. Planning should make available to the public a zoomable, a clickable map of all the STRs in Lexington, so we have the data. What we did, we kind of cobbled together something. We don't have the ability and capacity that planning does, but it would be great if they They shared their data and showed the visualization of this around the city to you all, to council, so we have a sense, a better idea of what's happening in Lexington's neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Trish Smith, then Walt Gaffield, Kayla Preston, and Lynn Flynn. Thank you. I'm Trish Smith. I'm a resident of Belcourt, and I used to live in Kenwick, so I love this neighborhood. And I just want to build a little bit on what John said. We work together on this map. We would like there to be more citizen tools moving forward where we can look up this information, because we went through Acela, and then we went through PDA, and we overlaid, and we did all kinds of little measurements. So as this moves forward and becomes part of our community, we would just like to have better ways to be able to figure out which houses are STRs, which are hosted and unhosted, and how does hosted compliance happen. We're finding people are submitting applications as hosted, and then there are houses in our neighborhood, and it looks like no one lives there. So what happens if they apply as hosted, but they operate as unhosted? You know, just how does that work out and what can we do about that? And then what John said, these certain communities where these relief areas where exceptions stack up and overlap, just be cognizant there's a real potential to overburden those neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gaffield. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm President of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, and I will be representing the asks or what the neighborhoods want from both the neighborhood council and the Kenwick core team. Number one, in zoning ordinance, proposed zoning ordinance 3-13K, increase the buffer distance between STRs hosted and unhosted to a distance of 700 feet with no exceptions. Pursuant to zoning order 7-6A, and Louisville has a 600-foot buffer but requires that owners be the host, zoning ordinance 7-6A states that where the zoning ordinance establishes conditions for a conditional use, such conditions are the minimum. So you can establish a minimum with no exceptions. It's available. Number two, in 313L, maintain the staff recommended maximum density for STRs of 2% for dwelling units within a 1,000 foot radius. Again, with no exception. Eliminate 3-13M, which provides relief from distance and density requirements. The relief provisions are harmful to neighborhoods. relief provision number one would allow the BOA to allow STRs to ignore distance and density requirements in residential areas if adjacent whatever that means to non-residential zones that allow short-term rentals as principal or accessory uses the neighborhood business zone B1 which is all over Lexington and other commercial zones allow short-term rentals as principal or accessory uses. Would an investor want an STR in B1 or in a less expensive residential zone? I mean, that's essentially what it does. The impact would be to reduce STRs in commercial zones and increase them in residential zones, some that are already overburdened. B1 areas are, just to give you an idea, like Southland Drive, Kenwick Table, National Avenue, and Romney Road, and Chevy Chase. So do you really want STRs to grow around those areas? Is that a good idea? These are some of our best neighborhoods. Relief provision number two would allow an STR to avoid a distance or density requirement if a road is designated as a minor arterial or larger. That ignores the varying width of arterials in the context. Clay's Mill Road, for example, is classified as a major arterial despite being relatively narrow at points and largely having residential areas on both sides of the road. Relief provision number three would allow a dwelling unit on the perimeter of the buffer with part of the dwelling unit inside the buffer. This simply reduces the size of the buffer. Is that a good idea? The relief provisions, if allowed, particularly impact downtown areas, areas adjacent to business and entertainment districts, I'll make this quick, neighborhood areas adjacent to larger roads and embedded business zones, many of the zones are already overburdened. This next one I'd like to fit in if I can, it's very short. In addition to citation, by the way, please don't give citations for parties, it's very unusual and to get to is almost impossible. You should also include notices of violation and resulting compliance results that involve official investigations as possible reasons for view or loss of licensure, including building code violations. The rest, the other two are very short and you can either read them or I can present them. It's your choice. We enjoy reading. You enjoy reading very good. Thank you. Alrighty, and then after Ms. Flynn is Kaina Koch, Jay Cabaniss, and Mike Brower. Hello, everyone. I'm Kayla Preston, and I am a owner and operator of a house on Leggett Street near downtown. Walking into this room and reading all the information, I was a bit misunderstood and misguided by what the differences in the ordinance, And so, but now I do understand it a little bit better. So I'm appreciative of you all holding this space and allowing us to come up and understand it deeper because the languages are a little bit difficult to read at times, especially when you don't have any sort of legal background. So regardless, I just want to let you all know that I'm super thankful for the amount of work that you all have been doing. I've recently been approved as an Airbnb host earlier this year, and I've got all of the the applications in and have been approved and all of that and it was a very strenuous process but I do appreciate it Because I work for a nonprofit of Bria College. I'm a single woman I own a home in Bria and a home here due to my brother's death and The way that I'm allowed and able to run this house as a B&B has enabled me to be financially stable As you all know nonprofit work and people do work for nonprofits do not get paid that much And so for me to have this as a secondary job, I'm very thankful. So that's pretty much all I really have to say I I had to wrote a whole list of things and reasons why I Think that my area and my neighborhood is good for the B&B You know, I am I am close to the distiller district and it's walking distance so I think foot traffic is great for ecotourism and you know just continuing to provide that the beauty and and show the beauty of of Lexington by me being close to the downtown region and all the local businesses that are in the Meadowthorpe area and in the distillery district and in downtown as well. Regardless, I again, I can't say it enough, I appreciate the amount of time that you all have given me throughout my process and I hope that future applicants are also able to understand the red tape that it does require to go through this and I hope that with the new website and the the new hotline, it does allow people to understand it at a deeper level before they get involved in paying the fees and application service licensing fees and all of that. So again, I just appreciate you all, and I'm really up here to just say thanks. So again, thanks. Thank you. Are you ready for me to start? Yes, please. Okay. Good afternoon. I'm Lynn Flynn. I live at 518 Spring Hill Drive and I'm an officer of the Piccadill Neighborhood Association. I'm representing the Neighborhood Association here this afternoon. We're very concerned about short-term rentals and their impact on neighborhoods as well as on housing availability and costs citywide. You've heard all the reasons for our concerns, so I certainly won't repeat them. At last count, we identified 23 short-term rentals in the neighborhood, which represents a density of 2.5% for the entire neighborhood. And I know that's not exactly the way it's counted, but it gives you a sense. We're not quite Kenwick, but we're working on it. Several of the short-term rentals in our neighborhood are unlicensed. We appreciate several of the revisions the Council and Planning Division staff have suggested in the short-term rental ordinances, particularly the addition of specific distance and density limitations and reducing the maximum occupants. To further improve the ordinance, we support the changes that the Fayette County Neighborhood Council has recommended that you have before you. The draft ordinance as it stands today includes several, I'll call them exceptions, to the distance and density limitations. And as I just said, our neighborhood really likes the distance and density limitations and feels that they're going to be very useful to us and to the city as well. The exceptions, if implemented, will likely result by policy in higher concentration of short-term rentals in the areas that are called out as exceptions in the ordinance. Do we really want to adopt a policy that will lead to short-term rentals clustering in certain areas within Lexington's neighborhoods? I think not. To change direction for just a moment, the representative from the Hill and Dale Neighborhood Association was planning on speaking today but was unable to attend. I understand that she's ill. She did ask me to relay to you that the Hill and Dale Neighborhood Association supports the Fayette County Neighborhood Council recommendations. I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony