# Board of Adjustment Hearing - January 13, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · January 13, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6310 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6310?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-01-13 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 29, 2026 - **Length**: 26,775 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Division of Planning Planning Services Section Board of Adjustment convened on January 13, 2025, at 1:34 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice Chair Branden Gross presiding. The board worked through 10 agenda items consisting of one variance request and nine conditional use permit applications. Of the 10 items heard, nine were approved and one — the conditional use permit application from Crestwood Rental Property 4, LLC — was denied. Over the course of the meeting, the board conducted 13 motions and votes and heard 6 public comments. ## Attendance Seven board members were present at the January 13, 2025 meeting: - Raquel Carter *(arrived late)* - Harry Clarke - Branden Gross - Bob Sturdivant - James Persley - Linda Tucker - Chad Walker No members were absent. All seven members were in attendance, with Raquel Carter joining after the meeting had begun. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took the following actions at its January 13, 2025 meeting: - **Minutes Approval** – Bob Sturdivant moved, Harry Clarke seconded, to approve the minutes from September 9, 2024 and October 14, 2024. Passed unanimously, 6–0. [timestamp: 0:19:42] - **PLN-BOA-24-00209 – 185 Walton Ave LLC (Postponement)** – Harry Clarke moved, Chad Walker seconded, to postpone this application. Passed unanimously, 6–0. [timestamp: 0:22:22] - **PLN-BOA-24-00208 – Hoop Dreamers (Conditional Use Permit, Childcare Center)** – Branden Gross moved, Linda Tucker seconded. Passed unanimously, 7–0. Condition: days and hours of operation limited to Monday through Friday, no earlier than 7 a.m. and no later than 6:30 p.m. [timestamp: 0:40:03] - **PLN-BOA-24-00218 – Austin Brashear (Conditional Use Permit, Indoor Live Entertainment)** – Harry Clarke moved, Chad Walker seconded. Passed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:42:47] - **PLN-BOA-24-00186 – Kim Bragg (Variance, Front Yard Setback Reduction)** – Harry Clarke moved, Linda Tucker seconded. Passed unanimously, 7–0. Condition: construction shall conform to submitted application materials and the revised site plan depicting the alternate driveway design presented at the January 13th meeting. [timestamp: 0:52:42] - **PLN-BOA-24-00127 – Lola's Lovely Rentals (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Harry Clarke moved, James Persley seconded. Passed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 1:07:52] - **PLN-BOA-24-00193 – Elizabeth Otis (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Harry Clarke moved, Branden Gross seconded. Passed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 1:16:26] - **PLN-BOA-24-00221 – Anne E. Rouse (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Harry Clarke moved, Bob Sturdivant seconded. Passed 5–1–1. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, Chad Walker. Voting against: Linda Tucker. Branden Gross abstained. [timestamp: 1:23:43] - **PLN-BOA-24-00196 – Jamie Day (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Branden Gross moved, Harry Clarke seconded. Passed 4–3. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, James Persley. Voting against: Bob Sturdivant, Linda Tucker, Chad Walker. [timestamp: 2:09:38] - **PLN-BOA-24-00213 – Stephen Gordon (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Harry Clarke moved, Chad Walker seconded. Passed 5–2. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, James Persley, Chad Walker. Voting against: Bob Sturdivant, Linda Tucker. [timestamp: 3:14:10] - **PLN-BOA-24-00216 – Albert Kurtz Jr. (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Harry Clarke moved, James Persley seconded. Passed 5–2. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, James Persley, Chad Walker. Voting against: Bob Sturdivant, Linda Tucker. [timestamp: 3:29:35] - **PLN-BOA-24-00220 – Crestwood Rental Property 4, LLC (Conditional Use Permit, Un-Hosted Short-Term Rental)** – Harry Clarke moved, Bob Sturdivant seconded a motion to disapprove. The motion failed 4–3. Voting in favor of disapproval: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Bob Sturdivant, Linda Tucker. Voting against: Branden Gross, James Persley, Chad Walker. [timestamp: 4:00:39] - **PLN-BOA-24-00219 – Mazuna LLC (Postponement)** – Harry Clarke moved, Bob Sturdivant seconded. Passed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 4:01:11] ## Public Comment Six members of the public addressed the Board during the January 13, 2025 meeting, with comments focused on two separate short-term rental requests. **Alex Naramore's Short-Term Rental** Four speakers commented on this item: - **Daniel Albertson** spoke in support of the request, pointing to the property's strategic location and arguing it would have minimal impact on parking. [timestamp: 1:34:04] - **Faith Harters** opposed the rental, raising concerns about traffic and noting that nearby group homes already contribute to existing parking problems in the area. [timestamp: 1:36:49] - **Evelyn Knight** also opposed the request, expressing concern that short-term rentals bring a transient population that undermines community building. [timestamp: 1:39:35] - **Mark Klar** opposed the rental on the grounds that a concentration of Airbnb-style properties negatively affects neighborhood character. [timestamp: 1:41:39] **Albert Kurtz Jr.'s Short-Term Rental** Two speakers commented on this item: - **Roxanne Lacks**, representing the North Point HOA, opposed the request, citing deed restrictions that she stated prohibit both commercial properties and short-term rentals within the community. [timestamp: 3:19:58] - **Karen O'Hare** spoke in support of the rental, noting that tenants have behaved well and that parking at the property is adequate. [timestamp: 3:22:04] Overall, opposition comments centered on concerns about parking, traffic, neighborhood character, community cohesion, and deed restriction compliance, while supporters emphasized minimal neighborhood impact and positive tenant conduct. ## Appointments The Board made the following appointments during the January 13, 2025 meeting: - **Raquel Carter** was appointed as **Chair**. - **Branden Gross** was appointed as **Vice Chair**. - **Linda Tucker** was reappointed as **Secretary**. ## Contested Items Several short-term rental (STR) applications generated disagreement at the January 13, 2025 Board meeting, with votes split and community members raising objections across multiple cases. - **Jamie Day's Short-Term Rental:** This application was among the most closely contested of the meeting, passing on a narrow 4-3 vote. Notably, the Board approved the request despite staff's formal recommendation for disapproval, indicating a significant divergence of opinion between Board members and staff on the merits of the application. - **Stephen Gordon's Short-Term Rental:** The Board approved this application by a 5-2 vote. While the outcome was less close than the Day application, the two dissenting votes reflect that community opposition to the request was a factor in the deliberations. - **Albert Kurtz Jr.'s Short-Term Rental:** The Board approved this application over the objections of the local HOA, which raised concerns about deed restrictions it argued would prohibit the short-term rental use. The Board's decision to approve despite those objections made this item a point of contention between the applicant and the surrounding community's organized representation. - **Crestwood Rental Property 4, LLC's Short-Term Rental:** This was the one contested application that resulted in disapproval. The Board denied the request citing a high concentration of existing STRs in the area, as well as community concerns about housing affordability. This outcome reflected the Board's willingness, in at least some circumstances, to weigh neighborhood-level impacts and affordability considerations when evaluating STR applications. Taken together, these four items illustrate an active debate at the Board level over how to balance property owners' interests in operating short-term rentals against staff recommendations, HOA deed restrictions, neighborhood density concerns, and broader housing affordability issues. ## Kim Bragg variance request **Case No. PLN-BOA-24-00186** [timestamp: 52:42] Kim Bragg appeared before the Board to request a variance that would reduce the required front yard setback in order to pave a circular driveway on her property. Bragg presented her case to the Board, seeking relief from the standard front yard setback requirement. The specific reduction she originally requested would have allowed the circular driveway to encroach closer to the front property line than current regulations permit. After discussion of the request, the Board opted not to grant the full variance as submitted. Instead, the Board approved a lesser variance, reducing the required front yard setback to **18 feet** — a compromise that accommodated the driveway project while maintaining a greater setback distance than Bragg's original request would have allowed. The variance was **approved**. ## Hoop Dreamers Conditional Use Permit [timestamp: 40:03] The board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00208, a request by Hoop Dreamers for a conditional use permit to establish a childcare center. Mike Scott was identified as a key speaker during this item. The board discussed the request and considered conditions related to the proposed operation. The board ultimately **approved** the conditional use permit, with conditions placed on the facility's operating hours. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific operating hour conditions, any concerns raised during deliberation, and the full scope of the presentation are not available in the source data for this item.* ## Austin Brashear Conditional Use permit [timestamp: 42:47] The board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00218, a request by Austin Brashear for a conditional use permit for indoor live entertainment. Austin Brashear appeared as the key speaker on this item. The structured data available for this agenda item does not detail the specific arguments presented, concerns raised, or conditions debated during the discussion beyond the nature of the request itself. The board approved the conditional use permit with conditions. > **Note:** The source materials for this item contain limited detail about the substance of the discussion, including what specific conditions were attached to the approval, what concerns — if any — were raised by board members or the public, and what supporting information Brashear presented. Readers seeking the full record of this item are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript or recording beginning at approximately the 42:47 mark. ## Lola's Lovely Rentals Conditional Use Permit [timestamp: 1:07:52] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00127, a request by Lola's Lovely Rentals for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. Stephanie Proffitt was identified as a key speaker during this item's discussion. The Board approved the conditional use permit request, with conditions attached to the approval. *Note: The available structured data for this item does not include details on the specific conditions imposed, the arguments or concerns raised during deliberation, or the particulars of what was presented. A fuller summary would require additional source materials from the meeting record.* ## Elizabeth Otis Conditional Use Permit [timestamp: 1:16:26] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00193, a request by Elizabeth Otis for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. Elizabeth Brooke Mullins was identified as a key speaker during the discussion of this item. The extracted data does not include details on the specific arguments presented, any concerns raised by board members, or the particular conditions attached to the approval. Readers seeking the full substance of the debate and the specific conditions imposed are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript beginning at approximately 1:16:26. The Board ultimately **approved** the conditional use permit request, with conditions. ## Jamie Day Conditional Use permit [timestamp: 2:09:38] The board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00196, a request by Jamie Day for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. Staff had recommended disapproval of the request, setting up a point of contention for the board's deliberation. Jamie Day was identified as a key speaker during the discussion. Despite the staff recommendation against approval, the board ultimately voted to approve the conditional use permit, doing so with conditions attached. The record does not detail the specific conditions imposed, the precise concerns raised during debate, or the vote tally, but the outcome represented a departure from staff's guidance on the matter. ## Notes on Available Information The source data for this item is limited. Specific details about the arguments presented for or against the permit, the nature of staff's objections, the conditions attached to the approval, and the substance of any board member comments are not available in the provided record. Readers seeking the full discussion are encouraged to view the meeting video beginning at approximately the 2:09:38 mark. ## Anne E. Rouse Conditional Use Permit [timestamp: 1:23:43] The Board took up case **PLN-BOA-24-00221**, a request by **Anne E. Rouse** for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. Anne Rouse appeared as the key speaker before the Board, presenting her request for the permit. The Board discussed the application, including the conditions under which the permit would be granted. During deliberations, the Board determined that one of the proposed conditions should be removed, and it was struck from the approval. Ultimately, the Board **approved** the conditional use permit with the remaining conditions in place, minus the stricken provision. ## Stephen Gordon Conditional Use permit [timestamp: 3:14:10] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00213, a request by **Stephen Gordon** for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. Stephen Gordon appeared as the key speaker presenting the request. The Board considered the application and heard discussion on the matter, which included some opposition to the permit. Despite the opposition raised during the discussion, the Board ultimately **approved** the conditional use permit request, subject to conditions. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific conditions attached to the approval, the nature of the opposition, and the full substance of the debate are not available in the provided record.* ## Albert Kurtz Jr. Conditional Use permit [timestamp: 3:29:35] The board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-24-00216, a request by Albert Kurtz Jr. for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. Albert Kurtz Jr. presented his request to the board. The application drew opposition from the property's homeowners association (HOA), which raised concerns about the proposed short-term rental use. Despite the HOA's opposition, the board ultimately voted to **approve** the conditional use permit, subject to conditions. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific conditions attached to the approval, the nature of the HOA's objections, and the full substance of the board's deliberations are not available in the provided source materials.* ## Crestwood Rental Property 4, LLC Conditional Use Permit **Case No. PLN-BOA-24-00220** [timestamp: 4:00:39] The Board considered a request from Crestwood Rental Property 4, LLC for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental. A representative for the applicant appeared before the Board to present the request. Following discussion, the Board disapproved the conditional use permit application. The primary basis for denial was the high concentration of short-term rentals already present in the area, which the Board determined made approval of an additional un-hosted short-term rental inappropriate under the applicable standards for conditional use permits. The request was ultimately denied. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of September 9, 2024 and October 14, 2024 minutes - **PLN-BOA-24-00209** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of 185 Walton Ave LLC application - **PLN-BOA-24-00208** — passed (7-0): Approval of Hoop Dreamers conditional use permit for a childcare center - **PLN-BOA-24-00218** — passed (7-0): Approval of Austin Brashear conditional use permit for indoor live entertainment - **PLN-BOA-24-00186** — passed (7-0): Approval of Kim Bragg variance to reduce front yard setback - **PLN-BOA-24-00127** — passed (7-0): Approval of Lola's Lovely Rentals conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00193** — passed (7-0): Approval of Elizabeth Otis conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00196** — passed (4-3): Approval of Jamie Day conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00221** — passed (5-1): Approval of Anne E. Rouse conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00213** — passed (5-2): Approval of Stephen Gordon conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00216** — passed (5-2): Approval of Albert Kurtz Jr. conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00220** — failed (4-3): Disapproval of Crestwood Rental Property 4, LLC conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00219** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Mazuna LLC application --- ## Full transcript Without her really some of these things have been just like some of dream works, you know in the making But she's really been able to put me on their feet Put me on the ground on the road to the studio wake up. It's time to go to bed You know, she just does all that. I'm really happy for that and I cannot thank her enough for that but the It's it's it's it's that moment in our time really that We're able to look back and see and say, you know, there was a moment in our time that was It was controversial. It was tricky maneuvering every moment Every every time you're going somewhere, you know, there was all these restrictions the making of the 2020 blues really was that Explaining the experiences of what we were going through that time when the project came in and it was going to also another Music district on Southland Drive. I just thought about you know What kind of music of this artist Musicians what kind of music are they going to be making you know, and What was going to be resonating to all of us as you know, just the viewers and the listeners To me that was a point of trying to explain that and capture that moment first off if you can realize and I sculpted this piece after Pablo Picasso the old guitarist it's a painting he made and it also captured my soul with that time when it was sort of kind of like Picasso's and of the blue face and It was it's just it was also kind of capturing this moment of an old person Playing some music that probably nobody's even listening to and It resonated to me with this 2020 blues As you look closely kind of like the little nuances of the piece. It's got like a guitar playing But it's missing the head the neck the head of the guitar is not there And you can see like the artist himself is also kind of being a little bit of is distraught and There's always that point of defiance to the system He's got his you know, the typical bandana during the 2020 During the covid season, you know a lot of people artists or you didn't want to like put on your mask But then you have a bandana just in case, you know, just in case anybody says hey Masks only you