Thank you. 30. And what we'll do first, I'd just like to remind everyone, first of all, welcome, thank you for being here. What we'll do, we'll go through the agenda as it's written here. If you are here and you plan to speak, if you can make sure that you have signed in, that's important. And then what we'll also do is if you do plan to speak today, I will swear in all of the witnesses. We'll move from there to I'll sound the actual agenda. And in the sounding of the agenda, we'll check first if there's any postponements. Those, we'll make sure all the applicants are here, and those that are recommended for approval will go first. Those that are recommended for disapproval, or we do have people in the audience that would like to speak for or behalf of those cases, they will be on our heard docket and will be heard after the approvals, or the immediate approvals. Okay, good deal. and I just made everybody go walk over there that I need to swear in. Good deal, good deal. But while you guys are there as well, if I can, everyone who's planning to speak today, if you could please stand. And raise your right hand. And do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth today? Good, thank you. All right. The next thing we'll do is approval of the minutes. Has the board had an opportunity to review the minutes? And are there any questions from questions, adjustments, discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Today. Madam Chair, I move to approve minutes from last month's meeting. I'll second. All right. All in favor, just mark your vote. Okay, good deal. And you guys, it gets harder, Chad. It gets harder than the minutes. Okay, okay. Good deal. That motion has passed. Give everybody a chance. Give them a moment to finish signing in. Okay, our first case is PLNBOA 22-72. That's Gibson-Taylor-Thompson Architecture and Design. Is the applicant present? And is there, no, you don't have to come up just yet. That's okay. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this particular case? All right, it has been recommended for approval. Yours will be heard first. The next one is PLNBOA 23-1, Steve Miller. Is the applicant present? All right. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this particular case? Okay, Mr. Miller, you will be second. And we have PLN BOA 23-2, this is Ms. Ann Thomas. Ms. Thomas present, applicant present. Now this has approvals for lesser variances. Have you reviewed that, and are you okay with staff's approval? Do we have anyone here to speak for or against a particular case? All right. Well, you'll be third. In PLN BOA 23-3, that's Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture and Design. Again, busy day. Applicant is present. Another recommendation for approval. Anyone speaking in opposition to this particular case? Okay. We'll hop you back up in four. Then we have PLN BOA 23-4, Keith Jones. Applicant's present. It's a recommendation for approval. Is anyone here to speak in opposition of this case? Okay. Number five. Then we have PLN BOA 23-7, Thomas and Christina Parrish, also recommended for approval. Is the applicant present? Are you doing this one as well? Okay. Any opposition to this particular case? Anyone here to speak on this? You all just here to hang out? Everybody here just to watch the show? Okay. Number six. Okay, PLNBOA 23-8, that's AU Associates, is the applicant present. Is anyone here to speak in opposition for this particular case? Also recommended for approval, so that one will be next. Is that number seven? You guys are rolling. Then we have PLNBOA23-10 Sassafras OZ LLC. Is the applicant present? Okay. That has been recommended for a variance, a lesser variance. Have you reviewed that, and is the applicant okay with that? Yes. Okay. Do we have anyone here to speak in opposition? We do have some. Okay, so that will be number one on the H.E.R.D. docket for public comment. PLN BOA 23-12, Scott Book, is the applicant present? It's a recommendation for approval. Do we have anyone speaking in opposition? Okay. Testing my math. I think that's number eight. We'll go back there. Keep me honest, Chad. Keep me honest. So PLN BOA 23-5, Jackson's Wine, Spirits, and LLC. Is the applicant present? Okay, and I understand you may be requesting a postponement. That's correct. And your legal representation now? Aye. All right. So does the board have any questions or concerns about a postponement on this particular one? Is there anyone in opposition? Yeah, is there anyone here to speak in opposition on this one today? okay we do have a call would you come up just a moment please can you state your name for the record it's uh west harnett rosegrass commissionish mains madam chair thank you and you are requesting a postponement yes ma'am we're requesting a postponement to march 13th march 13th and can you share with us the reason for the postponement uh primarily uh i'm here on uh in place of bruce simpson this morning he's he's had some health issues recently that he's been working through so that's kind of primary the primary reason for the postponement also we'd like to have an opportunity to kind of work with staff to understand the reasons for the recommendation okay between now and the 13th thank you all right any questions of the board okay i will need a motion to approve postponement to march the 13th