about the planned changes in the short-term rental ordinance. Again, repeating, my neighborhood association is very supportive of a number of the changes in the revised ordinance and also of the additional changes that are being proposed today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Kena Ko, and I'm vice president of the Harrods Hill Neighborhood Association. I'm speaking today on behalf of our board of directors and the neighborhood. If you're not familiar with Harrods Hill, we're a little slice of heaven wedged in between Palomar and Beaumont. We have about 440 homes built in the late 70s and 80s. Membership in our neighborhood association is voluntary, and we're at around 50%. The surrounding area includes seven hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, a UPS store, a library, a performance venue, a local park, a large grocery, and an elementary school. We have supported open roads and fought a developer who wanted to close one. Our area is within walking distance of these commercial areas and amenities. amenities. We insisted on deed restrictions on the R3 area next to us to have an area more closely resembling the B1 neighborhood business zone. Concerning short-term rentals, you would think if you know anything about Harrods Hill and our history, we have supported commercial development in the past, but not all commercial development is good. We do not support the STRs as they are presented. We have had one already that was a nuisance. It took until 3 a.m. for the police to resolve a very serious issue. A second prospective landlord had the help of a management company, lied on the application for zoning compliance permit. We discovered the area and then it was never filed. We convinced a third prospective landlord to drop the application for a conditional use permit. The outcome was positive for us because the result was two new long-term rentals in our neighborhood and a new neighbor. Lexington has a housing crisis. Commercial short-term rentals have taken up over 1,000 houses that otherwise would be available to the housing market. STRs harm rather than provide benefits to neighborhoods. We support the Neighborhood Council Kenwick Core Team proposal to limit the expansion of short-term rental properties in Lexington through mandatory distance and density requirements to help preserve our little slice of heaven. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And after Mike Brower, we have Mark Matthews, Kristen Nelson, Terry Lenny, Danny Albertson. Ready? Hi there. I'm Janet Cabanus. I live in District 9, which is Stonewall, and I'm speaking today for Stonewall Community Association. Our president, Kim Justice, would like to be here, but she could not make it because of her job, which is a frequent complaint, I'm afraid, for all the afternoon activities that the LFUCG does. Overall, Stonewall would be happier if there were no STRs in Stonewall, but we know that's not realistic given the current proclivities around here. So we say that we do support very strongly the points made by the study and investigations of Kenwick and the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. We think they're a good idea. In addition, I do think you should know what happened when, after the BOA gave a conditional use permit to a property at 786 Bravington, It was unhosted STR, and the location was Bravington and Grasmere. Those are major roads in Stonewall. It was owned by a person who pledged that his house would be an STR for only 90 days a year. 90 days, that's three months, which is better than a year if you're going to come out against STRs. Number one, at the hearing I did ask for the owner to notify neighbors of which 90 days the house, the property would be an STR. And they didn't. Okay. Okay, so the conditional use permit is awarded. and lo and behold, shortly after that approval, at least one time, neighbors in that area on, I believe it was Grasmere and Bravington, in the daytime, found their streets literally choked with many cars. I do know of one occasion where this happened. That's all I know. Nobody told me about it. I learned sort of by hook or by crook, you know, how you learn those things. because one Stonewall resident who could not get out of his own driveway because of the number of cars put it on social media, Facebook or Nextdoor, something like that. That's the only way an audience was informed. Nobody told anybody anything. They just put it on there and showed pictures. Otherwise, we would not have known. Turns out it was a wedding reception, and that's not approved in the ordinance, I don't think. We're not allowed to have wedding receptions, are we? There were like 10 cars could have been parked there according to the conditional use permit. We need enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, and that's what the lady before me just said, I think. And also, I think we're going to have to spend some money to publicize the fact that you can't just rent a house out and invite a wedding reception. Thank you so much. And finally on the list after everybody else is Trish Smith. And then any other citizen who's present today would like to speak as well. My name is Mike Brower. I'm the vice president of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association. and our executive committee of our board would like to chime in and say that we completely support all of the asks that the Fayette County Neighborhood Council has. We're particularly interested in reducing relief across the board. It should stick to the, well, reducing relief for SDRs unnecessarily. Our concern, our neighborhood is adjacent to Central Baptist Hospital on Nicholasville Road. It runs down to Edgemore. and one of the concerns that we have is that homes there that would be built out for STRs, if they didn't stay STRs, if there was bedrooms and bathrooms added, they would become likely spots for college students because we're right off campus. And we've had experience with that over the years, and it generally there was trash issues, party issues, late night nuisance with noise, and very little it seems that the authorities could do much about it. There was warnings, but not much else. So enforcement, I think, is one of our concerns. And again, we support the Fayette County's Neighborhood Association's recommendations. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Terry Lenny, Vice President of the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association, and I'm speaking on behalf of both the association and myself as a homeowner in opposition to the inclusion of Item 2G under this standard. There's three points I want to make regarding that. And that's the one that declares open season on downtown neighborhoods for STRs. So point one, when I hear the Planning Commission zoning description of downtown neighborhoods is mixed use, it sounds more like a value statement than a zoning description. It strikes me as though they are considered commodities to be exploited rather than neighborhoods to be protected. And the inclusion of 2G sort of reinforces that perception. To reframe your perspective on how decisions are made, it would be ideal if the description of mixed use was followed by the statement that the primary use is residential and within that the residential dwellings are primarily single family homes and I emphasize the word family. It is within this context that decisions should be made. In other words, one of, if not the primary consideration should be how does this decision affect the residents of that neighborhood. The value of these neighborhoods to the city was recognized over 50 years ago when the H1 overlays were created. These overlays were crucial to the protection of the historic homes surrounding downtown. At that point, the neighborhoods were neglected, crime-ridden, and many of the homes were in desperate need of repair. It was the people who bought those houses and lived in those homes and restored them to their current glory. And it is the current owners and long-term residents who maintain them. Thus, while the H-1 overlays save the houses, it was the owner-occupied residents who saved the neighborhoods. And it is crucial that the long-term health of these neighborhoods, that the high number of homes remain owner-occupied or as long-term rentals. Point three, it is not the responsibility of downtown neighborhoods to support the tourist industry. and it is unreasonable to place that burden on us. These neighborhoods, however, are already supporting tourism in two ways. One, as the crown jewel of downtown Lexington, they are prominently featured in literature and videos promoting tourism. And number two, and I think this one is greatly underappreciated, these neighborhoods are crucial to the safety of downtown. That these neighborhoods are safe is the reason people can travel to and from downtown through these neighborhoods without fear. This is only possible with a high number of long-term residents invested in the safety of these neighborhoods. Think about what it would be like if these neighborhoods reverted to what they were 50 years ago, what the effect that would have on tourism. In sum, these neighborhoods require the same protection as all other neighborhoods in this city by the removal of item 2G. Hello, my name is Danny Albertson. I've been hosting Airbnb since 2019. I'm a nurse practitioner and a 40-year resident of the central Kentucky area. My wife and I started the process in 2018. We took a 1906 house on West 3rd Street that was neglected