you take back your bandana up. Otherwise, you know, it was it was bothering your life. It was just Not working. And so that's kind of the little Changes and touches his face the emotions that he's trying to portray The kind of emotions that he's trying to express Changes and touches his face the emotions that he's trying to portray The colors the blend of the red the maroons and the blues is really kind of what i'm looking into in terms of the communications of the And so I really enjoyed it coming together it is a white oak One of kind of like the really resilient trees and wood to work with as a sculpture for outdoor pieces So I think this is a really nice spot for the community and for the people in the the district here manchester a distillery district and the surrounding and I'm, really hoping that the rest of the community and the people the neighbors and the visitors will be able to look back at this piece and Just remember the moment in time that we just passed it it might be behind us, but it's It's still part of our livelihoods forever on we're gonna go We have that experiences that you know At some point the music was not there at some point. There was no gathering together at some point 2020 blues is going to remind us of what is fun. What is music? What is communication? What is getting together? and an homage to also Some of our friends I lost a couple friends during that season a couple musicians couple artists And it's also just that reminder of What really happened how much we lost? you know, so To me, it's kind of like emotional and also some victory going with it because you know We came out on this other side Uh to bear the witness to have attention You Uh public art commission members that are here celeste lewis craig rushing council member brown And did I see someone else? I think that's all Um, but we're really really delighted. Um to see this work. Um kip too is a Is a local artist He has chosen to make his home here for 10 years He brings with him all of his training all of his experiences culture that he Had before coming here, but we so value what he has contributed to this community So many different works around the city that tell different stories that enhance different stories that bring forward different ideas And so we love him and appreciate him here locally And you know, this is an example where we appreciate our local artists and we want to do everything we can To help them stay here. And so, you know the ways that artists can stay here is by supporting their work And I really want to thank council member reynolds for taking the initiative to find a permanent home Lexarch, you know had presented it to the community in southland And now, you know, this is really a perfect setting with the growing culture and music scene along Manchester to have his work represented here So thanks so much to kip too and um for the work that he does And to council member reynolds, uh for for making this happen and now, you know for it to have a permanent home We'll all get to enjoy it. It'll be added to our public arts Map Which is online And so we're excited to be able to do that a gis map where you can see images of the work and locations Learn about the artist and that sort of thing. So thanks everyone. I wanted to let everyone know That there will be a really nice plaque attached to the base of the piece Um, it's just in order to get it done. It's going to take several months So we were not able to get it for today, but it will be there. Um, and I think that will uh Pay tribute nicely to the artist and the work I also think this location is perfect on the trail because driving by Or walking or biking on the trail Or parking in this parking lot You will see the statue I am going to leave you with a quote from the seven-year-old son of one of my constituents Um when she found out about this relocation, she reached out to me and told me this He said That every or she said every time they drive by southland drive He has to be looking all over And he asks where is the man with a guitar? He's wondering where he went He is so glad to know that the man with the guitar is still alive and well. Thank you You You You You What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? What do you think? Our chair is running a few minutes late, so I'm going to start the meeting. I am going to go sit in my spot since I've already signed in over there. But we'll go through the administrative-type items. And that way, when Ms. Carter gets here, we can continue on. You guys don't have to wait any longer, so give me one second. Good afternoon. I'm going to start the meeting for the January 13, 2025, Board of Adjustments. You'll have to bear with me. I have not led the meeting in a few years, so I may be a little dry or a little rusty. So the first item I'm going to do is ask for approval of the September and October BOA minutes. Those should have been received. Were there any questions or comments? And if not, does somebody want to move for approval? Make a motion that we approve the minutes of the October meeting. You want to do September 2? September 2. Okay, perfect. So we have a first. Do I have a second? I have a second. I've got Harry Clark for a second. And all those in favor, please vote. Perfect. The next item is, do we have anybody in the audience who wants to postpone, withdraw, or continue their applications today before we start? Okay. We have one person who has requested postponement who is not here currently for 185 Walton, LLC. Could you give us a page and an item? Page 5, item 11. Okay. So this is on page 5, item 11 on the agenda, PLN BOA 24-209-185 Walton Avenue, LLC. And they have asked for a one-month postponement, is that? That's correct. Okay. Is anyone here in the audience regarding this case? All right. We've got several. It looks like the staff has recommended disapproval, and the applicant has asked us to move this 30 days from today. Does the staff have any issues with a postponement? The applicant just indicated they were not able to be in attendance this afternoon because of school issues. Okay. Obviously, Fayette County Public Schools is still out. All right. So I apologize for those who traveled down here today that this case likely will not be heard. Does anyone from the board have any questions or want to make a motion to postpone for 30 days? Mr. Temporary Chair, I recommend postponement of PLN BOA 24-209-185 Walton Avenue. And that will be to our February 10th date? Yes. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second that. All right. I have a first and a second. Please vote. And if you could once again raise your hands if you were here for that case. Keep your hands up if you're in opposition. Okay. Let the record reflect. We have about five people in opposition. I appreciate you coming down. If you're not able to make it on February 10th, please email your comments in to the staff. We do review those during the meetings. And I apologize for taking time out of your busy day today. Thank you. Do we have any other postponements? Yes, sir. Okay. An applicant indicated in writing to the staff that they wish to withdraw. Actually, two. So Emerald Shinobi LLC, that appears on page two of our agenda. And we would ask the board to accept their withdrawal on the record. And that's PLN BOA 24-00164. Okay. And Ms. Carter, I'll get through these last couple items and then I'll let you take back over. So we have a withdrawal request from the applicant. And this is regarding 2745 Woodland Way. Is anyone here on behalf of that matter? Okay. Seeing nobody, does someone want to make a do we need to move to withdraw? Okay. So we technically do not need to make a motion. So that application is withdrawn. Okay. And our second one? The second one appears at the top of page three. PLN BOA 24-00188, Black Diamond Farm LLC. And that's for property located at 3591 Paris Pike. And it was a request for a conditional use for a bed and breakfast. The applicant has withdrawn that as well. Thank you. So is anyone here related to the Paris Pike case? Because we will not be hearing that one. Okay. That one is also withdrawn. And any other postponements, withdrawals? I mean, I like this. We can keep going. We can get it down to like one or two cases. Okay. So, Madam Chair, do you want to take back over? Yes, please. And thank you. You're welcome. We are at the swearing of witnesses on the agenda. At this time, if you plan to speak at all, either on a case or just with public comment, I'd like you to stand. Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today? Thank you. Okay. And so thank you again, Mr. Gross. So did we just take care of the postponements and withdrawals? Do I need to sound the remaining part? Yes. You need to sound the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So what we'll do at this time, I will sound the agenda, so I'll read through the remaining cases and make sure the applicant is present. If it is recommended for approval and there's no opposition, those will be heard first. We will also have a separate docket that includes all the short-term rentals, so those will be heard as well. Same rule will apply if they are approved or recommended for approval and there's no opposition, we'll hear those items first. And Madam Chair, just to help you out, because I know you've got to keep up with a lot, on page 2, item 2 has been withdrawn. Yep, got that one. On page 3, item 4 was withdrawn. Thank you. Thank you. And on page 5, item 11 was postponed until next month. Perfect. All right. Consider me still out of breath but up to speed. Does that work? Okay. Thank you so much. Okay, so the first item is PLN BOA 24-186. That is Kim Bragg. Is the applicant present? Good morning. This one actually is a continuance from last week. It has been recommended for disapproval, so you will be fully heard. So that will be number one on the heard docket. Number two is PLN BOA 24-217, Gibson, Taylor, and Thompson. Is the applicant present? Good afternoon. This has been recommended for approval with the lesser variance. Did you notice that? Okay, are we comfortable with that or will we need to hear this item? We're comfortable? Okay. So that will be number one on the expedited docket. And then on our conditional uses, we have PLN BOA 24-127, Lola's Lovely Rentals. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here in opposition of this item? Okay, that is on the STR docket, and that will be number one heard on the STR. Now we have ‑‑ oh, okay, abbreviate it. Thank you. Okay. Next we have PLN BOA 24-187, The Mischief Maker. Is the applicant present? That's for 528 West 3rd. Okay, thank you. That has been recommended for disapproval, so that will be heard, fully heard. So that will be number one on the STR heard docket. Next we have PLN BOA 24-193, Elizabeth Otis. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone in opposition of this item? So that will be number two on ‑‑ I'm sorry, did you raise your hand? Okay. That will be number two on the expedited docket. All right, we have PLN BOA 24-196, Jamie Day. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for disapproval, so it will be heard. Number two on the STR heard docket. Then we have PLN BOA 24-198, Dustin Caldwell and Robert Caldwell. The applicant is present. This one has been recommended for approval. So that makes that number two on the expedited docket. Am I correct? Number three. Did you ask if there was anyone here to speak? Yes, he said he was. Oh, I'm sorry, was there anyone here to speak in opposition? No. Thank you. Okay. Then we have PLN BOA 24-206, Skylar Lanham. Is the applicant present? Okay. Thank you. And this one has been recommended for disapproval, so we will hear this item. That would be number three on the heard docket. Then we have PLN BOA 24-207, Herbert and Angie McGaha. This one has been recommended for disapproval, so we will hear this particular case. It's number four on the STR heard docket. Then we have PLN BOA 24-208, Hoop Dreamers. Is the applicant present? This one has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone in opposition of this item? Okay. So this one will actually be our number two of the expedited docket. Madam Chair? Yes. I'm sorry, did I skip one? Okay. Okay. Okay. We'll make a note of that. So then we have PLN BOA 24-212, Laura Coleman. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this item? Okay. So this will be number four on the STR docket. Oh, yeah, we're going to be good and messy today. Let's see. PLN BOA 24-213, Stephen Gordon. Is the applicant present? This one has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this particular item? We do have one. Okay. This item will be heard on the STR docket, number five. Then we have PLN BOA 24-216, Albert Kirch, Jr. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this particular item? We do. Okay. So that will be number six. We will hear this item. Then we have PLN BOA 24-218, Austin Brashear. Okay. And this has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this item? Okay. I think that makes us number three on the expedited. We'll circle back to that one. Then we have PLN BOA 24-219, Mizuna LLC. Is the applicant present? Mizuna LLC at 147 Londonderry. We'll come back to that one. Then we have PLN BOA 24-220, Crestwood Rental Property for LLC. Is the applicant present? Okay. This item has been recommended for disapproval, so we will be heard. Looks like that's number seven. And lastly, we have PLN BOA 24-221, Ann Rouse. The applicant is present. It has been recommended for approval. Do we have any opposition to this item? I don't have opposition of my own, but I did want to comment on one of the conditions. Okay. Okay. We'll hear that. Let's see if I can go back and do some math. I believe our first item should be PLN BOA 24-217, Gibson, Taylor, and Thompson. The applicant will come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. We do have the request here. The board has had an opportunity to review the items. It has been recommended for approval with the lesser variance to seven feet. Are you okay with that? Yeah, we believe we are. We just wanted to check that in looking at the documents that that, of course, achieves the request of seven feet, that that is actually what's being granted, right? I'm sorry. Let's see here. It would appear to us. I just wanted to double-check that. Yes, thank you. Okay. And there are two conditions and you've read those conditions are comfortable with those as well. Does the board have any questions of this particular applicant? Not. I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I hereby move for approval of PLN BOA 24-217, Gibson, Taylor, Thompson's request for a variance to reduce the required front, required side yard, not front, required side yard setback from 10 feet to the lesser variance of seven feet in an R1C zone on property at 1629 Fencastle Road, based upon the staff's report and subject to the conditions. And I think I got that right. Okay. Thank you. Told you a lot of math today, a lot of math. Okay. Do we have a first? Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. Sturdivant. If no further discussion, we'll open for vote. Wonderful. Motion is passed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Let's see. Our next item is on PLN BOA 24-208, Hoop Dreamers. The applicant will come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If we could please state our name for the record. Mike Scott. I forgot that the first time. Sorry. Okay. And I see here it has been recommended for approval. There are four conditions that have been listed, and you had a question about one of the conditions in particular? Yes, the time. We operate on Fayette County public school schedule, and we like to service our families when the schools are closed in the summertime from 7 a.m. to 6.30. Okay. So for the operation hours during the summertime or on Fayette County off days, it would not just be the afternoon program? Yes. Do you have specific times you'd like to amend? From 7 to 6.30. Any questions of the applicant? I just had a comment. I was going to ask about that, actually, because I really like this idea of the basketball, and I was hoping that you would kind of open up your time a little bit more during the summer and then on days that they're off. Yes. She was reading your mind. No other questions. We can entertain a motion with the amended condition. I guess the staff have any issues with that time. I might suggest just for clarity on wording that condition that it say the days and hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, no earlier than 7 a.m. and no later than 6.30 p.m. So they can do whatever they want. They just can't go earlier or later or weekends. Okay. All right. I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I hereby move for approval of PLM BOA 24-208 Hoop Tremors request for a conditional use permit to establish a child care center in an I-1 zone at 892 Nandino Boulevard based upon the staff's report and the testimony given today. I would also on the 4 conditions, I would amend condition number 3 to read the days and hours of operation shall not exceed Monday through Friday from no earlier than 7 a.m. nor later than 6.30 p.m. without further approval of the Board of Adjustment. I move. Second. Is that work for council. I just saw Mike sitting there. For customer. Yeah, I thought he was trying to sign up for basketball. Stick to baseball. So so moved. And this Tucker has already offered a second. Motion is passed. Good luck. Thank you. See the next item. Is PLN BOA 24 dash two eight. Eighteen Austin for sure. Good afternoon. Back again. This one's easy. Yeah, it has been recommended for approval. There are four conditions that are listed here. Did you have any concerns about those conditions? Good conditions. Thank you. Absolutely. The board has had an opportunity to review. Do we have any questions of the applicant or need any additional information? If not, I'd be happy to entertain a motion. Madam chair. Recommend approval. Appeal and be away. Twenty four. That's zero zero two one eight. The Austin brochures request for a conditional use permit to establish indoor live entertainment. Within 100 feet of the resident residential stone on in a neighborhood business zone. I'm properly located at three eight four Woodland Avenue. So move based on the. Staff's recommendation. And discussion here and. Subject to the four conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any additional conversation. Discussion. Now we'll open for vote. Wonderful. Motion is passed. Good luck. Thank you all. Thank you. We'll go back to peel and be away. Okay. We have a motion to amend it for disapproval. So it's a continuance, but we will allow. Staff. Would you like to review these? Review this again first, or. Do we want to just see the amended plan? Okay. Okay. James mills planning staff. So. We don't have any. New information to provide because we did not receive a new site plan until. Late into the week last week. And we weren't able to update our staff report. So there's no new staff material for us to present. However, the previous request was for a. Circular driveway, which the board did not feel comfortable. In approving at the time and requested a new design in order. To potentially approve. So staff doesn't have any comments on the new design, but this is. The current proposal for a turnabout spot. We did also talk with traffic engineering and they said they were fine with the designs. But that that's all them. Only other new information that we can really provide. James, can you just. Clarify for the board. If they approve this, what. Variance they would need to approve as opposed to zero. So instead of a zero. Front yard setback would be reduced. Reducing the 30 yard. Front yard setback to. I mean, 30 feet to 18 feet. Any questions. Does it. I hate to continue it again. But does it make sense to continue it till next month and give you guys time. Or for us to go ahead and. Build them. Yeah, I don't think the staff. Would change our recommendation. At this point, we've been very consistent about not recommending approval of any of the front yard. Okay. So you would still be at a disapproval. Yes. Okay. But the board appeared to be. Leaning towards an approval. If there were a revised. Site plan. And so. The applicant. Thank you. The only time we've approved one was on Alexandria drive, which was a high capacity roadway. That was very busy. So. That's the only time the board has approved one. So staff at this time would not. Change your recommendation, but we also haven't reviewed it or anything. So. Okay. And I think maybe if we'll let them show the new proposal. And then we can have a conversation about it. Would that be make sense? Okay. You talk about the applicant. I have the applicant. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Please. Hello. Kim Bragg. Kim Bragg. Thank you. I'm the owner's representative and their architect. Will you bring the mic down a little bit, please? Thank you. Is that better? Yeah. Yeah. The owner of the property is an older gentleman who had a medical incident a little over a year ago. He has mobility issues in walking and in turning his neck. And in his peripheral vision, he has asked to have some sort of on property turnaround so that he does not back out into traffic, which is right there across from the elementary school, the Cassidy Middle School, I guess, across the street. And risk this very high traffic pedestrian area, especially with lots of small children. He really would prefer to have better visibility as he leaves his property. Also, there are two level changes to get into the rear of his house. And he would prefer to be able to enter from the front of his house so that he has better footing. And I think last time our conversation was looking for alternatives to the circle driveway, right? Was there no alternative to having the full circle? I thought we were looking for maybe a turnaround. This is a turnaround. Okay. Well, then I think I have the wrong. Oh, okay. I see. Okay. And that's why traffic engineering has approved this one. This would allow him to just back into his front yard and then head out into the road going forward. And also be able to access his house through the front door. Catch up. I was still looking at the old one in the packet. Okay. A new one should have been provided to you as well. I'm sorry. It was a, yeah. Staff provided a handout on each up there with you all. But if not. I caught up. Yeah. Let me see it. Okay. We have any questions of the applicant or. I do appreciate it. Having leaving more green space and not having the two inches. Entrances. That seemed to be our general concerns. I'd like to ask if the staff has any problems with the new design. Again, Stephanie had an opportunity to sit down and review anything and meet with other members of staff. We did forward it to the division of traffic engineering. And they were fine with the dimensions of the turnabout spot. And the length and everything. But we as a staff did not get an opportunity to review it yet because we received this late into our staff report cycle. And then the, the variance, the request is adjusted from zero feet to 18 feet for the variance, correct? Yes. It would be a lesser variance from 30 to 18. So we'd be reducing from 30 feet to 18 feet. Instead of 30 feet to zero feet. This variance would, would stipulate that nothing could be built there just the driveway. Correct. So that's not putting in jeopardy. Anyone building anything in the front yard. Correct. So it's yeah, it's just right. That's correct. It's the condition is usually that you follow the approved site plan that the board has reviewed. So because the board didn't review a site plan that showed a structure encroaching 18 feet, but rather a parking space or driveway, this was just a matter of, of paving part of his front yard so that both he and the neighborhood are safer. So this has been recommended for disapproval. So at this time we would either have a motion for disapproval to uphold the staff's recommendation, or if there's a motion to approve, we need to identify some conditions. Correct. I would be willing to support this application. I would as well. So I guess I will. If this Brittany Smith is ready, then we'll, we can rock and roll. I am going to move for approval of PLM be away. 24 dash one, eight, six, the request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 18 feet in order to pave a turnabout in the front yard in a single family residential zone on property at eight zero four Mount Vernon drive based upon today's testimony, the new site plan. And I have to read on that. Okay. You volunteered. Okay. So number one, and this is related to the findings of fact. Number one, granting the lesser variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the general vicinity nor alter the character of the general vicinity because the revised site plan does not create a second access point on the property. Further, the property is more level toward the front of the house such that allowing paid access to the front door provides better pedestrian access. Number two, the granting of this variance will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning ordinance because the applicant has applied for the necessary variance as soon as it was determined that it was necessary and prior to construction. So those are the findings of fact. It's going to be subject to the following two conditions. Number one, construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and revised site plan depicting the alternate driveway design presented at the January 13th board meeting. Number two, all necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from the division of building inspection prior to paving. So moved. And I think we just need to get confirmation that Ms. Bragg is comfortable with those two conditions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next. Our next item or our first item on the SDR docket is PLN BOA 24-127 Lola's lovely rentals. The applicant, please come forward. Chair Carter, would you like the staff to do our typical short term rental presentation? Yes, I would. Thank you. I'm sorry. Give me just one moment. We'll let the staff. James thought he was getting out of it for a second. This is my favorite part of the day, James. I'm sorry. You got my hopes up. I was ready to sit back down. So I'm going to present to you the short term rental application presentation today. I'm going to try to be quick and suffice and get through this because this is the last time we were going over the old regulations that were previously adopted July 11th, 2023. All applications that were submitted before 12, 12, 2024 will be reviewed through these old regulations. So everything you'll see today, uh, STRs that were legally operating before the, before July 11th, 2023 were allowed to be grandfathered in and did not require a conditional use permit. They only needed to require, uh, to get a zoning compliance permit from the division of planning. And they only had six months to do so to be considered grandfathered in STRs with occupancies greater than 12 require a conditional use permit. As of July 10th, 2025, the division of planning has processed approximately 960 zoning compliance permits for STRs. Section 13 of the code of ordinances includes additional regulations for short term rentals related to business licensing and permitting, which anyone who gets approved today, I will say, please go and get your business license and permitting from the division of revenue. So you can be fully compliant with the city of Lexington zoning ordinance and article one dash 11 defines a short term rental unit as the commercial use of a dwelling unit that is rented in whole or in part for a period of 30 days or less where no meals are served. Article one dash 11 defines unhosted short term rentals as a short term rental in which a primary resident does not occupy the property during the short term rental period. And our previous calculation under the old regulations was two per bedroom and plus four additional individuals that will change within updated regulations. So here's the review of the zones where hosted and unhosted short term rentals were conditional uses, principal uses and accessory uses. So in regard to our consideration of conditional uses, factors that require review are noise, traffic, parking, the compatibility with an area compliance with other zoning ordinance requirements and findings for approval usually include that it will not adversely affect the subject property or surrounding properties and necessary public facilities and services are adequate for the proposed use. Article three dash 13 also gave additional considerations for the Board of Adjustment in regard to short term rentals, including the number of STRs in proximity of the property being considered for such use, the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant, the occupancy rate of other STRs in the general vicinity, and any cited nuisances for other STRs in the general vicinity. Here are all the issued zoning compliance permits for the city of Lexington. I finally got an updated map, took a little bit. As you can see, most are concentrated in the downtown core with some that lead out to the county line. So in SAS review, we use several resources and frames of analysis to find these considerations. These include our new RGS pro tool that measures the number of residential dwelling units used as STRs within a thousand feet out of the total number of residential dwelling units within that boundary. To determine the compliance record of applicants, we reach out to revenue, the zoning enforcement division of building inspection, the police department, and we also use host compliance software. Although the host compliance software has not been able to determine occupancy rate, we were able to use air DNA for our occupancy rate numbers and any nuisance information is provided by these respective divisions and also pass along through the new short term rental hotline. So another consideration staff has taken it into account was the 2018 task force on neighborhoods in transition report, which talks about the top 10 bought groups that are most vulnerable for, for involuntary displacement and gentrification in the city of Lexington. Now looking at our STRs for this month, we have a significant number of them with two that are in these block groups over here. And we have have ranges of number of STRs and their buffers and the ranges of percentages. But with that, I'll take any questions. I don't believe there was a second one. No. So I don't know why that says slide one. Just as a refresher, once again, we're at 5% of the population. So we're at 5% of the population. below is kind of the threshold currently? No and that has changed because when we switched to residential dwelling units we were seeing that the from parcels so taking the number of parcels and STRs in the area to dwelling units which means that can be an apartment complex with six units in it. We saw those numbers were significantly impacted and decreased so staff changed our analysis away from that 5% number closer to 2 to 3 percent because we we were seeing where it was in some areas it was a significant number of properties were or concentrations were being reduced in areas like downtown where it would go from where the like Maxwell says 13.33 percent it probably would have been under parcel data 25 to 35 percent more than likely so we started to adjust our analysis of these applications with that data source change because we couldn't use the old way of determining what was appropriate what wasn't. Thanks. I just wanted to say thank you for this because it helps. Yeah no problem. All right any other questions of staff? And I made sure to print it out this time around so it should be up there with you all and if it's not I can provide it to you. Thank you we appreciate it. Okay Lola's Lovely Rentals. Afternoon please state your name for the record. Stephanie Proffitt. Stephanie. Stephanie Proffitt. Okay now this item has been recommended for approval by staff and there are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? Yes. And are you comfortable with those conditions? Yes. Now the board has had an opportunity to review the materials. Do we have any applicant questions of this applicant or concerns? Sorry I always do. So I was I had a couple questions for you. Where do you live? I currently live at the property. Okay so you'll be moving out or? Yes. Okay and the other question that I had is you have parking for use will be accommodated on the street? Yes. There seemed like I went by there and looked at it and it seemed like there was like a lot of residents use the street to park on and it's a corner lot. Yes there most houses on that street don't have driveways. It's I've always parked on the street so. Okay because my concern was like I don't know if you're limiting like the number of cars that are going to come or? When I I was previous I didn't know the grandfather-in-law but I was previously renting it out last year and there was actually less cars than when I was living there before and the property will actually be rented out full-term in July by college students and I'm expecting that we'll have more cars than in a short-term rental situation. So you're just requesting short-term rental from now to July or short? Well I tried to request it several months ago and the application had got lost and I was out of town so I couldn't really fix that so. Thank you I was just I'm just struggling with the parking issue but thank you. So you're saying this is a short-term short-term rental? Yes hopefully I my ideal situation would be to rent it out long-term in the future but short-term between those periods that it's not rented out long-term. I have a question would you foresee most of the parking you're on the corner of Woodford and Glover Glover is a basically a dead-end street right? Correct yeah. So you would see most of the parking on the Glover side? Yeah typically. And on this map this is the this is the only one within that radius? This was a staff question I think within the 500 and then one within the 1,000. Okay. Thank you. Any further from the applicant? I can't entertain a motion. Madam Chair based on I have some problems the parking too but I think the fact that there's so few within a thousand feet I'm gonna make a make a motion to approve PLN BOA 24 dash 127 Lola's lovely rentals request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area and the single-family residential zone on property located at 118 Woodford Drive based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you and Mr. Pursley has seconded. Any further discussion? We'll open for vote. The motion has passed. Good luck and don't forget your zoning compliance permit. Ms. Proffitt could you supply the Division of Planning with a new site plan the one we have in our packet is it's like it has an error in it none of the text lines up with the drawing so maybe there was a scanning issue with when you scanned your site plan? There was an issue I resubmitted it but I wasn't sure if it okay if that resubmittal worked. If you'll follow up with either Dalton or James this week and see if we have a correct site plan for you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. All right our next item is PLN BOA 24-193 Elizabeth Otis. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. State your name for the record. It's Elizabeth Brooke Mullins. That was something I was going to discuss as far as the name. Do we need to update? Yeah what's so the application was submitted under Elizabeth Brooke Otis because when I originally submitted the application last February that was the name the deed to the house was under currently it's actually under Brooke and the bluegrass LLC so it's under an LLC and I wanted to clear about that because I don't want it to cause any issues. We have to change it. Okay but my legal name is Elizabeth Brooke Mullins. So if whatever your property is deeded as is what we need to have on our agenda and also on your permit because if they're different it will cause issues with revenue. Right the application the application I resubmitted had Brooke and the bluegrass LLC on it. That should be what it should be under. Once you hit submit you really I'm not sure you can resubmit. Did you apply again? I had to reapply again because the original application was checked unhosted. Oh you did a verification form? Correct. But once you apply to the Board of Adjustment? It should have been under Brooke and the bluegrass LLC. Let's double-checking. And I can provide a deed or anything you all need for that. Right it is. Yeah. I'll say it looks like there's a temporary application that didn't get finalized but the application we have with this case number has Elizabeth Otis as the applicant name. So and that was created in November of 2024 which would have been the time you're making this. So the application the applicant name we have is Elizabeth Otis is what we have in our system which is why we went with that. Maybe that temporary one you were making didn't get finalized and that was the one that you were actually. Right I'm not for sure is that is it an issue to have it changed or I mean the deed has Brooke and the bluegrass on it if you look up the deed. Is Otis your maiden name? It is. It's my maiden name. So when I purchased the home in 2020 I wasn't married at that time. And so now your married name is Mullins? Yes. But through PVA was still under Otis until last year when I transferred it to NLLC. Yeah and that's on the deed that I provided as well. Correct. Oh sorry. Okay so we think you can proceed today because the address hasn't changed right? But we do need the the conditional use permit to be issued to Brooke in the bluegrass LLC. Yes ma'am. Okay same person. Yes I meant to do. Okay hopefully that was the hard part. Okay sorry I just wanted to be clear as possible. No it makes a difference. It absolutely makes a difference. Thank you. Okay. Then Bill could you update the documents please? We're still on the vote screen. Okay yeah I got it. I think it's just are you guys still on vote screen? Yeah. There we go. Yeah on the floor. All righty. So this has been recommended for approval and there are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? Yes ma'am. And are we comfortable with those conditions? Yes ma'am. And does anyone on the board have questions or like more information about the project? So it said that you're gonna do on-street parking for three spaces and I know there's not a lot of room on that street for parking so that's where they're gonna be is right there. I currently live there actually and there are three spaces on the street and then the driveway is actually pretty long if you look at the site plan there's concrete that goes all the way back to that building and that fits about four cars in the driveway the single car driveway. So primarily that will use the driveway but if they need to there's also about two to three cars that can fit on the street there right in front of the house. Okay and then you've got 978 square feet with seven people? Right. This is probably a question for staff. It's actually a thousand and one square feet I thought but if the site plan says 978 they must have not counted the laundry James is looking at me hard. I know I asked this last year but we don't have like a fire code occupancy right from the fire department or anything do we? Okay thank you. We have the what is it the two per bedroom plus four is that the yeah I think it's actually under the recommended amount. All righty. Do we have other questions the applicant? Comfortable enough to make a motion? I've forgotten the name that it's supposed to go in so remind me what that is. Sorry it's Brooke of the bluegrass in the in the bluegrass yes. Okay Madam Chair I move to approve PLM BOA 2 4 dash 1 9 3 Brooke of the bluegrass LLC request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in single-family residential zone on property located at 6 2 4 Sheridan Drive based on staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions. Thank