Madam Chair, I recommend postponement of PLNBOA 23-5, Jackson's Wine and Spirits, LLC, to postpone to the March 13th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. No further discussion. We'll take a vote. Thank you. Motion is passed. we'll see you all on the 13th thank you so they will return on march the 13th okay same time same place okay here we go there's more there's more pages okay okay plnboa 23-1128 lounge is the applicant present. And we have recommendation for approval. Do we have anyone to speak in opposition on this particular case? 28 Lounge, 287 South Limestone. I'm Scott Sussbrook, counseled for something that does have opposition. Okay, okay. Well, that one will be heard. That will be number two on the heard list. Thank you. Okay, PLNBOA 23-13, the Paddock. Yes, Madam Chair. John Woodall with McBrayer on behalf of the applicant. I was just retained in this matter on Friday. Prior counsel realized a conflict in the course of going through the potential objectors, so I would request a one-month postponement to March 13th as well. Okay, thank you. Any questions of the board? This applicant? Okay, one month. All righty, if we can have a... I'm sorry. Do we have anyone here in opposition today regarding the paddock? No one here? Can you come back? Just, you know, come downstairs, Council Member. Thank you. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. I'll move to postpone for one month, PLN BOA 23-13, Paddock. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I have a second? I can second. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, she said who was the second? I'm sorry. I was like, wait a minute. I got you, Ms. Tucker, thank you. Can we, did we move that one already? No, we haven't. No? Okay, let's take a vote. Thank you. All right. Did we get everyone? All right. Motion is passed. We'll see you in March the 13th. This will be busy then, too. Sounds good. PLN BOA 23-9 First Hand Care Kentucky Incorporated is the applicant present. Okay. That is recommended for approval. Do we have anyone here speaking in opposition? position okay all right was that number nine or number ten on the first number nine okay sounds good then PLN BOA 23-6-6-14-15-16-17 and 18 Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. Again, good afternoon, Madam Chair. Wes Harned and Rose Grash-Communish Mainz for the applicant, or excuse me, I guess the appealing party in each of those cases. Again, we're asking for a postponement for each case for March the 13th. Okay, okay. Again, because of the health issues Mr. Simpson's working through. Health issues for the council. Yes, ma'am. Any questions from the board? Okay, we'll entertain a motion for the postponement of one, two, three, I think it's six of them, the six individual cases. So moved. Okay. Can I get a second? Okay, Ms. Tucker seconds. And we'll take a vote. All right, the motion is passed. We'll see you in March. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a nice afternoon. All right, we done? Yes. Yeah, okay. Good deal. Back to number one, PLNBOA 22-72, Gibson-Taylor-Thompson Architecture and Design. The applicant will please come up to the podium. Thank you. And please state your name for the record. Yep, my name is Vince Thompson with Gibson Taylor Thompson Architects. Okay. You'll be real good at this in just a few minutes, Mr. Thompson. Okay. So this one has been recommended for approval. The board has already seen the attached documentation. Do we have any questions about the project? Any concerns or discussion? That's pretty straightforward. Alright, I'll entertain a motion if anyone's ready. Madam Chair, I move to approve BLN BOA 22-72 Gibson Taylor Thompson's architecture and design's request for a variance to reduce the required side street side yard for a deep building with 31 feet to six feet and three inches in order to construct a two-story addition and porch to an existing single-family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area. And a historic district overlay zone and a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 172 Forest based on the staff's reasons for approval and the two conditions outlined by staff. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Thank you. Any additional discussion? Thank you. We'll take a vote. We have to vote on it, sir. So you'll get good by the third one. Hang on just a second. No, no, you got it. He'll be back. Okay, so the motion has passed. All right, we have PLN VOA 23-1, Steve Miller. Let's come to the podium. Steve Miller. Well, thank you, Mr. Miller. Good deal. So we've already received this package. Do we have any questions or concerns? Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions that the staff has outlined as well, the two conditions? I forgot to ask that earlier. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to, for approval of PLN BOA 23-1, Steve Miller's request for variances to, number one, reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 21 feet, Number two, to reduce the size street side yard setback from 30 feet to 18 feet. And number three, to increase the maximum number of parking spaces from two to three in order to construct a single family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single family residential zone on a property located at 147 Burley Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second, please? I have a second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. No further discussion. We'll take a vote. All right. Looks like your motion's passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Let's see. Okay. Okay, PLNBOA 23-2 Ann Thomas. Hey. Good afternoon. Professor Blackford. Mr. Blackford? Yes. Okay, so there's two requests here and both of those approvals are for a lesser variance. One for the reduced front yard setback to 10 feet and the other approval for the reduced rear yard setback to 12 feet and increased building height to 29 feet. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions and the staff's recommendation on those? Yes. And you are okay with those? Yes. The board have any questions regarding this project, any concerns? Yes. Okay, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 23-2 Ann Thomas' request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet and reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and three, to increase the maximum height of a building from 24 feet to 29 feet in order to construct a single-family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 545 Harry Street. Based on staff's recommendations and subject to their two conditions. Okay, yep, I can go. on staff's recommendations of front yard set back to 10 feet and the approved rear yard set back to 12 feet and increased building height to 29 feet. That was Mr. Needham making that motion we have Brandon. Okay so Mr. Needham has Made a motion. Do we have a second? A second. All right. Thank you. There's no, well, we'll take a vote. All right, motion has passed. Good luck with your project. All right, Mr. Thompson, PLN BOA 23-3. This time you've got to stay until the vote, okay? Yes, sounds good. All righty, this also has been recommended for approval over on 519 Central Avenue. We have reviewed the documents ahead of time. There are just two conditions listed that you have reviewed. Yes. Does the staff have any questions? I mean, not the staff, I'm sorry, the board. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, make a motion to approve PLNBOA 23-3, Gibson-Taylor-Thompson Architecture and Designs request for variants to reduce the required rear yard setback from 17 feet and 4 inches to 8 feet, 7 inches, in order to construct additions to an existing single-family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area and the historic district overlay zone in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 519 Central Avenue, based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Okay, we'll take a vote. All right. The motion has passed. Thank you. Good luck with that project as well. OPLN BOA 23-4. This is Mr. Keith Jones. And I actually will need to recuse myself from this particular case. And Mr. Needham will take over. So who's going to make motions? Mr. Needham's gone. You guys got to wake up. He's making all the motions. You stepped up, Mr. Clark. I've been waiting for this opportunity for a long time. I forget actually what I need to do so just bear with me here. Okay, Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Let's see here. We have a request. Do you have anything to say about this request? I hope you guys approve it. Okay. Let me ask my fellow board members here. Does anyone have anything for Mr. Jones? If not, I will take a motion. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLMBOA 23-4, Keith Jones' request for variances to, one, reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet, two, reduce the side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet and 8 inches, and three, reduce the side yard setback from six feet to three feet in order to construct a duplex property located within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone property located at 775 North Upper Street, based upon the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the two conditions set forth there. Thank you Mr. Gross. Second? I'll second. Thank you Mr. Walker. We will take a vote. Okay. Thanks. Looks like you passed. All right. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And then we get Mr. Thompson again, don't we? PLNBOA 23-7, Thomas and Christina Parrish. Do we need Mr. Thompson to state his name again? Yes, Vince Thompson. All righty. This has also been recommended for approval. There are two conditions listed here as well. Have you had an opportunity to review? Yes, ma'am. We do have the documentation on the project already. Does the board have any questions, any concerns? If not, I sure will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 23-7 Thomas and Christina Parrish request the variance to increase the allowable floor area from 0.5 to 0.58 in order to construct a two-story accessory structure within the defined infill and development area and a historic district overlay zone and planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 260 Clay Avenue. based on staff recommendations and subject to the two conditions. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Do I have a second? I have a second. Mr. Needham seconds. And if no further discussion, we'll take a vote. Thank you. Thank you. Your motion is passed. Good luck with your projects. Thank you. Here you go, PLN BOA 23-8 AU Associates. Madam Chairman, I'm Clay Johnson with Prime Engineering on behalf of the applicant AU Associates. Thank you. This has been recommended for approval. We do have the prior documentation for the 96 Codell Street, Codell Drive project. Does the board have any questions? concerns i do okay um when i went and looked at this property there was a huge pedestrian presence at the time there was a city bus there was a school bus that let off i don't know how many kids and there were people up and down the sidewalk so my concern is that since there's a zero foot with the setback i feel like there might be like a safety issue well we aren't requesting a zero foot setback from any property line where you would come in contact with pedestrians all of our setback needs are internal and so once we do our consolation plat the lines we need relief from won't exist we are just requesting this because we there's some old right away that we need to get divvied up with an unresponsive out-of-state property owner it just seemed like the sidewalk was pretty narrow narrow and there was a lot of people up and down the sidewalk and we are conforming to all setbacks with the sidewalk you're talking about thank you so the variance the request for the setback for the zero which side of the property is that on um well one of the lines is between 601 old todd's road and 96 codel drive which the applicant owns both properties and then the other is a property line that won't exist anymore there's some old right away from old todd's road that was there to allow access for 601 old todd's road which we also own now so so i understood on that particular side it looks like it's zero but like you said there won't be a property line right there won't be one we just we have an unresponsive neighbor and none of this affects their property so they don't want to spend the money to respond to it so this allows us to stay on schedule while we also fix that issue so once the right-of-way is approved that that takes care of the difficulties there does it not thank you this gives you an opportunity to go ahead and start your project yes there's a mechanism tied to it and so a delay would hurt that so we the variance allows us stay on schedule great questions anything further the applicant Okay, I like the project. It looks nice. I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 23-8 AU Associates request for variances to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 0 feet and to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet in order to construct a multifamily dwelling in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 96 Codell Drive based on the staff's recommendation and the three conditions as listed. Thank you Mr. Clark and do I have a second? I'll second. Okay thank you Mr. Needham. If there's no further discussion we'll take a vote. Thank you. Motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you all. Let's see. The next one is PLN BOA 23-12, Scott Book. I'm not sure I'm going to recuse for this one, so I'm going to step out for a minute. I've got the TV on in there for you. I'm going to eat my chocolate. Don't eat my chocolate. We have mustard packages back there, too. Yeah, that's my problem. Mr. Book. scott book thank you let's see the staff has recommended this one for approval we did not have any public comment requested okay wabash drive we have has the board had an opportunity to look over the plans the projects do we have any questions or concern for the applicant not i will entertain the only the only thing i would just you know normally we try to keep on the same plane um and i but since you know with next to that house and i know this is going to come out a couple feet based on this um as long as planning seemed to think that was fine then then i'm fine with it so normally that's always a stickler yeah okay there happened to be another structure there just up until about two or three years ago and it had been there for decades you can still see the impression and the asphalt there yeah so it wasn't a problem for was that was that proud of the of the neighbor's house yes sir it was even more so than what we're proposing okay great thank you Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 2312 Scott Book's request for variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 1 foot and 6 inches and reduce the setback for an accessory structure where a corner lot adjoins in the rear, a lot in any residential zone from 27 feet to 25 feet 9 inches in order to construct an accessory structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area and historic district overlay h1 zone in a single-family residential r1c zone on property located at 112 Wabash Drive based on staff's recommendations and the three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Needham. And do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you. Motion is passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. all righty number nine peel nboa will let mr walker come back yeah i know i know plnboa 23-9 that's first-hand care kentucky incorporated Madam Chair, I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of First Hand Kentucky Care, First Hand Care Kentucky Incorporated. Felicia Carrington is the owner of the corporation. She's with me on the second row, and we agree with the staff conditions of approval. Has the board had an opportunity to review? Do we need any information from Council? I'm good. Okay. Okay, and have you had the opportunity to look at there were five conditions there? Is the applicant okay with the conditions? Yes, we are okay with those five conditions, yes. Okay, thank you. Nothing further? I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 23-9 First Hand Care Kentucky Incorporated, request an administrative appeal to change a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, adult daycare center in wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone, I'll probably locate it at 2224 Young Drive based on staff's recommendations and subject to the five conditions. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Do I have a second? Is that Mr. Gross? I know, he woke up down there. Thank you all. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Okay. So we will back up to PLN BOA 23-10, Sassafras-Aus. Now this one has been recommended for approval of a lesser variance. Should I have the applicant come first or public comment? Or staff? hello megan jennings with planning staff the case before you today is a side yard variance request to reduce the setback from the side yard from three feet to one foot and two inches the property is located at 762 Florence Avenue it is owned R2 and is within the infill and redevelopment area first just to kind of get a sense of where we are in town just off the map here to the right side of the screen is Georgetown Road north of 4th Street and up here in the upper left corner is Price Road kind of runs perpendicular with the railroad there and joins down with Lee's Town the subject property is here on Florence Avenue closer to the end by Price Road as you can see here the lot is quite narrow and here we've zoomed in just a little bit closer is currently vacant but the properties adjoining on either side do have structures the one to the north here is a residence and the one to the south is a non-conforming commercial use the site plan before you today is this proposed residents on the left side of the site plan they have included the structure here on 760 florence avenue because it that existing structure actually encroaches over the property line if that property was not encroaching they would actually be able to fit the proposed structure and meet all of the setback requirements but because that existing structure is encroaching they have to push the proposed structure further to the left side of the lot in order to meet the three foot distance between the two structures for the sake of fire code the other structure at 764 is located just over 13 feet from that other property edge and so staff is comfortable granting a variance but is recommending a lesser variance of one and a a half feet. The zoning ordinance here just kind of summarizes the requirements and that development within the infill. We just acknowledge that it's hard to meet some modern setback requirements with some tricky infill realities. So we are recommending approval of a lesser variance for the side yard setback to one foot and six inches. The request was for one foot and two inches. We're recommending a foot and a half because that's kind of our general standard minimum setback for maintaining the distance between a property line and a structure. It'll fit a mower, a weed whacker, anything less makes it a little difficult to maintain that piece of land. We have just kind of your standard conditions of approval and we had previously discussed with the applicant the lesser variants and they indicated that they were amenable to that does the board have any questions for staff at this time i and i'm pretty sure of this but they the the applicant owns both of those properties right even the encroaching property okay it was my understanding that the applicant was okay with the change is that correct It was my understanding that you had okayed that change to 1.6. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. If there are no further questions, I can have the applicant come forward. Okay. Afternoon, Madam Chairman, members. Ms. Jennings pretty much summed up my presentation fairly well. There really is no hidden agenda here. It's very straightforward. There's two separate lots. My client owns both. the existing structure on 760 Florence encroaches onto the lot that's lined up as 762. In order to build a house of any decent size for a family and to meet fire code, we need as large a variance as we are able to get in order to build a decent size house to make use of that lot at 762. And so that's the reason for the requested variance. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I did meet with, I don't remember her name, but I did meet with her. I think we have worked something out, but I think she still may be opposing the variance today. You'll have to ask her. Any questions? We do. What do you think you worked out? What do we think we worked out? Yeah. I think she wanted to get an audience or heard on a matter with the applicant, and I told her that I would arrange that. Okay. Which I will. Okay. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Can you maybe consolidate and just make like one big building there on both the lots? I think theoretically that's possible. In Alcander, there's an existing structure there that, and my client has a real aversion to tearing things down. He's more apt to try to rehab it or remodel it as opposed to tear it down. That's why I'm here now trying to do this. He'd like to have two separate structures and would like to keep the existing structure as is, even though it's currently vacant. I believe that he has plans to remodel it, rehab it, and either use it for its former use or for a new use. But it is a commercial. My understanding is that it used to be some sort of a neighborhood store and I I believe that it either will be that or he may want to at some point use it as a residence in that neighborhood as well. I'm not sure. But he wants the ability to keep the existing structure and build a new structure on the separate lot. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, if you don't mind, we'll let, we have a member of the communities to speak. hello Rolanda Wolfwork Georgetown Street Area Neighborhood Association thank you that he's correct it used to be well it was a store it's been a store ever since I was young well ever since I can remember there's always been a store the lot beside it is more of a grassy land and our our concern is when we call to speak with mr. Moore or the client he emphasized that he didn't want to speak with the neighborhood association because we had a client that we're looking to who's been partnering with the community bringing produce into the community to partner with him this is before we even found out that he wanted to build a house on that lot. The lot is real tiny. It's not even... The housing that's on it is cylinder blocks. So if he does move over, he's going to have to turn a portion of that down and rebuild on it. we was like why can't he expanded the building if it's his life as well instead of trying to build a home on there because it's not big enough to build a home that's decent enough for family to live in it's tiny and you have another house next door and they have chickens you know that come into that location as well so that and they give it to the neighborhood the chickens do the eggs so they share with that but our concern is we we just have a lot of concerns um and then things haven't been addressed and we would like to just see if we can work out some things and and if you all can postpone this until we can get something now on this particular case so i don't know if you've seen the proposal the house that they're proposing to put there is about a thousand square feet so have you been able to see that yeah i've seen that but it doesn't even i have the google docs showing you the google map showing you what it looks like part what's now the house the commercial building is on it now what it looks like and then if you put that little bitty it's going to be a little bit house there how someone is you're not going to have enough space plus it's a busy street we got school buses we got city buses that go up and down it and where will the children reside if they do i mean play if they do come up there so it's we just got a lot of concern so it sounds like there's a conversation to be had but um the the owner is willing to have further conversation about what to do with the other part of the property or to at least have a conversation with the homeowners association Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chase. Excuse me. I'm fine with speaking to my client about having a conversation with the neighborhood, Madam Chairman. But I think that speaks more to the issue about what's going to happen with the property of 760, as opposed to while we're here today, which is a variance for 762. I agree, yeah. Okay, thank you. But the variance will conjunct with that, so it's not really conducive to what he can do. Okay, thank you. Thank you. okay does the applicant want to come back please Ms. Clark, did you have a question? I just wanted to see the GPS picture that they showed. Okay. Okay. Does staff mind to bring back up the GPS, the overhead picture? Can you enlarge that so we can see the houses around it? Thank you. That's it. I might be able to provide some context. This is the R2 zone, and there are several lots here that are structured where they're 25 feet in width. The only unique thing about this is that, again, the one house that's 760 encroaches slightly onto 762. That is the need for the variance. So invariably you'll have in this neighborhood or similar neighborhoods houses that are 20 feet wide, 18, 19 feet wide. this really it's not it's not really out of the norm what's out of the norm is scooting it over to account for the encroachment from the lot on 760 to 762 that's really the issue Would the staff agree that 25 foot lot is fairly common in the neighborhood? Yeah? Okay, thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? So the lot at 760, that's not a grocery store because they talked something about a grocery? It used to be, is my understanding, right now there's a structure there that exists, but I believe it's vacant. And it looks like at some point it was a house or built initially as a house, but it was operated as a grocery store, is my understanding. But right now I believe it's vacant. Okay. Do you know what's going to possibly go in there? I do not. understanding is that it could be changed to accommodate and be used for a residence