for years, spent $200,000 of borrowed money, saved money, sweat, credit cards to get it going. $50,000 in furnishings to start the first here in BB. We really enjoyed the process and getting to know and be a connection point for people coming into the community and we could be a good guide for them. A few years later, my siblings and my wife's siblings and I came together and decided we wanted to do more properties. So we took a lot of our retirement money, a lot of our time, and really invested heavily in these old structures, 120-year-old structures that needed new plumbing. They needed new electric. They had sheetrock that was plaster falling down. We spent the time doing that. We knew we were doing that with the short-term difficulty to have a long-term benefit. And it wasn't going to be the six-unit building that we did wasn't going to be economical to do a long-term rental with. So and the building that took us $300,000 to get going single-family residents wasn't going to be economical just to rent it out. So you all know about the short-term rental people that come in and they go to ballgames on all this stuff. Do we know that the health care people that stay at our units, the people that live in the communities that are going through separations and they don't want to be away from their kids so they stay with us? People coming in for funerals stay with us. Visiting professors stay with us. A lot of people who want to get to know Lexington and need to be in Lexington, we provide for them safe homes. We get out in our communities. We give our cell phone to our neighbors. And we want people to know we are there for them. We support local businesses. We want to be great. And we are great community members. So since we started hosting, our units specifically have brought in $175,000 in hotel taxes. There's Airbnb stats that in 2023, I think it had a $54 million economic activity because of Airbnb host and guest in and around Lexington. In 2023, Airbnb host supported 2,000 jobs and generated $25 million in taxes. Ultimately, this is what I want for you all to know. I would like you all to recognize us short-term rental hosts as valuable members of the community and as the tourism industry, which we are. I would ask that with this new hotline that we just don't have communities calling in and reporting because I have personal knowledge that communities are getting ready to do this in Facebook posts to complain, to take action in their own hands, to get us out of their neighborhood. We have to have a hearing before licenses are pulled, and I think that's reasonable. Last thing, I'm leaving grandfathered in the ability to potentially, we're grandfathered in, I would love the ability to transfer that license on sale to property. We've invested our time, our resources, and we think we should not be harmed in the process. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Patty Drouse. I live in Joyland neighborhood on Allen Court. and I'm here representing the Joyland Neighborhood Association Board, and we want to say that we support the Fayette County Neighborhood Council recommendations. We support mandatory distance and density requirements. We do not support exceptions to density and distance, as it appears that it's going to be pretty easy to get these exceptions. Joyland is an affordable housing neighborhood with significant numbers of long-term rentals. Using this housing basically as hotel space removes affordable housing from the market. Additionally, the Joyland Neighborhood Association Board has worked hard to develop community spirit in this neighborhood and to treat everyone fairly and as good neighbors. And we have increased the neighborhood safety out there. And it doesn't seem that having random people cycling in and out of the neighborhood with all these exceptions is going to help that. Please do not allow exceptions to distance and density. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Alex Nairmore and I live at 528 West 3rd Street. I think something important that was said was that this is becoming a privilege and not a right. And so my issue with this is that I'm a professional person. I'm recently divorced and I want to Airbnb my house as a supplemental income. I've had an Airbnb adjacent to me for years with no issue, like it's conjoined, which also I think is kind of a problem when you're it's so would that mean in the future I wouldn't be able to do my half since kind of like a townhome situation but my friend said why would you get up here basically and and say that you would need the supplemental income and it's like no matter how successful my business is you've still lost a hundred and thirty thousand dollars of what you had from your spouse's like you know input so basically like the house is mine and that's what I have to make money so I think considering that even if I rented it in April and October for Keeneland that that would pay for my mortgage I think that acknowledging like how life-changing they would significantly changed my life is something to consider and again I was gonna say I'm it's like Danny's rental but it's caused me no issues so I think like thinking about how complicated you're making this for people that need it just you know for base living versus just you know neighborhood concerns is important but thank you Hello, my name is Tom Evelyn. I live at 52 Mintel Park, and I'm president of the Mintel Neighborhood Association, which is who I'm representing today. Thanks for listening to us today. I wanted to endorse the changes that the Fayette Neighborhood Council has recommended, particularly eliminating some of the exceptions. We are a neighborhood of more than 300 homes and a couple dozen businesses, a very good mixed-use neighborhood, also got a few churches sandwiched between Belcourt and Kenwick. Once the grandfathered units were, STRs were admitted, we have 13 within the neighborhood and another five or six within a block of the neighborhood. We've had a couple of cases that we've opposed before the Board of Adjustment since the grandfather period ended. Both were turned down and Board of Adjustment members said there are just too many in our neighborhood. So we're very concerned, and I'm particularly concerned about the exceptions here for business districts and for close to downtown. One of the things that makes Lexington strong is its vibrant downtown neighborhoods. And those are neighborhoods where people live full-time and participate in the life of the community. While there is a place for short-term rentals, I think that place is getting pretty saturated in many neighborhoods. You know, this is a city with a housing shortage and an affordable housing shortage and rapidly escalating home prices. You know, already a thousand units are taken out of our housing stock and I know in my neighborhood prices have skyrocketed in the last 12 years. So I would just urge you to consider the changes the neighborhood council has recommended. I think the council has done a good job of strengthening the ordinance and I think these changes will make it even stronger. Thank you. Hello wonderful people of Lexington. My name is Norberto Reyes and I'm part of part of the owner of MasterClean. I'm representing MasterClean and my business partner Pedro Reyes. When we first started cleaning we had one house and one SDR unit to clean. This was back in 2018. Moving forward to 2020, this type of cleaning SDR kept me afloat, helped me feed my family, pay for my car, everything that I everything that I had to pay mostly came from short-term cleanings. It is no doubt that great part of my company's success is due to the SDR. After the first SDR ordinance, I saw the decline of SDR business. I had to let a couple of ladies go that were going to be part of my short-term rental cleaning. I had to let them go because we didn't have the business. Fortunately, our business has grown in other ways, business, more houses, you name it. But I feel sad about the Airbnb or the short-term rental as it's one of my favorite cleanings to do. personal. It's something that I think it's innovative. And if you think about it, the short term rental is an evolution of the hotel or the bread and breakfast. It's the now, it's the future. Now as someone that used to live at 575 Western Street, the lady that just stopped was my neighbor, these people never bothered me. I never heard a noise. The ambulances at 3 a.m. made more noises than that. The people that used to come in, they used to ask me where was the best place to go, where was the best place to eat. They used to go to the Green Lantern. That cannot be bad for the economy. That cannot be bad for Lexington in the community. That is all that I have to say. Thank you. My name is T. Bergman. I am not signed up to speak because the sign-up sheet or document was gone. So if you will allow me to speak. I am president of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization, and I speak from that perspective on that part of town, Harrodsburg Road and Lane Allen. We are a very comfortable little neighborhood, and we want to stay that way. We have issues with the businesses around us, and we're working with them. It's very difficult then to have people within our community changing the picture, changing the housing for the neighborhood. So I ask you to please listen carefully to what has been presented today. I think it's very reasonable. I also want to thank you for taking the time to listen and caring enough to try to correct something that was put in place before we really understood