you and Mr. Gross has offered a second. If no further conversation we'll open for vote. Motion is passed. Thank you good luck with the project. Our next item is PLM BOA 24-198 Dustin Caldwell and Robert Caldwell the applicant. Good afternoon please state your name for the record. Dustin Caldwell. Thank you. Now this particular item was postponed from last week but it has been wrecked last month but it has been recommended for approval and there are four conditions that are marked there. Have you had an opportunity to review the conditions? Yes. And are we comfortable with those conditions? I'll take a quick look the board has received the packet do we have any questions of this particular applicant? If not I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair I recommend approval of PLM BOA 24-198 Dustin Caldwell and Robert Caldwell's request for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 261 Mockingbird Lane based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? Thank you Mr. Pursley and if no further discussion we will take a vote. The motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Our next item is PLM BOA 24-212 Laura Coleman. Hello. Hi there please state your name for the record. It's Laura Coleman. And this item has been recommended for approval and there are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had the opportunity to review? Yes. And are you comfortable with those conditions? Yes. The board has this documentation do we have any questions or need clarification from this applicant? If not and we're comfortable I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair I move to approve PLM BOA 24-212 Laura Coleman's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 428 White Oak Trace based on staff recommendations and subject to the four conditions. Thank you. Mr. Sturdivant has seconded this item. No further conversation we'll open for vote. Is that everybody? There we go. Wonderful motion is passed. Thank you. Good luck. All right now I have PLM BOA 24-221 Ann Rouse. Hello. Good afternoon please state your name for the record. Ann Rouse. And this one has been recommended for approval there are five conditions that have been listed and I believe you indicated you need clarification on one of the conditions. Yeah well I actually just wanted to see if we could strike number two as a condition. When we submitted for the application we stated that we live in the property which we currently do. I've had the property in my possession since 2008. I've done long-term short-term rentals and I've lived there and I'd like the ability to be able to not live there in the future and continue to provide it a short-term and long-term like all of the other applicants have who've been approved are able to do. We also the area is less than the two percent concentration so I would consider that we're earlier to you know this approval process than other people may be in the area and so that we should be rewarded for that as opposed to you know potentially harmed more by only allowing this maximum of 80 days and proof of residence. And we'll ask staff was the reason we put the limitation on this particular client? I mean they offered it as part of their justification for the short-term rental? Madam Chair I had I had written on the application questioning why number two is necessary so I would agree that there really isn't any reason to do that. Yes just my opinion. And I wouldn't necessarily say that I offered it as part of the justification I just was stating that we do live on the property but it might not be something that we do in the future. Are you accusing yourself? Okay. All right. So any other questions or concerns otherwise? If not we can entertain a motion with the amendment or with the condition as listed. Madam Chair I recommend approval of PLN BOA 24-221 and Ralph's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a historic district district overlay zone in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 726 East High Street based on the staff's recommendation and without the without the condition number two which would leave four conditions left. Thank you. Mr. Sturtevant has seconded the motion. Any other discussion? Okay we'll open for vote please. Thank you. The motion is passed. Thank you. All right are we going to let Brandon come back or do we like it without him? I owe him one today. We'll let him back in. Okay all righty so now we are to the STR the herd part of our docket. We're comfortable. Does anybody need a break or want to power through? Everyone good? All right the first item is PLN BOA 24-187 that is the mischief maker 528 West 3rd Street. I'm sorry I will allow staff to discuss first. Thank you. Usually that's too high for me. That's nice. All right Dalton Belcher planning staff reporting. This is for a case 24-00187 the mischief maker is a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a mixed low density residential r2 zone on property located at 528 West 3rd Street. You can see highlighted in light blue is the property here. Right there. Here is a picture from the street of the property. And then here is the applicant site plan showing the property basically. They mentioned four parking spaces required and four parking spaces provided although staff found that there's not really any off-street parking here. And there is limited on-street parking as well. For the concentration map we have a concentration of 3.04 percent. As you can see I want to try to zoom in here there are some short-term rentals adjacent to this property as well as kind of really and scattered all throughout here especially within the 600 foot buffer but also outside of that buffer as well. So there are 27 short-term rentals within the vicinity and that and 587 residential dwellings which creates the 3.04 percent concentration. Staff does recommend disapproval. Staff notes that the four factors in article 3-13 G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. Staff also notes that no other STRs have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance and the applicant has no history of compliance issues. However based on a review of the ArcGIS concentration mapping data there are 27 short-term rentals operating in the 1,000 feet surrounding the property with an average occupancy rate of 52.6 percent in total. 50 percent is our general occupancy rate for the city for Lexington and then in total this creates a concentration of 3.04 percent of the dwelling units within the 1,000 foot buffer being used for STRs. That percentage borders on a too high concentration for the area. The property also does not have off-street parking spaces available and parking on the public street is limited especially with the other STRs that are adjacent within the vicinity. The proximity of these transient visitors in a residential area could create an adverse influence due to an increase in traffic and limited parking available for the specific property. And that's it for staff's presentation if you have any questions for me. I was wondering I was wondering about when the 50 percent occupancy rate was decided how that was decided. I've noticed that was it's in all all the applications had been disapproved and not in any of the applications that had been approved. So I would just wonder where that came from. So we use AirDNA is a I guess a website or a company that that pulls that data. We we pull it for the dis for our disapprovals to pull and they they haven't I mean again we're using their data but they have 50 percent as the average for us and then anything above that average we consider to be a higher occupancy. So you know 52.6 percent it's not 60 or 70 but it is higher than 50 percent. But AirDNA is the website we're using to pull that information from. And this is more for just clarification once again. In my memory is not as good as it used to be but AirDNA does that only encompass the licensed or is it is basically everything that's in operation? I believe everything in operation again you know it's always they're they're pulling so what we did is we used it's tedious but we we pull these numbers we take any addresses that we the the 20 some that we had that we know were that are in the area in the vicinity on that map we go and we look those properties up specifically so we can pull the occupancy rate for all those them staff did an average of that occupancy rate to find the average so if you just were to type this property in and look on their on their website it doesn't pull all of them so we went and found we the addresses that we know are in the area we went and pulled those specifically. All right thanks. So it looks like the two adjacent properties are both short-term rentals and they have multiple units that are being used for short-term rental so I'm assuming they're like duplexes or houses that have been converted to a duplex? That would be my understanding yes I believe so. I think if you look this is a similar you can see the development here I think there's a lot of these duplex or split split parcels here I think there's two entrances here for what I believe are two different residential dwelling units here and I mean I that follows for you know you're allowed to have the applicant confirm. Yeah the bullying we can let the applicant confirm that yes. Thank you. Let's see the applicant of Mischief Maker. Okay. Thank you please state your name for the record. I'm Alex Naramore. And Alex do you want to tell us a little bit about the project? So I'm the sole property owner of 528 West 3rd Street. I'm recently divorced and single trying to make ends meet and want to rent the house for income two times a year during Keeneland and I'm asking for a six guest occupant or capacity and I do not believe that six guests two times a year would be a nuisance or an issue to the people in the community visiting that infrequently and so I'm asking for approval because this would pay for the mortgage and the bills for the entire year just doing it those two times which I need and like you said the property is a duplex situation. The blue half is already an Airbnb so the houses were never joined but that blue hat basically the whole thing shares the same footprint so that's already been approved for an Airbnb for as long as I've ever lived there and it's never been any nuisance to me. And you own the property I'm sorry? I own the brick half. Gotcha okay. But the blue half is an Airbnb already. Yeah I'm sorry they're going to put the picture back up. And I have a picture or so the blue half has always been an Airbnb as soon as my neighbor bought it and I think he can maybe clarify some more things than me if you want to. Well we'll allow public comment in a moment. Please continue so the blue you don't own but it was an Airbnb and then the the brick side is your. Yeah and so we share a central wall and I've never had any sort of issue with that Airbnb. Okay do we have questions of the applicant? So all the parking will be done on the street? The parking is on the street but I've never had any issue like I said like I've always been able to park right in front of my house so I don't think it will be an issue. And it will continue to be your primary residence? Yes. So you won't be there when it's rented? Yes. Do we have others of the applicant? I was going to allow for some public comment if we didn't need anything from the applicant at this point. Okay we'll have you sit a moment and then we'll take public comment. Okay thank you. If you would like to speak so anyone in public comment I think I didn't mention this earlier we will give you the opportunity to speak everyone will get three minutes and then we'll give the applicant opportunity to respond. Yeah thank you my name is Daniel Albertson I own 526 West 3rd Street that we do operate as a short-term rental for the last six years and we've gone through the grandfathering process with everything. So I'm here and speaking in favor of Alex and her desire to operate a short-term rental two months out of the year to supplement her income. The property is in a unique area which I think is strategic and conducive to limited short-term rental. The mix of business, retail, breweries, bars, manufacturing, residential all within five six hundred feet of our property. I know that they had the statistic of the 3.04 percent of residential dwellings within a thousand feet but keep in mind not all those are full-time short-term rentals and not all the time are they rented. In fact they're rented 53 percent of the time so it's not like it's all the time every unit. As I mentioned before within 600 feet there are three breweries there's an antique shop there's a glass and window company a u-haul rental space a manufacturing company two apartment complexes and residential homes. I've owned the property for the last six years on the other side and I have three parking spaces in the back of my unit so my guests do not use the front of the parking or the street parking at all. In fact when I did a google map of everybody on the street there are only three individual homes or businesses that do not have access to off-street parking. It's a one-way street we don't get much traffic coming through there and I've never had when I've driven by multiple times any problem with parking on the street for a quick minute to jump into the house so I don't think that's going to be a big issue. I know at first blush it might seem like a townhouse like this should not have two airbnbs but I would say it's actually a police it's a really great setup for another airbnb on the other side. My guests and I have two on the left-hand side of the house do not want to hear noise after 10 o'clock. I give them my phone number I give them proactive messages if there's something that's not happening there's something happening on the bottom of the unit side of the unit call me because we're going to shut it down so it's a it is a nice spot for an airbnb in a limited capacity so I appreciate your all's consideration of this. Thank you. No I'm sorry applicant I was yeah we've got a couple of public comments. Good afternoon. My name is Faith Harters I live at 539 West 3rd which is the corner of Blackburn and 3rd street. If you look at the picture kind of to the right you can see this right house what nobody has brought up is two doors down there are two group homes. One is Arbor Youth which they house little children five years old and under I would say. The next house houses youth in their late teens and early 20s. From talking to one of the staff members there they have 19 beds. 10 are permanent people in a program nine are up for grabs every night if you need a place you come if there's more than nine people they draw straws and the rest kind of dissolve into the neighborhood. To say there's not much traffic there with those group homes most of the residents in the adult home come on foot and of course they're drawn every night because they want to be in that drawing but there are parents who visit their children, friends, staff members, social workers, volunteers, deliveries all those people need a place to park and it is street parking I think the group homes have like a couple of spaces behind them but it is a very very busy corner and they go 24 7 and with the adult homes we get a lot from the paramedics and the fire department. As for 526 I've seen their people use street parking you you can't equate one air bb with one car they're often assembly points like at 526 I've seen all the bridesmaids are there or all the groomsmen and you'll see the gold shield limo pick them up and and each one of them is bringing in a car from a different place and you know that I seen on Sunday morning taking out their suitcases to their cars that are parked on the street what I'm saying it and is you know there's other airbnbs on the street too and one around the corner on Blackburn. Main Street at Disneyland would be proud to have the traffic we have we don't you know we just do not need more it's a constant transient population especially with the group homes and I think we are full. Thank you. Thank you. Hello I'm Evelyn Knight I live in a house I own at 516 West Third Street. I've lived there for 18 years. During that time the street has changed quite a lot some for the better and some for not so good. In general it's an iffy area it's gotten better and one thing that makes it a little iffy is that there is quite a lot of transients in the area. We've been working at community building which I know is a top priority for our overall plan for quality of life in Lexington. These I consider prime rental properties they're actually places you might want to live unlike the other infill in the area which is just kind of it's its own form of transient housing for a year or two. So I would also like clarification on the density issue. I spoke with planning previously and they suggested our current density level for short-term rental is a six percent not three percent and perhaps we're factoring in the amount of rentals like 50 percent rental takes it down to three percent but it still means it's potentially six percent so we're already double what would be considered ideal. I appreciate the the need for extra income I certainly do and but during that time when it's rented it would be unhosted no one's supervising. You may know that we had a shooting based on a party a couple of a year or two ago in our block and so another party venue might not be what's needed to build community. So overall I'm actually obviously asking for disapproval for the sake of community and for the sake of sort of maintaining the thrust toward livable communities. Thank you. My name is Mark Klar. I live at 560, I used to live at 560 West 3rd Street. I live at 321 Blackburn Avenue. I've been in this neighborhood for 34 years first on West 3rd and then on Blackburn. I believe that this regardless of the need perhaps by the person requesting this change I think it would be an over concentration of Airbnb particularly on this corner. Across the street diagonally across the street on the corner in a property owned by Dixon it had been an Airbnb. It's now up for rent but it's a question of whether it will revert back to an Airbnb. In addition there's an Airbnb already on Blackburn Avenue across the street from my house and what is most concerning is that this concentration of Airbnbs tend to detract from the sense of neighborhood. People stranger strangers come and they don't really they aren't really involved in the neighborhood at all. It's very hard to build community cooperation when you have this sort of concentration. Thank you. Do we have any other public comment? Okay if the applicant can please come back. Okay did you have any response or? I would just like to maintain that I don't think that April and October two times a year for six guests is a nuisance at all. Just my own opinion and I know M.M. Blanton Park owned this house and I'm very close with them. So as Danny Albertson owns the other one I feel like I would be very present even when not present if anything was to occur at the home. And they also have off-street parking like he said at all of the adjacent. So even if I don't those three properties do. So. And I don't know what the the board is discussing but would you be comfortable with the limitation to just the those two months? I mean I would rather have more options but I also yes. Are there other questions or discussion for the applicant? Is anyone prepared to make a motion or do we need time to discuss any options or alternatives? Madam chair I make a motion to agree with staff with PLN BOA 2400187 the mischief maker that requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in mixed low density residential zone on property located at 528 West 3rd Street. I agree with the staff's disapproval on this. My reasons personally are for parking and the concentration. Thank you. Does anyone second the motion for disapproval? Mr. Pursley has seconded. We will vote. Thank you. The motion for disapproval has upheld so it has been disproved. Thank you. Thank