however the neighborhood has asked me about the possibility of it being restored to a grocery store I have said to them that I will speak to my client about that and if necessary try to give them an audience so they they could the neighborhood association could speak to him about that right now it's not it's nothing it's just an existing structure there's no no tenant and so i've offered to facilitate a meeting with my client and the neighborhood association in order that they could be heard on that request if the neighborhood wants it to be a grocery store knowing my client i don't know why he wouldn't at least consider that. Thank you. Anything further from the board? Okay. I will entertain a motion if there is one. Let me just let me just add before I make a motion I think it's I think it's the issue between vacant space which I think is important but it's it it's also very important that we continue to provide housing and that would be I think over overcome the need for to to save the the vacant space and so I'm going to make the motion to approve PLN and PLN BOA 23-10, Sassafras, Oz, LLC's request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from three feet to one feet and two inches. I'm sorry, one feet and six inches in order to construct a single family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two family residential zone on property located at 762 Florence Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions. this listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. No further discussion or any further discussion? We'll take a vote. Mr. Needham voted yes. His computer is not cooperating. Okay. There we go. Thank you. Your motion is passed and we do hope that your client works with the Homeowner Association to at least hear them out on some of their concerns. Well, I'll do what I can to make that happen. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we have PLN BOA 23-11. This is 28 Lounge. We do have approval, but would staff like to present first? It's got several components. It's a recommendation for approval. Hello again. Megan Jennings with planning staff. This application before you, 23-1128 Lounge, is a conditional use permit for a cocktail lounge and a variance to reduce the setback from a residential zone from 100 feet to 63 feet. This property is located at 287 South Limestone. It is zoned B1 and is located in the infill and redevelopment area, as well as the A Historic District overlay zone. The proposed cocktail lounge will be in association with an existing hookah bar. So here is just like a vicinity map of the subject property outlined in red. The street here is South Limestone, and the cross street here is Maxwell Street. Further down Limestone, you run into campus, while if you go north of Limestone, you come straight into downtown. Directly across Maxwell is the Tin Roof. Then you've got the Cinco de Mayo Restaurant. This is the Kimball House Square historic structures. and then across the way are some professional office uses, including a medical facility. The property itself is just under 4,000 square feet in size and currently contains a four-story, 7,000-square-foot mixed-use building. Within that structure, there are both commercial uses and residential uses. In the general vicinity, we have a mix of both commercial, residential, of course the university, as well as the professional health care uses. This next map here shows the existing zoning around, and I brought this up because it pertains to the variance request that's a part of this application. within the B1 zone for a cocktail lounge there's a required setback from any residentially zoned properties of 100 feet the subject property oh my bad is outlined here and the closest residential zone is up here along the northern part of the slide it's colored in brown it is an R4 zoned property and that is what we are measuring our distance to. We took it from this back corner to the R4 zone here and that is the 63 foot variance request that is a part of this application. And I just quickly want to talk about the existing mixed use zones which are here in purple. A part of the mixed use zoning category itself is a combination of both residential, commercial, professional office and so within the zoning ordinance we do not require the setback to include the mixed use because within that zone itself it considers and brings into consideration the potential to have a commercial use on the existing zone on that property. I also want to mention that the B1 zone itself can also have residential uses as the subject property does have apartments on the upper floors of the structure. So I just wanted to briefly cover the zoning of the area and how the variance comes into play. Zooming in a little closer to the subject property, you can see the structure is quite deep and takes up a lot of the property. But back here in the rear of the site is where our application is taking place today. the applicant is proposing to convert that back part of the property into an outdoor patio space for the customers of the existing hookah lounge. The patio space itself is permitted by Wright, but a part of their plans, as they've been working through the permitting process, they decided to add an outdoor bar as a part of the patio space. And in order to have that bar, they are