what could go wrong. I also speak as an individual here. I am deeply concerned about our city and the fact that we need affordable housing. We need additional housing that average people can afford. You take these houses off the market and you change our city. You take a horse farm off the market, you change our city. So please, number one, or secondly, I say thank you. I hope the next time we visit this issue again, we'll have lots of positive comments. Thank you. Hello, my name is Daniel Rogers, and I operate a company that specializes in furnished accommodations that primarily right now services healthcare professionals and international scholars. I started this back in 2020. I just lost my job working for a study abroad program that was helping students to come here and study at the U.S. and I had to help them find housing when they were stranded because of the pandemic. So that kind of introduced me to the space and then especially with all the traveling nurses at the time, I found that there was a real need for these sort of accommodations. And I ended up beginning this business and it's only grown and grown and I just see every day the positive things that these people are contributing to the community, people that are here to work, not just in the healthcare profession, but other professions as well, people don't think of. People need places to stay where they're comfortable and it's affordable, you know, and this really does solve a need. So that being said, I'm totally supportive of the regulations and I think it's very important to make sure people are accountable and are running their businesses responsibly. But I think there needs to be some weight here placed on the fact that we do need places for people to stay, it does support our tourism. We've seen a lot of issues when the baseball team was selected for the regional and they had opposing teams staying in the dorms because we don't have the rooms here. So if we want Lexington to continue to grow and bring in big events, host events, then I do think this is an important piece of the puzzle. So when we're looking at providing recommendations to BOA, I think that's a good idea. But I think you should include not just here's the things that the reasons to disapprove, but also reasons to approve. If you could put clear guidance for a lot of investors who want to operate responsibly, want to do things the right way to say, hey, here's the concerns that need to be addressed, and people could have the confidence to purchase and actually bring a useful room or space to the community, and they know that if they meet certain requirements, they're more than likely to be approved. And so I think also the conditional use permit, having the ability for that to be transferable, because at the end of the day, anybody that moves in is still going to have to register for the short-term rental permit, and they're going to have to follow all those rules, and they can be revoked. So I think the ability, if it could just be transferable, then at least you could have some confidence in making a purchase. And also just lastly, you know, with that I think that's some benefit to the neighborhood as well to know which houses are short term rentals and not having that changing just because a house sells and then another one comes up. That way they can watch it better and monitor it better. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Hi my name is Vincent Ferlici. I'm the public policy manager for Airbnb. I'm visiting you today from Arlington, Virginia. And I've been here the last couple of days and been here a few times over the last six months. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. You all have been put in a very difficult position. We at Airbnb believe that you shouldn't be asked to be thinking about what's before you today. We work with communities, thousands of them, around the country. My role is this region of the country. From here to Virginia to Maryland, communities don't use zoning like this to regulate short-term rentals. They use it to regulate things like auto repair shops, adult entertainment facilities, and bars. There's been burgeoning case law that frankly takes into effect that this country was founded on home sharing. It was George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who housed people to help array our constitution. That being the case on a more local level, I wanted to tell you that I've heard a lot of things today. And Airbnb is here in Lexington, there's less than 1% of your fellow Lexingtonians that are doing this. So these concerns about affordable housing, with all their respect, 99% of the homes here are either owned or rented long term. And that 1% is generating over $50 million in economic activity. And one thing that I found super interesting when I looked at the data to come here to speak with you today is that Lexington's unique. And you know that because you live here. Lexington's unique in Kentucky. You have the longest average stay of any Airbnb guest in the state. 40% of the people who stay with an Airbnb host stay over 14 nights. I suspect it's your university and it's your amazing hospital. other things that draw people who need to be here. So you're in a bad spot in our opinion, and we think that what you're being asked to do is pick winners and losers, because there are people that are going to be inside of this 500-foot buffer who are going to be losers, simply because someone got there first and got their permit first. We strongly recommend that you tell the council this is not the way to regulate. The way to regulate is how almost every city in America does. It's an administrative process. Conditional use permitting is also picking winners and losers. Asking people of all races, colors, to stand before bodies to be judged has been seen to be wrong. In fact, the state of Virginia outlawed it as of July 1st and said no more on primary residents. I know you're in a tough spot. you for the chance to be here. We think you should send this back to council and have them look at ways that other cities are regulating this and not ask you to use broadsword power that you're experts at when they should be using policy power. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I think we have one final speaker. Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark. Sorry. Oh, sure. He said he would turn it on. Is it on? Okay. I appreciate your accommodation here. This is new to me too. I'd like to start by urging that we correct the persistent misapprehension. And we've heard it from the BOA chair nearly every month, occasional other members, and now it's in the staff report. The STR is a commercial use. It's not mixed residential and business as the staff report would have it. In our residential zones and those that permit residential use, it turns a dwelling unit permitted for long-term residential use. This would accommodate many of these health workers people are talking about. That's a month or more. residential use it turns into a commercial hospitality use transient rental of less than 30 days the short-term rental is correctly defined as a commercial use in our zoning ordinance under short-term rental 111 short-term rental means the commercial use of a dwelling unit that is rented in whole or for temporary occupancy and so on. So I think we're clear in our foundation, it's a commercial use of a residential dwelling unit. It's my impression, I've been to many of these BOA meetings and watched others, taken part in some of them. The BOA is so overwhelmed with this conditional use, they're frustrated. Brandon Gross the other day told the zoning committee they're vilified. they're just overwhelmed there are too many if there's any way you could um... put a quarterly limit on applications uh... there are estimated to be from our software company some twelve hundred and uh... s t ours in lexington some of them are not currently renting maybe a hundred of them six hundred or so were grandfathered in the grandfather option is over now We're up to in total we have 893 zoning compliance permits and that's BOA and the grandfathering. I don't know whether that also includes STRs in B1 and zones that allow them by right or not. But obviously there are still a great many who need a license if they're to operate and don't yet have one. I would like to direct your attention to the handout there, Zoning Ordinance 7-6. Conditional uses are those that may be suitable only in specific locations in a zone that allows them as a conditional use, and only if certain conditions are met. And one of the judgments is whether they have an adverse influence on existing or future development. In a neighborhood zoned residential, they have an adverse influence if they, well, I think in general, go down further and we see that where the zoning ordinance as such establishes conditions for a conditional use, so it'll list a use like mining in a zone like agricultural, there will be tons of conditions. When the zoning ordinance establishes them, such conditions are the minimum requirements for the use. They may not be waived or varied. So one of the proposals was to allow some latitude in the 500 feet. For certain circumstances, I think that's actually something our zoning ordinance won't allow. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak on this question? If not, we had a commissioner question. Could we have the definition of the term hosted? I couldn't remember if it's in the ordinance itself or not. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For the record, Amy Clark, Castle Road. Thank you. yeah thank you okay so this is in the ordinance in the zoning order it's okay it's in article one already i can print out a new one So do we have a definition for primary resident? Yes, that's not in the zoning ordinance, it's actually in the code of ordinances, because it says right there, as defined in sections 13-76 of the code of ordinances. so if if memory serves me it means that someone is living in the structure at least 275 days in a given 365 day year that's the hosted part they asked what a primary resident was that's the person that lives there at least 275 days okay i just i just want to be clear okay Okay, so it says you continue to occupy the property. Does that mean that the host is there during the rental or that they just continue to hold it as their primary residence? No, the host is present on site during the rental. So hosted short-term rentals are not conditional uses. Okay. They are accessory uses. The renting and allowing of someone to be there while you're still living there is accessory to you living there. It's accessory to the single family dwelling. The unhosted is where it becomes more the transient guest is occupying a house or a dwelling unit, and there's no one there during the stay. And those unhosted ones are the ones that currently in a residential zone require a conditional use. So if I have a hosted STR and I say I'm going to be gone over the weekend, I cannot rent it out? No, that's true. I'm saying yes and no at the same time. Okay. So I guess I'm not understanding. I guess I was thinking that hosted meant that I have this as my primary residence, but it doesn't necessarily mean that over the weekend when I'm renting it, I have to be there. You have to be there. I have to be there. Anytime you're renting it, if you have a hosted unit, you are there. Okay, so a hosted is really more like a bed and breakfast type situation where usually with the bed and breakfast you have the owner still there. Yes. Okay. And to be clear, a primary resident does not have to be the owner. It can be a long-term renter. who lives there and you have permission from the owner or whatnot. So, Tracy, I mean, for an example, if you have a property that's owned R2, say it's a duplex, you live on one side, you could have a hosted occupancy up to 10 as an accessory use on the adjoining unit? every unit is considered separate so it would still be on right is it on the property it's based on the parcel if you have if the duplex is it if it's on its own parcel both units then you could be hosted if it's wholly owned by the same it well i'm sorry i shouldn't say that if it is one property it hasn't been condoed or anything like that into two separate right legal properties if it happens to be more of a townhouse development where the property line goes down the shared wall then again we're looking at this parcel does it have are you there and then this parcel separate to sorry to go back to Mr. Penn would like to speak. Is that right? Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Staff, again, Tracy, Daniel, go back to hosted just for a second. I heard something, and then earlier it was mentioned. currently it's hosted up to 10. Does the maximum occupancy still apply as far as what happens if there's five bedrooms in the house? Yeah, so for the hosted consideration, you have the calculation that's based on the number of bedrooms or that other number, the maximum occupancy, whichever is less. So if you had, say, in this abstract situation, you were hosting, you had 10 bedrooms, you would still only be allowed to have a maximum of 12. Anything past that would require you to go get a conditional use from the Board of Adjustment for exceeding that. One other question right now, kind of relating, that's the way I'm reading it, with a business zone. a corner market in a residential area, that only that corner market may have a business zone. Does that give everybody relief, that one lot? Yeah, so if, actually, can we bring up the staff's presentation? That was one of the things that we wanted to clarify. The graphics that were presented by the neighborhoods, I think, misconstrued some of the language that we had, So I'll bring up our map and kind of walk through where that additional kind of consideration comes in. So just to reorient everybody, the sections where it's been talked about kind of in several aspects where the neighborhoods are not wanting the opportunity to seek relief from that, no shore terminals within 500 feet or no concentration greater than 2%. The first consideration is the property is adjacent to non-residential zones that allow short-term rentals as a principal accessory use. The maps and graphics that were provided to you all from the neighborhood side showed a buffer around these zones of 500 feet. This is intended to be directly adjoining. So the parcels directly adjoining a B1 zone, for instance, would be able to ask for that consideration. It is also not a guarantee that they would even get it. It would still be weighed against all of the other factors, but it is intended to mean adjoining as in the literal sense. So moving on to here, this is Southland Drive. The adjoining properties along Southland Drive, even though it isn't noted, are zoned B1. This is the property that adjoins a non-residential zone that allows it as a principal use, so they can look to that angle. The house to the south of them, directly to the south, is not adjoining a B1 zone and would not be able to ask for that same provision. So I think there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding of how that standard was being applied. The second one, and it's really kind of a related but not the same concern, was separation and how that played out with discussions of roadways. In the map that was shown to you all, there was a buffer from Richmond Road and from, I guess, Winchester Road as well. this is only when it separates. So here we have, for instance, the railroad in the Urban County Council's text and in staff's recommended text. It doesn't make sense necessarily to consider this concentration here when it has no relevance to the neighborhood located on this side. So it gives them the ability to kind of refine that, but it has to be a separating. It's not we are next to Nicholasville Road, therefore we get to do whatever we want. It allows for those context-sensitive, okay, there is one within 500 feet, but you couldn't get there walking. You would have to drive a mile and a half around these perimeter roads to get there. So it gives the applicant some flexibility in some of these corner cases, and really those are what those are intended to be. The 500 foot and the 2% are really supposed to be these kind of core considerations, but in various aspects, such as having an intervening railroad or a major arterial that sort of serves as discrete dividers, dividers, it makes sense to include those kinds of considerations. So I think some of that may have gotten lost sort of in translation. Really these are meant to be very limited tools, and if those tools aren't being met exactly, they wouldn't be able to seek that conditional use and it wouldn't be granted. So it is much more strenuous to try to prove those exceptions than it is locating in an area where you don't have anything within 500 and you're fine with the concentration. So if that answers that. It's starting to. Go back to the other slide first. Not that one. No, no, no, no. I said you want the other map? The other map. I'm sorry. That one. So you've got one that's adjoining a B zone. others like that the joining B zones be allowed or is that the only one? So essentially if you are joining the B zone you get to ask. They get to weigh that within all the other considerations but if you were the next one over you would still have one within 500 feet and you are not directly adjoining therefore that exception wouldn't apply and so you would be bound by that 500 foot district. I'm not sure that's the question, Daniel. Sure. If all of those are B1s along the Southland Drive or whatever, can each one of those ask? Yeah, so the B1 is not restricted in that same way. Those are principal primary uses. So a short-term rental within those commercial B1 zones are not beholden to those concentrations. So in a row here, so you could ask here and here. and essentially i i think you would be allowed to through that exception however you would still have to prove that you're not having an over concentration in the area that you're not depleting the housing stock and meet the rest of those considerations so yeah thank you daniel yes can you please respond to the um short presentation that was provided to us by the the representative from Airbnb. Can you please respond to those comments that this should be handled from a policy aspect and not from a land use aspect? And I concur that this body is being asked to do too much. But as I'm looking at this resolution from council to planning commission, it is exactly what we're being asked to do. We are being asked to vote on this today. Can you respond and make comments to what you heard from the representative from Airbnb, please? Okay. So, Tracy kind of relayed to me, the framework that we came from prior to 2023 was we didn't have any regulations regarding short-term rentals. And so, this is sort of how we've gotten to the point today where the commercial use of a residence has sort of created these issues that are important to the neighborhoods. It's important to the communities that we're serving. So