you. Okay the next item is ST um I'm sorry PLN BOA 24-196 Jamie Day. This has been recommended for disapproval so we will allow staff to speak first. That shocked me. Okay all right so this case is 24-00196 Jamie Day is condition request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 113 Whitland Lane. You can see highlighted in light blue and I'm emphasizing it here the property subject property. Here is a street view of the property as well. Here's the applicant site plan. I'll note that the applicant does show a existing two-car garage back here so you can come up the driveway back into the garage. Here is the the proper excuse me the structure residential structure. So the concentration of short-term rentals in the vicinity is 3.59 percent. You can see there is a kind of a larger concentration here on limestone going through but there is also and that's the majority of the short-term rentals but there are there is another one I believe right there it's a little harder to see but there are 18 short-term rentals within the vicinity of 502 dwelling units which creates 3.59 percent concentration. Staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons first of the four factors listed in article 3-13g of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. Staff notes that while no other SCRs have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance and the applicant has no history of compliance issues based on the review of the ArcGIS concentration mapping data there are 18 SCRs operating in the 1,000 feet surrounding the property with an average occupancy rate of 56.2 percent. Again 50 percent is our average for this overall. In total this creates a concentration of 3.59 percent of the dwelling units within 1,000 feet being used for short-term rentals. This area already features a high concentration of short-term rentals and the applicant's proposed short-term rental would further increase the concentration of the neighborhood and that is it's for staff presentation if you have any questions for me. Questions of staff? Thank you sir. If the applicant will come forward at this time. Please state your name for the record. My name is Jamie Day. I'm the owner of 113 Whitland Lane. Thank you. Please tell us a little bit about your project. Okay sorry. Thanks committee members for allowing me the opportunity to present my appeal. I appreciate your time and for being part of this board. I'm here to discuss the appeal for 113 Whitland Lane. I'm the owner and I have a deep tie to Lexington. I'm a Kentucky native. Hold on. When I grew up in a nearby town called Paint Lake out in Garrett County on Tobacco and Cattle Farm. Anyway I graduated high school. Go ahead one. That's farm. Okay when I graduated high school my parents encouraged me to stay home from to go to college while Eastern was a great option. I chose to go to Georgetown and as you can imagine most everybody ended up in Lexington. And so did I for a little bit and I worked at the fifth third building for quite some time until eventually careers took different paths. I ended up in Nashville. To be in Nashville although I'm three hours away I remain connected to the area through friends and family. We definitely consider Lexington our second home. Last week I even had the privilege of taking my three boys to watch the UK women's basketball team beat Vanderbilt in Nashville. And we've over the years we've enjoyed many tailgates, many basketball games, afternoons at Keeneland, Southland Festival and even the thriller walk at Halloween. In 2019 we adopted our first kid. When we did that it was pretty easy to stay with friends, family, whatever. But then through in 2020 our family grew and so we have two more boys now and so our family of five could not start staying with friends. So at that time you know our friends didn't have space for extra people. My parents didn't either and they were on the farm so their schedules weren't didn't really align with ours either. I started looking into hotels and accommodates families of five without getting two rooms especially for families with pets like ours. Our Boston Terrier Duke was always part of our family traveling with us and then keep going and sadly Duke passed away this past August but as an he was very important for our lives part of our lives. When we come to Lexington we would be in an Airbnb costing us $500 for two nights. So we really wanted to obviously have a place for ourselves but also have an investment property that could help us while we were still living in Nashville. The home we found on Whitland Lane was almost exactly what we're looking for. It's two bedrooms allowed us to create a unique setup with three tier bunk bed for our boys, the double bed for us and a thick fenced backyard that was perfect for Duke. The location was walkable to many amenities like restaurants, coffee shops and even Castlewood Park with its splash pad and green spaces. The proximity to I-75 also makes it easy for to us to visit parents and the farm in near Richmond. We try to visit six to eight times a year more in the summer if we can and stay for longer times. Someday obviously I would well not obviously but someday I'll inherit the family farm and want to be a little bit closer. As my parents are getting older too we'd like to have a place to stay if we ever needed to go to the hospital or spend some extended time. Both my dad and I have spent time at Central Baptist over the years and it would have been incredible for family to have a place to stay close by. We invested heavily in this house in 2021 when we purchased it putting a new main joist main beam down through the center of the of the house. We did a partial new roof, insulation, gutters, flooring, countertops and more there's a tankless water heater that installed improved energy efficiency. Very few homes on the street had been updated at that time but since then about three other homes have been updated just on that street. This property can contributes to the local economy like North Lime Coffee and Donuts, B-Mexico which is delicious you guys should go there and then obviously other shops at Gray Line Station. Our kids like to go play ping pong there and check out the shops and we're really hopeful that that transitions back into something soon. So unfortunately we hit a roadblock when we learned our property management company we had hired did not secure the necessary permits. We should have been grandfathered in but the paperwork did not get submitted as we were led to believe. I have text messages messages oh one thing we are three houses in from Gray Line so you can see that from the front porch makes it easy just to walk down there to the restaurants coffee shops North Lime is down there as well. So basically the management company didn't submit the paperwork I started doing more research and realized that not only were we out of compliance but we're also missing payments that have not been deposited. I started sending emails but we get responses that they were missing or not ever received. Management company did reach out to the city about getting a permit by that point it was too late to be considered a late submission so we're going through this process which is where we are today. So there's text messages keep going average rental for Lexington according to a quick google search is 124 to 145 dollars a night. Us we're at like 90 to 110 a night makes it a more affordable option for people especially larger families. In closing I want to emphasize that we acted in good faith to be compliant and I understand the responsibility is completely on ultimately on me. We are out-of-state investors but we're not an out-of-state family. I've got deep roots to Lexington and Kentucky and I want it to be part of our past present well it is part of our past but our present and our future. We love it here and want to make it accessible to others. Thank you. Do we have questions of this applicant? I think we had some public comment do we have public comment on this one? No no no public comment okay. Any questions of the applicant? I have one. You said when did you start using this as a short-term rental? In 2022. 2022? Yeah I purchased it in 2021 in May. I spent pretty much that entire year doing the renovations and then the next year we got connected to the management company in 22. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Comments? I just have to say I am I've tried to count all these 18 I can't find but 12 and so is there any possibility that 18 is a bit more than what what shows on the diagram? Staff I don't know how to ask you to respond to that. I'm sure you've looked. If there's multiple units on a given property then it might not show the the icon might not appear for multiple units in that one property so that could be the issue. All right I understand. I'll say it's probably not super easy to see but if you look on North Limestone at least two if not three of the properties there have multiple little houses they're just on top of each other so that's where some of those units are coming. All right good I understand that. Thank you. Well we've had this discussion before about density to some extent those areas that are more high retail high tourist areas you know making some accommodation for higher densities on those than others are we just looking at them across the board with the same levels now? We've kind of started moving to more across the board but also a consideration from our last meeting was the concentration that's developing along North Limestone the North Limestone corridor there's a significant significant concentration of short-term rentals developing in that proximity of that corridor so moving a lot of those from where they're either long-term rentals or dwelling units used by property owners to short-term renting so that was another concern that staff had in previous staff reports and we carried that forward to this one. Is this this is for staff I couldn't I didn't see it in here was this one where the applicant voluntarily came forward or were they I don't see where they were sent a notice is that? I think Mr. Day's justification indicated he was sent a notice okay but not a citation so he followed up on the the notice of violation immediately and and filed so the previous ones where we've reported to you that they had a compliance issue meant that they had gotten to the citation point already and didn't didn't fall they had multiple chances and had not followed up. Okay thank you. Well on this one I am I think I realize that there is a higher number in this area but this area is also a pretty pretty big entertainment area so I wouldn't find that completely surprising. He's pretty close to gray line I think that it sounds like they they were an operation prior and they could have grandfather claused in potentially if but I think he testified he was when I can't recall when our short-term rental going to to where they had a chance to grandfather in? The ordinance was adopted in July of 2023 so everyone had until January 11th of 2024 so it's been a year since the grandfathering ended. No I get that part yeah but I guess given the fact that it's testified that he was in operation prior to that time period and it does not appear there were any complaints you know if it's the will of the board I'd be willing to support this application and I think the staff did a good job and I think their analysis I would take 99 out of 100 times but I think this may be the 100th time that I'd be willing to go along if that's the board's feelings on this particular application so that's just that's just my gut on this one. Part of my concern is the language of using like a tourist area for established neighborhoods in Lexington and so the concentration of them in because this is still a neighborhood area even though it's around gray line. I agree and I agree with both of the statements I also though just take special note I'm leaning towards Brandon some of Brandon's comment that one of the the the area is actually being rejuvenated because of some of those you know adding the more retail and the more tourist attraction you know the area has seen some tough times and some better times because of some of the developments I don't know where where the the line is there but this is a good example of and in line with Miss Tucker I think that if this were a brand new it had not been used as short-term rental I may come that's not the case that's before us but I would likely come to a different conclusion if this were hey we just bought this we want to do this now versus we've been doing it for two years and should have gotten the grandfather clause. They didn't. I understand that, but I think in this instance, there at least is a track record of this not being a huge issue and we don't see a lot of neighbor opposition coming forward saying these guys don't know what they're doing, so. Anyone else wanna chime in or do we wanna take a shot? May I ask the applicant to explain the management of the property since you're out of town? Well, I immediately turned it, well, once it got finished and updated and staged, I turned it over to that property manager and she actually lived kind of diagonal to me on the street behind me, but like I mentioned, unfortunately, that's not worked out very well for us, so I've been in contact with another management company here called Pure Property Management. So, I'm just waiting to hear what you say. Currently, you live in Nashville, right? I do, I do. Thank you. I am here quite often. I do updates, I do a lot of work on the property when I'm here and just kind of consideration for it is in a neighborhood, but like you see from the picture, it's only three houses in and so a lot of tourists are going to visit those stores and shops, those restaurants, and more than I think a long-term tenant would on a weekly basis. Nothing further? I will entertain a motion if someone's comfortable or if we need further discussion, please let me know. Mr. Day, would it be possible for you to tell us your occupancy rate over the two years that you've rented? I actually don't know because the management company had all that information in the listing and then when we got this notification, that was taken offline, so I don't have that information. But we'll say it does stay pretty busy, except for when we block it off for us. So you don't know how often it was used? It was busy most weekends, for sure. Maybe in like February, January, February, but starting in March, April, obviously for Keeneland, October for Keeneland, football season, it was booked. We had people stay because they were having services or surgeries at UK. We've had people stay because they're moving to Lexington for a week or two. It's just to kind of fill out the area. We've had all kinds of people. For different reasons. How many occupants would stay? Well, we had a limit of six on the listing, but which I guess would be eight, I guess, would be our actual limit, but. Yeah. The two bedrooms, one bath? Eight may be a little much. Yeah, I mean, well, it's fine for us. People make it work for the cost, I think. So would you be comfortable with no more than six? That's what the application says. Okay, I just want to confirm, yeah. Just want to make sure we get our conditions, get the information for the conditions for Ms. Wade on the record and Brittany. Is there anything else that if we were to approve this that staff would want addressed or on the record before we? Okay. All right. The management company you had, it sounds like the last one you had wasn't the best. Is this one that specializes in short-term running? Management's a broad stroke. Do they just collect money or they take care of the? Google says they have really good reviews, so I'm going to go with the, and they have a lot of houses under their belt that they manage, so I feel like they're doing a pretty good job. The other one, I think it was like they had started doing this and just kind of grew organically and for the neighborhood and yeah, just didn't work out for me. Okay, thanks. Sure. I guess we've seen some, we don't know exactly whom, but there are some management companies that have caused their owners more trouble than not in this city. So yeah, I'm not sure which, what their names are, but I do know that we often get, I probably guess it's two or three that are causing trouble for many owners. I guess Ms. Smith, would you be ready for a motion? Any more questions or discussion? Okay. Madam Chair, with respect to PLN BOA 196 Jamie Days, I move for approval of the request for a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental on property located at 113 Whitland Lane based on the following findings of fact. One, the proposed use would not have an adverse influence on the subject property or the surrounding neighborhood as the structure is large enough to accommodate the proposed number of guests. No short-term rentals in the area have been cited as a nuisance. The concentration of short-term rentals at 3.59% is appropriate for the area given the fact the property is located near a variety of uses that attract transient visitors. Number three, the proposed use should not have an adverse impact on traffic because adequate parking is available for the limited number of guests. This recommendation is based upon the testimony we heard today and subject to the following conditions. The short-term rental shall be established in accordance with the submitted materials and site plan. The occupancy of the short-term rental shall be limited to no more than six individuals. All necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Revenue and Planning prior to commencement of the use, including a business license, special fee license, and zoning compliance permit. The conditional use permit shall become null and void upon the change in ownership or if the applicant's short-term rental special fee license as regulated by the Division of Revenue, section 13 of the Code of Ordinance, lapses or is revoked. So moved. Did you understand those conditions? Are you agreeable to those conditions? Yes, sir. Do you understand you're not supposed to be renting it out right now? I do and I'm not. Okay, perfect. Good answer. Is there one more? Yeah. I read that. Oh, you read that? I read that, huh? I'm fast. Sorry. Yeah, I could be a clerk. Clerk. Thank you, and Mr. Clark has seconded. No further conversation. We'll take a vote. Okay. The motion is passed. Thank you. Good luck. The next item is PLN BOA 24-206, Skylar Lanham. This has been recommended for disapproval, so we will allow staff to speak first. No. Gotcha. Okay. Sounds good. As mentioned, this is, excuse me, BOA 24-00206, Skylar Lanham. The request is a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone, a property located at 203 East 6th Street. Highlighted here on the screen is the subject property in light blue. Here's a picture of the subject property. It's the one in the middle there. Here's the applicant site plan for the property. And then for the concentration, we have a 3.72% concentration in the area of short-term rentals. That is 19 short-term rentals within 1,000 feet and 511 total dwellings, residential dwellings in the area. So staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons. First, the four factors listed in Article 3-13G of the Zoning Ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance in KRS 100.237. Second, that no other SCRs have been decided in the vicinity as a nuisance and the applicant has no history of compliance issues. However, based on a review of the ArcGIS concentration mapping data, there are 19 short-term rentals operating in the 1,000 feet surrounding the property with an average occupancy rate of 53.5%. Again, 50% is our average for the whole city. And in total, this creates a concentration of 3.72% of the dwelling units within the 1,000 foot buffer being used for short-term rentals. If approved, this request would increase an already too high concentration for the area. The amount of these transient visitors in a residential area would create an adverse influence due to an increase in traffic. Third, the proposed use will have an adverse influence on the subject property in the surrounding neighborhood by removing an existing housing unit from the market that could otherwise be utilized as a primary residence for an owner-occupant or a long-term tenant within one of the top 10 census block groups identified as a priority area, as mapped within the Task Force on Neighborhoods and Transition Report. These priority areas are vulnerable to involuntary displacement, and the proposed use would heighten existing issues with gentrification and displacement. And that is it for staff's presentation. If you have any questions for me. Only clarification, and we'll ask the applicant as well, but the driveway is a shared driveway? Yes. Sorry, it's on the, I can go back real quick, on the applicant's site plan. I think you said that, I was just reading as well, okay. Doesn't want to highlight right now, but yes, it is there. All righty. Appreciate it, staff. Was there any, I couldn't remember if we had public comment, no? Okay, if the applicant can come forward, please. Skyler Lanham. Thank you. And the staff has recommended disapproval. They gave some of their concerns. Would you like to tell us a little bit about your property, or? Yeah, so I wrote you guys a letter. Dear members of the board, thank you for taking the time to listen to me today and to discuss my request for a conditional use permit at my home at 203 East 6th Street, where it's my permanent residence. This is not merely a property to me. It is my sanctuary, my connection to Lexington, and a place filled with cherished memories. When I purchased this beautiful 125-year-old home in January 2023, I was drawn to its charm, its history, and its place in Lexington. It's not just a house to me. It's my primary residence, my safe haven, and my foundation. I live here the majority of the year, more than 275 days annually, and this home represents a lifelong bond to a city that means so much to me. I graduated from the University of Kentucky, Go Cats, where I earned both my bachelor's and my master's degree. Lexington has shaped who I am, and this home is my way of staying connected to the community that has given me so much. My career in medical device sales requires frequent travel, but even when I'm away, the house is my anchor, a place where I return to with gratitude and pride. To help maintain this home and offset the cost of home ownership, I list it as a short-term rental while I'm traveling for work or back home in Crestwood with my family. This is not a commercial endeavor, but a way I can continue to afford and care for this historic property. The income helps me preserve this piece of Lexington's history, and it allows me to remain an active part of this wonderful community. I have been honored to host guests who bring so much value to Lexington, horse trainers and riders at the Kentucky Horse Park, traveling nurses supporting our hospitals, families caring for loved ones at the Kentucky Children's Hospital, visiting professors sharing knowledge at the University of Kentucky, and parents celebrating milestones like graduations and birthdays. These guests not only help me care for my home, but they also contribute to the local economy, supporting our restaurants, shops, and cultural landmarks. This property is not a business venture. It is deeply personal. It is where I've invested my heart and resources, and it's where I plan to continue building my life. My goal is to not to disrupt, but to share the beauty of Lexington while remaining a part of it. I'm gonna address some of the concerns. Number one is personal occupancy and housing stock. This is my primary residence, and I live here 75% of the year. During my travel for work, I carefully vet guests and enforce strict rules to ensure the property remains a peaceful part of the neighborhood. This is not a property being removed from the housing stock or contributing to displacement. It's a home that is lovingly cared for by me and deeply rooted in the community. I am so proud to say that I have never received a complaint from any of my neighbors, and I strive to maintain positive relationships with those around me. Number two, traffic and community disruption. To ensure minimal impact, I have proposed a six-person occupancy limit, which is lower than the maximum of eight allowed for a two-bedroom property. This reduced capacity naturally limits the number of vehicles and visitors to the property. This property has a driveway that accommodates two vehicles, eliminating the need for guests to park on the street. Many of my guests, such as the equestrian visitors or traveling nurses, typically travel in small groups and often arrive in one vehicle, further eliminating the traffic. To maintain harmony in the neighborhood, I also enforce quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and house rules that promote respectful behavior. Three, commitment to compliance and engagement. As this will be my first short-term rental operation, I'm fully committed to compliance and being a good neighbor. I am willing to address any concerns promptly and to work collaboratively to align my hosting practices with the values of this community. This home is my heart. It is where I find peace and connection, and it is a place I'm proud to share with others. I hope my heartfelt commitment to preserving this home, fostering goodwill, and addressing community concerns resonates with you all. I respectfully ask the board to reconsider my application and to allow me to continue calling 203 East 6th Street, both my home and my way of sharing Lexington with others. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to our community. Thank you. Do we have any questions? I do think we had a conversation earlier regarding the ownership. So you say it's your primary residence, but it's actually owned by LLC? It's owned by my LLC. It was advised that if I'm gonna be renting it out to put it in my LLC. Okay. Any further discussion or conversation? What's the name of your LLC? It's 203 East 6th Street. I just put it as my street, so I wasn't sure. And I guess where, you said it is your primary residence. Yes. But the LLC, the address listed is somewhere else? That's at my parents' house. My dad's here today, but I still visit them and I still go there sometimes. Okay. All right. Additional information of this applicant? So you say you're, it would be 25% of the year that you would not be there. That's the time period that you would use as a short-term rental, is that correct? Yes, sir. But it is your primary residence. Where would you be then during that period? Is that for work or pleasure? When you're not there, what? That's a great question. So with work, I travel all over Kentucky. So I'm from the Appalachians. I go all the way up to Madisonville. So I spend a lot of my week traveling and I'm also really close with my family. And so they live in Crestwood, so I go visit them. And I also do travel sometimes. Thank you. Anything additional from the applicant or staff or is anyone prepared for a motion? And I do have someone here for support as well. Okay, if we have public comment, we'd be happy to hear it. Good afternoon, my name is Diana Wilhaire. I own Mighty Tidy Commercial Cleaning here in Lexington. Just to establish a little bit of context, we have over 234 customers just in Fayette County and 56 of those are short-term rentals. So, and Sky is one of them, Skyler. So I just wanted to describe a little bit of the economic impact of short-term rentals to our business. Would you speak up just a little bit? Yeah, I'm sorry. Is this better? Yeah. Okay. Skyler's short-term rental is properly managed. She does self-manage and we've seen her deal with guests. We've never had an instance where there has been a party or anything left behind. This is a low-impact short-term rental. Skyler's property is responsibly maintained. She has a proven track record of ensuring that her guests follow strict house rules. She has them posted all over the property. She has two spaces in the back. My staff included have parked in the back. We've never had an issue with a guest or a neighbor saying anything. She doesn't have street parking. I do wanna speak a little bit about short-term rentals in general. Short-term rentals are a little bit different Short-term rentals are a huge part of our economy here in Lexington. We have about 10.65 million tourists come into Lexington. And it gives us an affordable lodging option that caters to a diverse, I'm so sorry. It caters to a diverse range of travelers, including families and groups, and it provides flexibility and often lower costs than traditional hotels. Hotels in the area, there is 21C Museum Hotel that hosts 176 guests. Hyatt Regency Hotel hosts 732 guests. Lexington Marriott City Center hosts 436 guests. Manchester Hotel hosts 250 guests. The listed number of Airbnbs in this area is 19. If we assume each Airbnb hosts an average of six guests on an average night, 50% of the year, you have about 114 guests at a given time. That is not even a 10th of what a hotel would, and this is a small business. This is not a conglomerate. She doesn't have 25 Airbnbs if she's proposing for this area. The hotels near Schuyler collectively host 1,670 guests to be exact if we're meeting fire code. It's clear that large hotels, part of the national or international chains, dominate the hospitality market, and they have far more impact on traffic, noise, and neighborhood dynamics than Schuyler's small locally run rental. They do not impact small local businesses as ours. I own a second business. Is that it? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So one thing I just want to note, if you decide to recommend approval, it would need to be in the owner's name that's on PVA, which is the LLC. So you'd use that for part of your recommendation. I believe it's 203 East 6th LLC. Is that correct? And the motion should be made in that name in either regard, right? I'm sorry, what was your question? The motion should be amended to use that name for approval or disapproval, right? Well, yes. And I think, just to clarify, you said it's East or E? E. E. E. East, yeah. Anything further? Okay, I will entertain a motion. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion. And personally, I just, I'm struggling with the shared driveway and the high number of concentration of STRs in the area. So I'm gonna agree with staff and disapprove PLNBOA 24-206-203 East 6th Street LLC. Is that the way you want it said, or? It's just 203 East 6th LLC, not East 6th. 203 East 6th LLC. For their conditional use permit for unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on the property located at 203 East 6th Street. Thank you. And Mr. Walker has seconded that item. No further discussion, we will open for a vote. Thank you. It has been disapproved. And we have a few to go, but we'll take a brief, maybe five minute, seven minute recess. You need 22, 30. We'll let you go home, Chad. Chad's gonna get pizza. The rest of us just need a quick break and then we'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. We'll come back and work through quickly. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ This application is being judged under the same standards as the one which you all looked at it 7, 7, 5, Shinaway in 2023. And I'll just quote from those minutes that that one was recommended for approval and ultimately disapproved based upon the parking and the lack thereof on Shinaway Road. So again, if we're looking at 7, 7, 5, I don't see much of a difference between that parking situation and what we have 4, 1, 5, anyone else. Madam chair members of the Board of adjustment, I am Billy van Pelt and I own and live at 1412 Cochran Road and just want to clarify one thing with the applicant, you're not on Providence road anymore, right. You live in Castlegate. OK. So again, my name is Billy van Pelt. I live at 1412 Cochran Road. I'm here to oppose this application. The application should be disapproved for the same reasons that you disapprove the application for a short-term rental at 775 Shenaway Road on September 11th, 2023. The same justifications apply at 415 Shenaway Road, except that the negative impacts are more adverse on the surrounding neighborhood. 775 Shenaway Road is located on a portion of Shenaway that has much larger lots and it's much more suburban in its development pattern. 775 Shenaway is a half-acre lot. The surrounding homes are on similar sized lots. 415 Shenaway is on just over two-tenths of an acre lot. The surrounding homes are on similar smaller lots. The surrounding homes around 415 Shenaway with six guests there for a short-term rental and another six people allow for parties would have far more adverse impacts on the surrounding homes that are located much closer and much closer together and closer to 415 Shenaway and on much smaller lots. With up to six guests allowed, there is not adequate parking at 415 Shenaway Road. They are not permitted to park in the public right-of-way or on the driveway on the street. The short-term ordinance states that a site plan and a floor plan depicting the short-term rental, including the number of vehicles that can be legally parked on the property without encroaching onto the street, sidewalks, alleys, public right-of-way or public property. The site plan that was submitted with the application for 415 Shenaway does not illustrate the existing public sidewalk or the public right-of-way. The application for the short-term rental at 415 Shenaway Road should be disapproved based on the same grounds that the Board of Adjustment used to disapprove the application for the short-term rental at 775 Shenaway Road on September 11, 2023. The application for the short-term rental should be disapproved based on the following grounds. One, Shenaway Road does not allow on-street parking and two, allowing a short-term rental for up to six individuals could increase traffic and have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any additional public comment? Thank you. Yes. First, I just want to say I really do appreciate the time that people have taken to come here to speak to this because I do take safety very seriously. My wife and I, we have five children ages seven and under. And like we've recently moved, but we've lived in that area for the last 10 years. So we're very conscious about speeding, traffic. We're always thinking about our kids and therefore other people's kids as well. So we take this very seriously. I wanted to speak to a couple of the things. So I read through the comments as well and it seemed like there were two themes. There was the noise issue. And to that, I'll say that the only time we have six occupants is when we've had children. So we've never had, I don't believe we've ever had six adults. We have a policy that says no parties are allowed. We are not in any way targeting that kind of market at all. We have good relationships with our neighbors and we've never had any complaints about noise or anything like that. The other issue of parking. So we make it clear on our listing that there's two parking spaces available. And so the site plan kind of shows this, that there's a long driveway and then there are two parking spots at the back in front of the garage, which is a two car garage. And if you had one car, you could turn around there. But typically, if you have two cars, you wouldn't be able to. But both are able to back out individually, even if you have two cars there at the same time. So we, there is no parking on Chinoe. We don't, we've never seen, we rarely see anyone bring two cars. Usually it's just one car. There may have been one situation, a handful at most, where people brought two cars, typically one car. So just wanted to say that. And I'm happy to provide any other information about parking or traffic. Do we have any questions of the applicant? So staff has a question of the applicant. What is your average occupancy rate for the short term rental? Yeah, I was trying to think about that as I was sitting here. I would say between 50 and 60 percent. And just I'll note, I know I've said it three times today, but I'll just note again, 50 percent is the general average for the for the city. So there are three in the vicinity. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. No, I think we're public comment is closed, but thank you. We appreciate it. I would just mention some of us folks were here with the additional case regarding Shinaway, and that was slightly early in the process. And that was one of the ongoing conversations we had about setting some precedent at that time, because this does seem to fall into the allowable area. And I hate to reference an earlier case where we didn't have as many guidelines or direction as far as how to make these decisions or not. Do we have questions or any reason that we could find to go against staff? If not, I would entertain an approval motion. Let me let me say that the the percentage of of SDRs in this area is very, very low. And that that's one thing that I look at, of course, and one thing that everybody looks at. I always have a problem with parking. It's it's it's universal. And I can't see disapproving this based on based on parking. I think if we did if we did that, we'd we'd have a hard time approving anything, as you can understand. So I would be in favor of this. And that that's my comment. But I mean, three, three SDRs went within a thousand feet circle. That's that's absolutely minimal, minimal. So I think it deserves passing. And so I'll I'll make the motion if we're if we're ready for that. I just wanted to say that I am concerned about the parking issue and the backing onto Shenanwee Road. That is a very busy street. I travel that road quite often. It's one of my kind of cut throughs to a place that I go. And when people back out in there, if they're not paying attention, it's it's a little bit of a dangerous situation. And there is no parking. And so thank you. Now, I would I would agree with that. It is. But many of the residents who live there have the same problem. It is a it is a problem. No question. And that's what it boils down to me as well as it it meets the criteria. We don't have to like it or agree with it, but it does check the boxes. And like it or not, it actually falls within that realm. And, you know, and I tell you as well, and this keeps coming up and it's probably isn't the place for it. But gun violence is definitely a problem in this town. Having a short term rental does not mean that you're going to have your place shot up. It doesn't mean that my restaurant that was shot up last year. And I think it's I personally take exception to using that as a deterrent for someone wanting to operate a legal business that has been approved by our council, approved by our city. So, like I said, it may not be the place for a platform, but that that is very bothersome that anybody that is a victim of gun violence can utilize that against everybody else for whatever circumstance they see fit. Thanks. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Walker. I'll also say that I understand everybody's concern about this. If I lived there, I'd be concerned, too, as I don't think most neighborhoods, if they had a choice, wouldn't have SDRs. I wouldn't. But we try to follow the law, the ordinances as they're written. And of course, as you know, that be it will change very shortly here. So it may it may indeed change some of some of our decisions based on that. But in this case, I think even if even if we were under the new ordinance, it would still still be well, well within the law of the ordinance. So I'd like to make a motion, if I could. Real quick, before you make a motion, I just want to note because it's something we have had mentioned, the average occupancy rate of the three short terminals in the area is approximately fifty five and a half, fifty six percent for the other three that are in the area, which is higher than our than our average for the city. Just want to make sure that was on the record. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion for two for approval of P.L.N. B.O.A. twenty four to thirteen. Steven Gordon's request for commercial use permit for an unhosted short term rental within a neighborhood character design overlay zone and in a single family residential zone on property located at four fifteen Shenoy Road, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. And Mr. Walker is offered a second. We'll open for vote. Motion is passed. Thank you. Thank you. Our next item is P.L.N. B.O.A. twenty four dash two sixteen. Albert Kirch, Jr. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record. Good afternoon. Albert Kirch, Jr. This has been recommended for approval and there are six conditions that have been listed. Had you had the opportunity to review those? I have. And are we comfortable with those? I'm comfortable with them, but on condition number two, I was I was one eight. And the only reason because I've hosted for six years and I've had ten there, but I moved it down to eight. And that seems a pretty comfortable number. It's two bedrooms. So you allow two per bedroom plus four. And I was here last month and number three P.L.N. B.O.A. two four dash zero one six three. Rita Jones at three seven seven two Kennesaw Drive. You approve for eight. And it's actually smaller than my unit and has less parking on a busier street. Did we do six on purpose? OK. Like I said, it's just an ask for me. It's not. No, no. I understand. I'm just trying to get caught up here. The recommendation wasn't about the busyness of the street because this is a cul-de-sac. It's that there wasn't any other available on street parking. And you can only accommodate to maybe two vehicles in your not by measuring them. You'll overhang the sidewalk and potentially into the street. I mean, I have a picture on one side. You can park two on one side and one on the other without overhanging the sidewalk. It can't overhang the sidewalk. Not yet. It doesn't go out into the street. But on one side, you can park two. I have a large SUV like 18 foot and then you can park a car right behind that and another car right beside that. I mean, it's been remeasured. It wouldn't accommodate more than two vehicles. So it looks like it has been recommended for approval. It does seem to be the is that the only one in the vicinity? Yeah, it's the only one in the vicinity. So concentration wasn't an issue. There's just some concern about the number of people because of the size of the cul-de-sac. Well, like like that doesn't have any on street parking either. I mean, yeah, on street parking. That's right there by the Kroger's. Okay. That's why I brought it up. Okay. No trouble. Would you like to tell us anything else about the project and then we're going to allow the public comment? I've been doing it. I bought it in July 2018 and I've been doing it almost pretty much since. Before that, I was a ride share driver and I got hurt in a really bad accident. So I was looking for another way to be able to have income because my the work I can do is limited. The hours are limited to how my body reacts because I have permanent nerve damage in my shoulder. So I bought this with the intent of running it out and Airbnb offered more income. So that's the way I went with it. I haven't had any problems. The neighbor I haven't had any complaints from the neighbors. They've got my phone number and I have theirs. I was actually there on June 24th when Bryan Station was closed down because a guy was threatening to jump off with a gun and I provided shelter for some of the neighbors that backed up closer to the interstate and he ended up shooting himself. I have 4.9 out of one star out of five star rating with over 100 reviews. People love it. I get all kinds of people and I bring in a lot of money for the tourism in Lexington, the horse industry, the bourbon industry, hiking, Raven Run, and more importantly the gourds. People stay here and drive down there because they don't want to stay down there. It's a little bit more expensive. And as far as sound goes there. I mean my neighbors probably ain't going to make it. The tenants aren't going to make as much sound as the interstate with no sound barriers that's less than 100 feet right there. That street backs up right to the interstate. And I think the staff has agreed with you on those other terms. It has been recommended for approval. It just had some concern about the number of people. Any other questions before we give an opportunity for public comment and then we'll allow you to come back up Mr. Kurtz. We'll give the public just a moment to discuss and we'll allow you to come back. My name is Roxanne Lacks and I'm representing the North Point HOA which Mr. Kurtz is a member of our homeowners association. And we do want to say that he's compliant with all his dues and has had no complaints. However he is in a deed restricted neighborhood which we have our property management has sent an email outlining our deed restrictions and they do not allow short term rentals. We do not allow commercial properties and short term rentals are commercial properties and we also every home is a single family home that is a single family occupancy. So we are concerned that if you grant Mr. Kurtz this this waiver that we will have to follow up with violations or even liens or foreclosures and we don't want to do that. We don't want to change the face of our neighborhood. He was aware when he purchased the property and entered into a deed restriction upon purchase of his property that does not allow commercial or any other usage rather than a single family. As he said he's been doing this for years. I would assume unpermitted because the VRBO listing that is not active at the moment does have over 120 reviews and it is or was being rented to up to 10 people and there is zero street parking there none. So we're very concerned about that that he is rented to these very large groups. Our neighborhood is in opposition to short term rentals in general and we don't want anyone to be confused that this would supersede their deed restrictions. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Karen O'Hare and I've been a long term tenant with Albert Kurtz for probably a decade. And I'm here to support him. I'm his emergency contact emergency helper at 3.21 Santa Anita. I help them with cleaning and minor. Minor repairs. Nothing major but minor repairs. And I only live a mile from the resident at Santa Anita. I'm a retired worker. I'm on a fixed income. And occasionally, like I said, I help him and he reduces my rent for me and pays me a little bit of extra income to help me out. And when I'm over there, there's very short, you know, as far as traffic, there's very little traffic, very few children. And as far as his driveway, you can get four vehicles in that driveway because I also have an SUV. Us parked together, we can still get two cars behind us without being on the sidewalk. Because my daughter has come over there. Me and him will have our SUVs up. Mine's a little shorter than his. He can get a car behind his and I could probably get another small SUV behind me without being on the sidewalk at all. So really, it can hold four. It won't hold four SUVs but it would hold two cars and two, a small SUV and a large SUV. There's no problem in that at all. And I have the people he's rented to have always been good. Sometimes he rents to traveling nurses. Sometimes he rents to the horse industry. And they've all been really good. I've talked to a lot of the neighbors around there and they have no problem with it all. And they're very, you know, kind and everything. And like he said, he has his number to them. And if they do have a problem, they contact him. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Mr. Kurtz. A couple quick questions. One, just concerned. How'd you miss the grandfather clause? You wouldn't be here. Yeah, I have no idea. I guess I wasn't watching the news. Okay. So you did receive notice? I did receive notice and that's why I'm here. Okay. I'm trying to do the right thing. There are currently two Airbnbs I can book this week in that neighborhood on Preakness Drive that are actually single family homes that aren't here. But they're not. They're not permitted. So we haven't approved those, right? They're not even in the process. Okay. But I can rent them right now. Mine's off the market. And like she said, I did have up to 10 guests and I changed it down to eight. I'm not a stickler for eight. We can do six. That's fine. But I think she's stretching the definition of commercial because everything on my block is a townhome. It's not a single family home. It's a townhome. And I'll let, I don't know if legal chimes in on that or not, but the de-restrictions is separate from, I mean, that's a private agreement. It's separate from what we're doing here and the decision. Correct. And the copy that I have of that does not state anything against short term rentals. And I haven't received any notification, email, snail mail, phone call, nothing. But I get my invoices every month and every year and I do pay them. So they do, they can contact me and my name is public record because I own it. I was, I was not, I, if I did, I mean, I would have reached out to them. No, that's okay. We're done. I just wanted to clarify that a townhouse is also a single family residence. It's not a commercial building. Is that what you were trying to make some distinction between a single family commercial? I said single family and townhouse. Are the, yes, are considered the same residential use. But there are multiple families living in said townhouses on that street, not just single. It's fine. Okay. So I think that the real issue will come back to, well, I don't know the number of people are sorry. So you do share a wall with a neighbor. I do just like the one on Kennesaw. It's basically the same thing except a little bit bigger. And when I went by there, it was difficult to see because there was a little bit of snow on the ground, but it looked like that everybody has two parking spaces. And with you being on my driveway is actually larger than the other ones that are there. Well, I am just stating that I would not like to see this with more than eight people. Like I said, I'm fine. I'm fine with six. I'm just asking and requesting for eight. And part of my concern is the fact that you do share a wall with a neighbor. So I have a question. You mentioned that there are two existing STRs. Yes, there's one on Preakness and one at the corner of Preakness and Strawberry Lane that are on the site but don't show up because they haven't went through this process. Are those people in those STRs that own those? Are they associated with the HOA? Same as you? I assume we're all in the North Point Association. Yes. Preakness. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. I don't like to share in a wall either, but that wasn't one of the criteria we had for disapproval. So, Madam Chair, I move to approve PLM BOA 24-216 Albert Kurtz Jr.'s request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a townhouse residential zone on property located at 321 Santa Anita Court based on staff recommendations and subject to the four conditions. And I'm assuming at this point, unless somebody tells me otherwise, just on record that we're keeping it at six individuals because... It's however you choose. And then we'll vote. Yeah, I think it'll be fine. All right. So, we do have a first. Do we have a second? I'll second. No. Mr. Pursley beat you. Okay. All right. And no further discussion. And I will say, too, about the shared wall. I'm always funny about that, except he has actually been operating since 2018 with no complaints and no issues. So, it makes me a little more comfortable in that particular area. I'd like to get it in under the wire because I think that the shared wall thing is definitely going to come up. That's why I'm here. Yeah. Okay. Good deal. Good deal. All right. We're open for a vote. Thank you. The motion has been approved. Thank you. Lastly, we have PLN BOA 24-220, Crestwood Rental Property for LLC, has been recommended for disapproval. So, we will allow staff to speak first. And just as James is coming up, I'm assuming that Mizuna has never, Mizuna LLC has not. Okay. We'll do that. We'll do it right at the end. Okay. Excuse me. If you guys could please move outside. Thank you. Go ahead, James. James Mills, Planning Staff. So, I'm going to present to you a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill redevelopment area in a historic district overlay H-1 zone in a mixed low-density residential R-2 zone on property located at 716 West Maxwell Street, Unit 202. Taking a look at the aerial, here we have the subject property in the middle right here. As you can see, you can see High Street up here northeast of the subject property. And then, you can see Maxwell Street running right here. Taking a Google Street view, here's the subject property, I believe, in this photo. Actually, wait one second. Yes. And the driveway is over here. Sorry, the spectrum truck is throwing me off. So, the driveway is over here and then this is the subject property. It has four units within it. Taking a look at the site plan, you can see the proposed units back here and it's about 370 square feet. The applicant is demonstrating that it's a four-unit complex, which means with multifamily, it's a 25 percent, so they would only be allowed one. They're also showing where the parking is to the rear of the structure and there's four spots, so one for each unit. Now, there is a lot in this area. Our percentage from just using dwelling units is 13.33 percent. As you can see, West Maxwell has a lot of short-term rentals up and down it. There's also a lot right here in this subject property. Taking a look at the occupancy rates, well, first the concentration. There are a total, so in this picture, even though it's very bright, there are 42 STRs in 1,000 feet, a significant number out of just the 315 dwelling units that exist within the 1,000 feet and that equals 13.33 percent of the number of dwelling units. Now, I did not list every property for the occupancy rate on this one because there was 42 that I had to look up, so this was a little time-consuming, to be honest with you. However, the occupancy rate is 51 percent, which is slightly above 50 percent, so there were a lot of ones that had 70 percent occupancy rate and then there were some that had 10 that do not have a high occupancy rate, so very drastically within this area. Ignore the yellow here. This was, I'm assuming, a mapping mistake on GIS, but this is actually, it's close distance to a proximity census block group, which is right here, the top 10 census block for gentrification and displacement. And with all that, staff has recommended disapproval in our review of the four factors listed in Article 3-13 and the requirements in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and KRS-100. While no cited nuisance issues have been found or citation issues with the applicant, a high concentration of STRs exist within the 1,000 feet at 13.33 percent of residential dwelling units utilized as a short-term rental, which is 42 short-term rentals within 1,000 feet. Again, this will lead to a reduction of housing, available housing stock in the immediate vicinity. This is especially concerning because the subject property is located in close proximity to the edge of a top 10 census block group within 750 feet. I think it was 724.08 feet. More short-term rentals could negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood by heightening issues with gentrification and displacement within the neighborhood that is already vulnerable to involuntary displacement. We also have concerns based on the high concentration of STRs already existing in the neighborhood that the addition of another one would create an adverse influence on involuntary displacement and housing affordability. And one thing that we have previously mentioned, whenever there are so many in a given area, zone changes would probably be more of a better use of the land and area than just turning more dwelling units into short-term rentals. With that, any questions? I'll allow the applicant to come up. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I've got a brief presentation. Before we begin, I'd like to thank the board for taking the time to review our application and the board for considering it. So just a quick overview. Obviously, we're asking for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental on 716 West Maxwell. Next slide, please. James touched over the site plan a little bit. This is a 2,300-inch square foot apartment complex. There are four units, each with a designated parking spot. The building is in a great location. It's located in walking proximity to Rupp Arena, the new Central Bank Center downtown, the distillery district, Gatton Park on the town branch, LexLive, and other amenities. Unit 202, which is the unit that we are proposing for an unhosted short-term rental, it's already been approved and issued a short-term rental special license for a hosted unit. I am living in the unit directly adjacent to unit 202. Next slide, please. I think an important part of the context here is that this building has been completely renovated over the last several years. In March 2023 was when we began demolition. That was almost a year and a half before the LFUCG short-term regulations were implemented in July of 2024. Here are some photos, as you can see, of the building. Quite frankly, it was not in great shape. There was rotting behind the clapboard siding. There was electrical issues within the building. It was not up to the current commercial codes and regulations. It was grandfathered in. So we were still in compliance, but no, it was not in current commercial standards. Our original goal was just to re-side the building with hardy plank, fix the electrical systems within the building. At the time, the four units, there were only two HVAC systems. The upper floor units were sharing an HVAC system and the lower units were sharing an HVAC system. Our goal was to install four HVAC systems for each unit so that they could each have control. Here are some more photos. So as you can see, the photo on the right is the kitchen of one of the units. The middle photo is the backyard. There was no private parking before we began the renovation. It was just a yard. It was only street parking, as it has brought up throughout this entire, you know, all these applications today. Street parking is a huge issue for these short-term rentals. Next slide, please. So the project grew in scope naturally as it went on, and we did all the changes that I mentioned earlier. We re-sided. We fixed the electrical systems, but we installed the HVAC systems. But we went much further and beyond that. We installed a parking lot in the back, as you can see on the right. We completely gutted the units and reframed the building, added new cabinetry, new appliances for each unit. We added a rear deck in the back to give another point of ingress and egress for each individual unit. We installed a new roof. All of this, and I have emails, you know, dating this, was done under the pretense that it would be justified by having at least one of the units being used as a short-term rental. Again, demolition began in March of 2023. Next slide, please. Here are some more photos. New granite bathrooms, the siding, it's obviously in much better condition than it was previously. So obviously, we paid much more than what we were originally going to because of the natural change in scope of the project. But beyond that, there were rising expenses that, frankly, are out of our control. Interest rates have gone up dramatically over the last several years, which increased in our capital cost for construction. The raw materials used for construction have increased because of inflation. That is true for both material and labor. That's significantly added to the cost of this project. Supply chain constraints. We've been waiting months and months for shipments that we needed to complete this project, and it's resulted in the delay of several months to complete this. We probably would have been done before the short-term regulations were completed in July of 2024. We got the RCO, I believe, in October, so just missed it. Kind of awkward timing, but... So this is the unit itself that we're asking for. It says apartment number four on the floor plan, and it's actually apartment number 202, but it's 370 square feet. It's the smallest unit in the building. One bedroom, one bathroom. There's two entrances via the common lobby entrance, as well as the new deck that we added in the rear. A lot of people are concerned about having a lot of guests in their short-term rentals, which is very fair and understandable. Because of the small unit footprint of this building, you could really feasibly only fit one to two people. And we have private short parking designated for those rental units. I am living in the unit directly adjacent to it, apartment number three. And like I mentioned, we already have a short-term rental license to operate the short-term rental as a hosted unit. We're asking for an unhosted unit. Staff mentions that their biggest reason for disapproval was due to a concentration of short-term rentals in the area, which is understandable. They give a 10 percent concentration of short-term rentals as the cause of concern. That's the threshold that they give us. But based on the numbers that they provided us in this report, 42 short-term rentals are within 1,000 feet of subject property out of 502 residential dwelling units. That's only 8.36 percent concentration, a couple percentage points lower than the 10 percent threshold that they provide. I've tried to reach out to them for clarification on this issue but haven't been able to get in contact with anybody. Staff also acknowledges in their report that it makes sense for there to be a greater demand for short-term rentals due to the property's location and walking distance to Rupp Arena, the convention center, Town Branch Park, Lex Live, the Commons, off Leestown Road. It's been really amazing to see all this investment coming to downtown Lexington. And the city growing and it makes sense that there's a high demand for short-term rentals to support this. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Beyond the 10 percent concentration that staff provides, they mentioned that that will lead to housing affordability and availability issues in the neighborhood. Those are issues that we can absolutely understand and appreciate. They cannot be ignored. They should be addressed. Absolutely. But I think if you look at this realistically and look at the situation, rather than just writing it off, you'll see that disapproving an unhosted short-term rental will exacerbate both of those issues inadvertently. For one, without a short-term rental, as I've mentioned multiple times, we've just done this extensive renovation, all the while using short-term rentals as the justification for taking the step beyond, not cutting corners, wanting to do this the right way. If we're not going to be able to use a hosted short-term rental, if we're not going to be able to operate a short-term rental, those revenues that we would have received are going to unfortunately have to be passed on to the long-term residential units in the building. It's not what we want to do, but that's just the reality of the situation. We spent a lot of money and time on this project, so it's got to make sense economically. That's just how it is. Like I've mentioned, we've got the hosted short-term rental license already. I'm occupying the building. If we were granted an unhosted short-term rental license, that would allow us the flexibility to vacate the premises and open up the housing supply by renting the property that I'm currently vacating. Denying it would just make me have to stay there longer, honestly. So if the staff and the board are truly concerned about housing affordability and availability in the neighborhood, I think you have to take those into consideration and understand that it's a little bit more nuanced than how the case report reflects it. So thank you. While you're there, just a quick question. Do you want to clarify on this? So that was a typo from the 113 Whitland Lane. The actual number of dwelling units in 1,000 feet is 315, not 502. That's how much is in the 1,000 feet of 113 Whitland Lane. So that was a typo. Regardless, I think the issues that I made stand clear. It's a high area demand for short-term rentals due to the proximities around. And we're still going to need a short-term rental to make the building work. I have a question for you. Yes, sir. So there's four units in this structure? Yes, sir. And three of them are long-term rentals? Yes, sir. Two of them are rented to long-term rentals. The third is occupied by myself. So it would just be one unit reserved for the short-term rental. So you also mentioned in here that you would use a management company for the one unit for your STR? Yes, sir. We've been in contact with them for the past two years while we've been doing this construction. I've got emails from January of 2023 where they give us projections on how much we can make with the short-term rental. We've been in contact with them the entire way. They're great people, and I'm sure they'll do a great job. Like I've mentioned, it's a 370-square-foot unit. I have no concerns that there are going to be big groups of people coming. There's not going to be any bridesmaids parties or, you know, groomsmen parties, like some people had mentioned earlier. It's going to be people coming in to go to a basketball game or go to a business meeting at the convention center. It's simply not enough space to have a nuisance caused. Well, from a management perspective, and you were talking about needing the initial and the long-term investment money to rehab- Yes, sir. To rehab, is it a good cash flow option to use a management company for one small unit? That doesn't seem to be- Well, that's a good question, but frankly, we've never operated a short-term rental before. So it makes sense for us to hire, to outsource it to an experienced company who can market it better than we could, generate more revenue than trying to do it on our own. And, you know, they charge a fee, sure, but they'll also manage the cleaning, the scheduling, the marketing, the photos, and they'll do a better job than we can and generate more in the long run, for sure. We have looked at it, though. Well, I understand your concern about being experienced versus a management company, but it doesn't look like a management company doing one unit is a long-term, you know, cash flow. Oh, for the management company? For you, what your return on that for one unit using a management company doesn't seem to be much of a cash flow operation. Yeah, I understand that. We own other commercial property. We also own another business that we operate. This is not our full-time job. So it would, you know, alleviate, frankly, we're swamped as it is already. So if one unit, you know, that would open up a relationship for us. Hopefully we can get more short-term rentals down the road if possible. Obviously, we would be back in this, you know, presentation. But, yeah, it makes sense on our end. But if that's going to be a deal-breaker, I'm sure we could do it on our own. Oh, no, it's definitely preferable, management. They always get more money out of the property. But we'd rather it be managed, I think. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I appreciate it. I haven't managed properties before. I don't see the rationale behind needing this money to have the other businesses out by using a management company for one unit. It's just not money that's going to go to the building. No. We may have some other comments. But just for clarification, as long as you're there, you're already set up to have a hosted. Yes, ma'am. So this is only needed in the event that, you know, you get off, get married, have kids, move out, that type of thing? Okay. Yeah, in conversations with staff, again, they've been very helpful in answering any questions we've had. They've told me that there are new regulations coming with the short-term rentals, which I understand it's a hot-button issue, but it'd be best to go ahead and apply for this now rather than wait for the new regulations. And I'm 23 years old. I'm not going to be living there forever, obviously. I'm going to have a family, like you said, and eventually have that family move on, but we want to go ahead and have that flexibility now while it's easier to get it. I agree. And I was in agreement with staff, especially because of the density, the concentration, but I also kind of agree with you on that it's the one bedroom. It's pretty minimal. Again, it won't be adding to the concentration of short-term rentals as we already have the license for a short-term rental. Okay. All right. Do we have other questions or comments? So, this small unit is hosted, which means you have to live in there while somebody else is in there? Is that the idea? That's the idea. You can be hosted by being on the property. You just have to be on the property. Okay. Yeah. So, in a multi-family structure, you can, yeah. So, my question is if you're parlaying to a short-term rental format and you're hoping to make more money, and staff tell me if I'm totally wrong on this, could you not occupy that little bitty spot yourself and then rent out the other three properties, the short-term rental, and not even have to go through this? No. So, the multi-family zones do have a limitation in terms of 10% or one unit. Okay. So, they'd be limited to just the one unit per property. So, even if you had a bigger unit, like Mr. Stervant was saying, is it? Yeah, that's true. You know, you're... Are you saying, are you asking why we're applying for the... I'm sorry, I'm not following. I guess I'm kind of going outside of probably our jurisdiction. Yeah, but I'm saying if you've got a large unit, why not rent that out, short-term rental? Keep this, and you don't have to even do any of this stuff. Well, the other units, like I mentioned, the building's only 2,300 square feet. It's not, the largest building's probably 600 square feet. We picked the smallest option, the smallest unit, which is 370 square feet, excuse me, to be the short-term rental, frankly, because it'll be harder to lease as a long-term residential unit. There's, if we go back to the floor plan, there's not really a living room area. It's really ideal for people coming in for one to two business days, going to catch a basketball game, like I mentioned, or going to the convention center for a business meeting. It's not, you could do it as a long-term residential unit. I just, thinking about it logically, I think it would be much harder. And I guess the next question would be for staff as well, is if we take a hard-line stance of, okay, this is above the percentage, and, you know, even though it's minimal impact, I totally agree with you, it's not going to hurt anything at all, but there could be 20 others that don't hurt anything at all and that were massively saturated. I understand. If this is held to disapprove, does that prohibit him from doing it as a hosted? No. No, he's still, he already has his zoning compliance permit. Just in case. His zoning compliance permit is issued, so we wouldn't rescind that. Okay. Yeah, I've got the hosted license right here. Like I said, I don't know how long I'll be there. Maybe, at the most, I would guess a year. And, you know, in the long run, that's not enough to offset again, the substantial amount of money that we put into this project. It's almost an impractical amount of money that we put into taking the next step in elevating this property. And our hope is that the rest of the neighborhood, you know, will continue to grow as well. We think it's an asset not only to us and our family, but to the rest of the neighborhood and the downtown Lexington region. So. Additionally, the applicant does have the ability to have someone live there and act as the host. For the hosted short term rental, you don't particularly have to be the one. You just have to have a long term tenant that lives there that acts as the host. Okay. As an on-site property manager. Yeah, it can be an on-site property manager that lives on the property. It doesn't have to be particularly you. Also, could we pull up your PowerPoint again? I think there was some misinformation about the dates of our ordinance going into effect. I just want to clarify for the record. So in July of 2023, the city adopted short term rental land use policies and ordinances. And then you had six months to become be grandfathered in. So in January of 2024 is when everybody started to have come get conditional uses. But I think you quoted. I had quoted we had July of 2024, which is not. Well, that's just what I've seen on the on the on the to be honest, this whole this whole process, I'm sure the staff feels the same way, a little bit of the Wild West. It's it's been confusing and frustrating at times just to try to clear through all the steps in the process. We have never operated a short term rental before. So July 2024, while that might not be correct, it's what it says on the website. And that's what my and other people understanding was. I work in the commercial real estate industry. They're just as confused as I am about it. So it's I don't think it just applies to me or my family. But I thought that the January twenty twenty four was only if you were had been operating a short term rental before that. We hadn't been right. If you had operated before July of twenty three, twenty three. OK, sorry. Yes. Then you could come in. You had six months to get license and we were obviously renovating during that time. But yes, July twenty twenty three. I apologize. OK, just now I commend the applicant for his renovation. But the bottom line that we're considering here is are we adding to the existing concentration of SDR problem in the area? And that's why I'm stuck is it's it becomes almost a precedent where I don't disagree with you. I think this is absolutely slam dunk. It makes sense to be where it is. However, the bar has been set. And it's kind of like, well, if we jump the bar this time, how many people after you is going to come in and say, but you let him do it. If I may do that to the special circumstances around already having the short term rental in place, not make a different argument. We are not adding to the concentration of short term rental units. We already have the unit. This is just simply put, slipping out the hosted license for an unhosted license. It's not contributing anymore to the concentration of short term rentals, in my opinion. So we need to say it would be contributing to the unhosted short term rentals. Yes. But like I mentioned, it would without the short term rental license, we're going to have to be increasing rents on the other tenants, which would be reducing the affordability for the neighborhood. It's not our goal. It's not what we want to do. This is was our preferred route from the from the get go. Thank you. I was in your court. This is this is a good conversation. And I admire I admire you for what you've done here. I think it's most appropriate. I think we're all facing the situation where the ordinance has been fairly specific. I have a hard time agreeing with the fact that, well, it's not going to increase the the density, but it counts as one. Yes, sir. It does. And it just seems like to me I would have a I would have a very difficult time voting to add another one in this particular area. And I know the area really well. I used to have a sister-in-law who lived very close to where you are. But with the with the factors, the data that we're provided, it's just it would be very, very difficult for me to approve something that's not because I'm not really fond of what you've done. And I think your your options in the future are very bright and that property is it has real potential and may not be exactly what you had in mind, but it certainly has has a lot of potential, a perfect place for an STR, as you know. And I guess I'm trying my best play devil's advocate. I'm a gymnast. So I'm duality all the time. So I'm arguing with myself up here when it's when we discuss number of short term rentals and a thousand foot, is that everything is that hosted and unhosted? Or is that just hosted? My understanding, it was just the ones that pulled a zoning compliance permit. Is that which might not even take into consideration which ones are actually operating currently? It it's just the ones that have a zoning compliance permit, whether or not it is host or unhosted isn't clarified as much. But however, we are moving away from that in future data sets that we make and pull. OK, so your argument that it's swapping out one for other is tit for tat, at least in this scenario. And we're saying he's already included in that number. So he's already in this 13 percent number. Well, yes. Yes and no. I did take his number out. I do do that whenever because we had that issue with Sean Burns application in on Nicholasville Road. I took that number out. I did the same for this one. So we could be one off. Yeah. You say it's a wild west out there. I don't know if I can bear you. Adam, I would like to make a motion. Reluctantly, I must say to agree with the staff for disapproval of PLN BOA twenty four dash two to zero Crestwood rental property for LLC requesting a condition use permit for an unhosted short term rental within the defined infill and and a historic district overlay zone in a mixed low distancy residential zone a property located at 716 West Maxwell unit 202 based on the staff's recommendation. And as I say with some regret. So move. Mr. Sturdivant has offered a second further discussion. Yeah. OK. Looks like the disapproval has held up. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. Great job. All righty. So we have one additional case on here. P.L. and B.O.A. 24 to 19. Missoula LLC. The applicant is not present. I will entertain a motion to postpone if anyone could make such a motion. I'm chair moved to postpone get my glasses out. P.L. and B.O.A. 24 dash 2 1 9 Missoula LLC until next meeting, which will be February 10th and Mr. Sturdivant has second will open for vote. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. OK. The matter will be postponed. Lastly, we are going to almost Leslie. We do have to elect officers. I'm currently chair. Harry has already not succeeded. Can't think of the word. You haven't done it yet. OK. But Harry has expressed his desire to step down at vice chair and unless someone's going to fight Brandon. I have asked Mr. Gross that he would be willing to serve in that capacity. He said yes. So I will make that motion. OK. And he's not here to dispute. So that's how I got chair. Now I know he told me he was comfortable in doing so. So. And then Miss Tucker has done a wonderful job serving as secretary and she would like to continue to do so. We may have Harry make a motion in total or for all of them. If you would. If that would be appropriate. Sure. All right. I can't. I can't work with Chad that way. I just can't. Yeah. Yeah. I would like to recommend the point of the election of Carter's chair, the secretary and Brandon Gross as vice chair. It is a motion. Mr. Walker has second such a motion. And we have all voted in favor. And I barely snuck in on my continuing education for the record. And you almost were going to have the chair on your own. Barely got that in. But I'm official. I'm official. Are there any other staff items at this time? OK, we have an amazing agenda next month. I understand February 10th. It's my Valentine's Day gift to each of you so you can get out early and buy appropriate Valentine's Day gifts. You have all week to shop. Absolutely, absolutely. It is important because I am to the minute I am to the minute I can't I can't risk the no parking spot again. All right. Well, if nothing further, we'll adjourn. Here we go.