I don't know if we necessarily agree with the representative from Airbnb's read on what we can regulate at a local level, especially when it comes to conditional uses, uses that may not be appropriate in all zones. There are certainly places that have taken different approaches to regulating Airbnb. Some are as a principal use by right. Others do it more intensely. We are not the only entity in the state that is seeking to regulate in this manner. So, you know, we look at this as something that we need to balance the interests of the landowners and utilizing their property with the interests of the neighborhoods and the impact that this has on housing. And so whether or not that was the amount of housing being dedicated to short-term rentals is negligible in the view of the representatives from Airbnb, I don't think has any bearing on this particular read here. We're looking at the land use impacts and the best way to kind of legislate those impacts to make sure that our communities are safe. Understood. Thank you. Can you please let me know, are long-term rentals categorized as commercial use? No, those are residential uses. This is strictly speaking to less than that 30-day rental as outlined in the ordinance, and not anyone's primary residence that they are staying in. Okay. Okay, so we've differentiated that short-term rentals are a commercial use. And when did that occur and how did that occur? What? Yeah, when we created these definitions and legislated that way. July of 23. July of 23 would have been. July of 23? When that framework was established. Is when this framework was established. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Worth. So a question about the 500 feet, and I may be, this may not be accurate because I haven't verified it. I've been told Louisville has a 600 foot. Anybody know that? My, Tracy is indicating that that is accurate. Okay. West here for 700 feet. We know our neighbor down the road, so to speak, has 600 feet. We're at 500 feet. How do we choose the 500 feet? Yes, I believe that that number is sort of generated to create consistency with the notification areas that we choose. So when you're getting notices for zone change, conditional uses, the typical buffer on that is 500 feet. So I think consistency with what we kind of generalize as the general area when we are looking at notifying folks about other types of applications. However, this body has the ability to modify that distance requirement in any way that you all see fit to forward onto your recommendation to council. Mr. Wilson. I have a question that came up about the enforcement. How do we plan to enforce or how would we enforce such an activity as this? Just short-term rentals in general? Sure. So we've got the mechanisms. The Division of Revenue is keyed in on this as well, but it really is sort of a collaborative effort, once again, between the Division of Planning, the Division of Revenue, zoning enforcement, code enforcement, police. It's sort of a joint process. But like most of our complaints in our system, violations are generally by complaint-driven, but it also looks like revenue, my understanding, has the tools to kind of monitor these rentals on these platforms, what is being advertised versus what has a permit and is able to kind of connect that disconnect there. So there is a little bit more oversight into this than our normal just zoning violations. And then kind of what Tracy had alluded to earlier with sort of revenue having the ability to bring all of those different folks kind of weigh-ins together with that shared software that they're working through. This is a question for my fellow commissioners. We've gone a little over three hours. We do logistically have to vacate chambers in one hour. Sorry. Yeah, I want to always be respectful of the public's time and their patience. I feel like we've got a lot more discussion that we're going to have on this and we have another agenda item afterwards. So I feel like we're eventually going to move to the Phoenix Building, Mr. Duncan. Is that a fair assessment? That's a likely outcome, Mr. Chair, if we're not out of here within the hour, yes. So I'm just asking from the preference of my fellow commissioners, what would you all like to do? Do you want to keep going at this? Do you need to take a five-minute break? Do we, okay, let's do a five-minute break knowing that we do have to vacate in one hour. Thank you, Daniel. And we'll continue the questioning in five minutes. Thank you for everyone's patience. Thank you. . Commissioners take their seats. We'll go back into open session. or we will reconvene i should say mr nickel close hopefully um i guess we'll go we can go ahead and start without b he'll be right in okay uh daniel was answering a few questions and clarifying a few things does anyone else have anything for Daniel at this time okay this is this is in regard to the set of recommendations that relates to loss of licensure and it says in addition to citations in the common is add notice of violations and compliances reasons that are the result of official investigations. I guess what I want to ask is in the alternative text and the original text, are we to read citation with a limited definition, and should we consider expanding that given that the police often don't cite things, although they can be a real nuisance in a neighborhood? Is that a legal question? That may be a legal question. Sorry, I was actually trying to find where you're referring to while you asked the question, so I didn't hear the question. Okay, it's in, I wish these had page numbers, that would make life easier. Under, this is in the G section, 2G I believe it is. And under 43 where there are other STRs in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance, including those operated by. So does it require a specific citation or could that kind of exclusion result from things that are otherwise detrimental? Do you see what I'm suggesting, asking for? In this document, they've suggested broadening that from citations to notice of violations and lack of compliance. I would suggest that including notices of violation is potentially a due process problem. Because notice of violation, when you have a notice of violation, you don't actually have a final citation. And even a citation could technically be appealed. So broadening that to include any notice as a violation would, I think, arguably be overbroad. I would not recommend including that. So for me, if I'm thinking with my neighborhood hat on and thinking that these days a lot of times the police don't cite things because they've got so many other things to do. When in a perfect world, sometimes they would write citations. How do we balance out the need for protections versus? Understand the question I'm asking? So a citation is final. A notice of violation is not. It's just a notice that the division of revenue, for example, sees an issue with your license. You can take that up with the division of revenue and if a citation is issued, you can appeal the citation. If you don't appeal the citation and don't pay it. That's not the distinction I'm trying to make. The distinction I'm trying to make is that a lot of conditions can be problematical to a neighborhood. And for reasons that have to do with enforcement, don't get written up as a citation. There's still a problem. And if you're looking at excluding bad actors, how do we find a way that identifies bad actors that's not things that make it all the way to the level of a citation but still are a problem? Do you see what I'm saying? Does anybody see what I'm saying? I think perhaps. I think so. The word citation has so many different, if you get pulled over for doing 10 miles over the limit, you get a citation. But if the Department of Revenue issues a citation, it's a totally different. So if you're referring to a police citation, that's something different. I think I was thinking of the Division of Revenue citation because that was the licensing process that goes through the Division of Revenue. A police citation is different. A police is not going to give you a notice of violation prior to citing you. And so that might be one type of bad actor you're referring to. Well, so my original question was the wording here is whether other STRs in the general vicinity, and this is including the applicants, have been cited as a nuisance. So are we using cited in its narrow sense, or are we saying this has been a problem actor, And we're including things that don't end up in a final citation, but we know from complaints that this place has been a problem. We're not. I think that's the question the neighborhoods are asking, so I'm trying to get some resolution there. The point of a notice of violation is that there is a problem and we're asking you to fix it, whatever the notice is about. there's always a grace period by which that can be fixed. That's just kind of a due process thing that is applies to all of our notices of violation. Then once it gets to a citation, there's no real, I mean, they've already been through that first step of a notice of violation. So once it gets to a citation, that means they've ignored the grace periods that they've been granted and at this point yes, it's a true issue, it's a citation. Okay, that's not the question, I think I need to try to answer. Somebody else tackle this for me. If I can help, I think if you look at number 43 under G, it says whether other STRs in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance. And that's usually a police complaint, right? Yes. Okay, so I think that's where she is not on, am I- We also don't have the ability to tell the police that they have to cite every time they go to a property. What does 43 mean? If they've actually issued a citation for a nuisance, then that is considered when the Board of Adjustment considers whether they should grant a conditional use for them. Right, if you've already been cited for a party in the last two months, Why would the board grant you a new conditional use? It could be for a property that you own across town. If you're a problematic operator, the board is considering that in their decisions. If you've not had compliance issues at all, then that's a plus in your column. But again, we can't tell the police who to cite and who not to cite. If they cite someone, we will know. I'm getting it. Notice the violation because it's not a final determination can't be considered as definitive there in terms of ruling somebody out for an application. I think we want to give property owners and operators the opportunity to fix the problem first. Not to assume that, I mean, we've had 100 cases at the board of adjustment already. And there are extenuating circumstances sometimes where somebody deserves the grace of the notice of violation as opposed to jumping straight to a citation. And I think the way our system works, that's fair and you give that person an opportunity to correct the problem before taking away, I mean, you heard livelihood for some of these people, so. Right, I get it. Ms. Wade, I had a question, a clarification on the word adjacent. And, for example, a residential property that's adjacent to a B1 property, and their lot lines may touch, why don't we use the word... Contiguous. Contiguous, thank you. For joining. Yeah. so adjacent is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as having a common endpoint or border so the examples it gives are adjacent lots or adjacent sides of a triangle so that we interpret that as touching a shared common property line I think contiguous perhaps could be you know a synonym for that so if you would want to swap those out that's okay adjoining I think is a little bit broader. Adjoining, yes. Okay. So the way our professional staff and legal would look at the word adjacent is in fact contiguous. But it was just a question that I thought was worth asking. Thank you. Mr. Nichol. I've got a question about or this is going to be a recommendation that I'm going to end up asking for, so I would like staff to make a comment on this. When we're looking at this chart of general regulations for short-term rentals, the recommendation that I'm going to end up making is that of the zones that are allowed, the commercial zones, B2 through MU3, have no max of number of dwelling units on the property allowed as a principal use for short-term rentals. My interest would be including the B1, the P1, the MU1, and the MU2. The B1 gives the opportunity of the conversion of some neighborhood commercial uses to what we're going to see in the future, which will be Airbnb-hosted hotels. P1, it should be categorized as a commercial use, and as we're looking at different mixed uses, those are mixed commercial uses, and the MU1, 2, and 3 just go by the different sizes. MU3 is the largest size where there is no max. so once we get to making recommendations or changes to be made in what we're looking at here to vote my recommendation is to include those those zones b1 p1 mu1 mu2 and mu3 to no maximum number of dwelling units on property allowed as short-term rentals that is going to be something that i'm going to make a recommendation to when we get to the voting whenever that may be sometime later on this evening so if you'd like to make a comment on that or give the staffs legal advice on the possibility of a change like that so the b1 p1 and then the mixed-use zones allow hotels but in a limited capacity and so that's why they were restricted in terms of the percentage that they could have short-term rentals again restricting those dwelling units to the hotel-like activity in terms of space as opposed to i guess the the zoning ordinance limits b1 and p1 to like extended stay hotels and only if you have 20 acres or something like all these different criteria so it was an attempt to again restrict those zones to not turning any mixed-use building into a full hotel with basically sidestepping the other process and doing it as a short-term rental in addition those zones are most often next to our our neighborhoods so limiting the number of units that can be transient use seemed appropriate so they've always had the 25% limit and this change would relax that so that the 25% would apply it the point where you get to four units but you're guaranteed at least one if you have if you have one or if you have two you're guaranteed at least to rent one as short-term rental but you're asking for it to be no max they could rent no other units yes no max so I think that's a step beyond what the council suggested and and probably what the staff would be comfortable with okay the language also says or one whichever is greater yeah so if you have three units in your mixed use be one near downtown you're guaranteed to be able to do short-term run on one but not all three well when you said downtown if we're talking b2a you're you're near downtown is where you most so yeah near downtown in neighborhoods that are redeveloping for more commercial use are gonna have more interesting attractions and that would be a good place to concentrate the number of Airbnb units would be to one, the B1 locations. It would allow us to increase the number of Airbnb units or, excuse me, the short-term rental units and continuing to provide relief for the residential uses. so the or one max is going to limit a building of 25 potential short-term rentals to only one is that correct no no no 25 it goes up to 25 up to 25 okay thank you all righty um if if we don't have any more commissioner comment moment the neighborhoods would like to have a closing statement which they're permitted under our bylaws of five minutes and so mr gaffield if you'd like we'll go ahead and start the clock at five minutes for your closing statement i have a couple of observations i i would disagree with moving or expanding short-term rentals and one and more neighborhood zones i mean they're commercial properties they cause problems for neighborhoods so i i would i would go with the staff recommendation i i listened pretty carefully to the to the fellow who uses short-term rental property for nurses and that sort of stuff and what he said was important he basically said i want some certainty that when i buy a property and i come in and i want to use it for that purpose that i that i know it's going to happen and when the board of adjustment has flexibility is particularly on on distance and density that's a that's a problem for uh short-term rental owners as well as for neighborhoods and and i think you need to listen to that um i there should be no issue on whether a short-term rental is a commercial property or not i i mean miss clark can it can address that and has a legal citation on it even it it's in our ordinance that strs are our commercial properties that's just what they are i think eliminating exceptions that the especially on distance and and that sort of thing makes it a lot easier for somebody who wants to set up an str and it's better for neighborhoods and I don't have any marks remarks repaired so I'll sort of speak superaneously here but we have to live with the decisions that the Planning Commission and later the council make so that's going to affect our neighborhoods and our investments in our neighborhoods somebody talked about the amount of income STR is bringing to the community every year well I'll say that on my block there are probably 24 houses people in my neighborhood probably pay close to four thousand dollars a year in property taxes lots of them are still in the workforce contributing to employment taxes and we invest money in our houses we remodel we repair we maintain and in doing so we employ people in trades throughout the community so we also generate income i'm surrounded by neighbors who support me in my time of need that is almost as important as the house I live in and one of my reasons for staying in my neighborhood so what we hope not to see is conditions that allow clusters and saturations particularly in those neighborhoods that have already experienced that I especially appreciated Miss Worth for bringing up the point that Louisville has a 600 foot boundary distance regulation and that we could also adopt that we also want to make the point that we do not ask that lexington get rid of strs or prevent them from this day forward we heard some compelling cases we know this trend will continue i think again lexington will still have plenty of room for strs even if we tighten the regulations so we hope that you will respond to some of our recommendations we appreciate the time you have spent and we We appreciate the thoughtful questions that you have asked about the new ZODA. Thank you. I have one more thing. The problem with citations is not so much, we know there's a legal process involved in it and there are appeals and there should be. The problem is the police don't issue citations on parties. It goes back to Jake Gibbs' party ordinance which passed the council at the time and the started citing people for these parties, took them to the courts, and the courts threw them out. So the police stopped enforcing it. I don't see that it's going to be really any different. And the police force is probably a thousand officers short, and they haven't got enough people to police it, even if they could. Now, Ms. Clark has something she wants to say about a legal citation. Is there a microphone available? We'll bring the microphone to you. Okay, great. Walt, I knew you weren't going to leave those two minutes on the table. I appreciate this accommodation here. Two things. First of all, it's not just our ordinance that defines a short-term rental, as I read and as you discussed. And I would agree that a hosted short-term rental is a different sort of animal with the resident present. It's our state. The STR is treated as a commercial use in its licensing. that's in our RCO, our code of ordinances, Article 5, 1376-I, and 1378. That's still local. In its taxation, Article 12, 2-172, as well as in state statute and its provision for a transient room tax, KRS 142-400. So when the state authorizes us to collect a transient room tax and give half of it to the convention center and the other half to visit Lex. The state has said these are businesses, these are transient rentals. It is deemed a commercial use in the Kentucky Supreme Court decision, Hensley v. Gadd, and that's 560 Southwest 3rd District, 516, in 2018. So it actually went all the way to the Kentucky Supreme Court on that matter. So that for STRs. And the other thing was simply to say the ordinance as it's proposed to you has parts in it that are necessary conditions. The ordinance itself writes into the provision for STRs as a conditional use. Certain sort of shall find things. And those are, sorry, K and L. no short-term rental regulated as a conditional use shall be located within 500 feet and so on. And L, the number of short-term rentals regulated as a conditional use shall not exceed 2%, and they change it to dwelling units. And that's the part that if you read what is on the handout that we gave you, that I gave you, our zoning ordinance says the conditions set by the zoning ordinance as conditions for the use may not be varied. And so that's the basis of the neighborhoods saying that they don't want them to be varied and get relief. But that's the basis for it, that in fact our zoning ordinance says those conditions are the minimum requirement and they can't get relief. Okay? Thank you. Other ones are just consider this and consider that. And here, I think it's really important for the BOA to have the clear message and the clear understanding that they have the discretionary authority to judge. Consider means I consider it this way, I consider it that way. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Thank you so much. We have to be fair to everybody. If there's anyone who would like to offer a rebuttal in favor of anything we're considering. I have one sentence correction. Hold on. No, I made a mistake on something. One sentence. Okay, I'm sorry. Go right ahead. Just go right ahead. Yeah, the police department's only 100 officers short, not 1,000. Thank you so much. All righty. Thank you. I do appreciate the communities coming together and having some good, honest conversation, and I'm all for that. I would encourage you guys to keep the citation in place. I understand the problem with the police force. However, there's organized people that are very passionate, that are ready to go with this hotline to try to get us out of their community because we're deemed the bad guy in the community. We're not the bad guys. My brother's a principal. I'm a nurse. My other brother's a nurse. We're just people trying to do business and communicate and bring people coming into town, show them how great Lexington is. Lexington is great. We're good ambassadors for Lexington. People in lots of these folks are probably in my neighborhood, so you can have my cell phone. I want you to have my cell phone because I want not to have a party in my house because it destroys my house. I want to have quiet guests. I want to, and if somebody doesn't follow the rules, and if I get a text from a neighbor, I ban them from being in my home again because my neighbor tells me that they're not being neighborly. So if we can just use those good common sense approaches, but I can't be, I would not like to be the bad guy that they're threatening to take away his business because they don't want me in their little area. And they're beautiful homes. I mean, I understand why you want to keep them beautiful and the community is beautiful. Thank you very much. All righty. I'm sorry, sir. Objectors are allowed a five-minute closing statement, which has been given. Objectors are permitted a five-minute closing statement, which we have heard. All right. I think it's time that we can conclude public comment. And I want to say to everyone who spoke, thank you so much for coming. The Planning Commission truly does value and listen to what you have to say. And we very deeply take it into consideration. So thank you for your time and being here. Commissioners, do we have any initial thoughts about how we want to look at this? I'm going to put this out here as a place to start. I frankly could support the staff recommendations with an expansion of the distance to 600 feet. It's Louisville and because we were told on break that the 500 feet was a distance used for contact otherwise. And as a neighborhood person, I've always thought that was too small a distance anyway. That's a starting point. Thank you. Commissioner, Mr. Penn, do you have anything? Yes. As usual, I'm late to the party here, but I think it's very important that we give the BOAR guidelines in order to have to make these decisions. And the reason I say that is that we have guidelines that we make the decisions on. And this is new for them, and it's very hard. And so I'm going to support the staff alternative, but I really am supporting it because my only thing that I know about is that if you're going to make decisions on individuals' applications, you need something to help you be consistent in those decisions. And so I think that's the reason I don't have enough background on this to know the ins and outs of it. But I will tell you that we have things to back up against. If they hit 30 this month, they need to be consistent and we need to have rules and regulations that they can be consistent with. Thank you, Mr. Pym. Mr. Owens. um you know we this city jumped into this uh without a whole lot of knowledge i think and we're learning from what we have done and maybe some mistakes i think other cities have done the same thing i know nashville tennessee has i would dare say louisville 600 feet buffer area perimeter whatever they're calling it is probably a correction from or from from where they started And I think we need to do the same. We need to provide some relief for the Board of Adjustment. They need some guidance. And the council saw this. They're charging us to, they got the ball rolling and asked us for help. And obviously it's going to go back to them. But I am more than game to support the staff's alternative language. Do we still have a motion on the floor? Because nobody seconded. No, ma'am. Okay. No, just discussion. Okay, okay. yeah it would be um my own well okay well miss worth um if you want to go ahead and make a motion Well, I guess my inclination is to either stick with the staff's wording or not make any changes at all, but I know that doesn't help the Board of Adjustments if we don't do anything. For me, personally, some of the more, I guess, compelling reasons to continue on with this was at the committee level, I believe we heard from, I think we heard from at least one or two BOA members who spoke on it and really were very cautiously optimistic about the changes that have been proposed. I think staff has put in a tremendous amount of time. They've really looked at it critically. Everybody has been listening as well as they can to refine the policy. I guess the only disagreement I would have would be with Mr. Nickel as far as moving B1 into an unlimited guest count and those other uses. I think you'd run into too many residential zones immediately adjoining, and I just couldn't do that, but I would support the staff's alternative. If Ms. Worth wants to include her change of 600 feet from 500 feet, I would support that as well. I guess one reason I'm thinking 500, if that's our normal notification radius, whether we agree with it or not, it just seems like it makes sense that we continue with 500 feet. I concur. No, because I'm going to make. I'm going to move that we, accept the staff's recommended changes to peel in ZODA 24-7 amendments, short-term rental regulations, amending what the council has sent to us. But I'm going to go ahead and put this 600 feet in, and you all can vote that up or down. Thank you, Commissioner Worth. Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second motion. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. All right. Five in favor, two against, so that carries. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, everyone who came to speak on this. We very much appreciate it. Mr. Duncan, it is now an appropriate breaking point. Yes, Mr. Chair, I concur, but I do want to make sure, are we going to still have a quorum when we move to the Phoenix Building? Is anyone planning on leaving right now? Okay, we have one more, as the Chair pointed out, we have one more order of business, a BOAR appeal, and we will move now to the Phoenix Building, Mr. Chair, maybe 15 minutes to get set up. We'll recess for 15 minutes. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so