required to file for the conditional use that's before you today. It's just to serve alcohol there on the back patio for the existing clients of the hookah lounge. This is the subject property from Google Street View. As you can see, it has a few different units in the structure. Down here in the basement is the existing hookah lounge. they have a patio space out on the front sidewalk along limestone this main floor is an existing barber shop and then the upper floors are residential the structure has functioned as a mixed-use structure since like the 1950s per our permitting history and the top two floors other structures have operated as residential uses throughout its history the hookah bar that's existing in the basement unit of the structure received its certificate of occupancy in november of 2010 so it has been around for quite a while kind of taking an angled approach it's a little hard to see just with the lighting but you see how the structure kind of tears down towards the rear of the property currently there's just a open parking area there was most recently an open parking area for the tenants of the subject property and then from the other side you can kind of see the stairs here are the required fire emergency exit for those residential uses up on the upper floors so they kind of tear their way down to the ground back behind the structure where the proposed patio and outdoor bar are located. Here is a clip of the site plan so you can see within the context of the property itself the proposed patio and outdoor bar is located on the rear and then zooming in just a little closer you can kind of see what the outdoor patio space will look like and how it will be configured. The stairs are included but around they will have some kind of lounge seating and tabletops and this outdoor patio space will only be accessed through the hookah lounge they have an exit here for the sake of fire but it will only be accessed through the hookah lounge this proposed patio area has the lounge seating but also wall mounted televisions and the outdoor bar which you can see here the applicant has stated that this patio space will allow for them to utilize an unused portion of their property for their existing customers and they anticipate that the space itself just based on fire code and spacing can accommodate about 30 customers at a time and they have stated that they do not plan to have outdoor music the hours of operation are monday through saturday from noon to 2 a.m. and I will let him answer any more questions whenever he comes up. This is a photo that the applicant submitted kind of as this is their inspiration what they're trying to achieve with their project just a little bit of context for you and members of the public and this is what the property is looking like now. When they first started the work on the patio space they did not include the bar so they already kind of got their permit approved through building inspection for this outdoor patio and deck. And with it being in the historic district, they have also been reviewed and approved by Historic Preservation. And Historic Preservation has seen the new plans that include the bar and they don't have any issues or concerns with the inclusion of the bar. And just to reiterate again, just now that you kind of see how the patio space will operate I wanted to take a look again at the stairs here and the context of the back portion of the property and since they've already started construction on it you can see here along Maxwell Street they've got their fence up and the entire back patio space is fenced in so just a little bit of context for you about what this patio space will look like from the right of way. Here the zoning ordinance defines a cocktail lounge as a commercial establishment for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and it includes live entertainment but no dancing. And then here in article 816 states that the cocktail lounge is a conditional use and then clarifies the 100 foot setback requirement. following that that variant or the setback requirement is details about noise particularly the indoor uses shall be soundproof to the maximum extent feasible and the board is still able to you know review and impose restrictions for their purview and i just wanted to highlight that again i forgot i added that slide So staff is recommending approval of the conditional use for the cocktail lounge. The proposed patio space itself is permitted by right. Just the inclusion of that outdoor bar requires the conditional use. Properties in the general vicinity are a mix of uses, which are very common for a downtown neighborhood. Staff does have concerns about excessive noise and outdoor music becoming nuisances for the surrounding properties. So we have included some conditions that prohibit outdoor speakers and outdoor live entertainment. And we are also recommending that amplification be kept to a minimum in that any indoor uses shall be soundproof to the maximum extent feasible. We are also recommending approval of the variants, the setback variants, that's a part of this. The portion of the residentially zoned property that's within the 100 feet is a parking lot that services other residential structures. And those residentially zoned residential uses are over 100 feet away. So that parking lot that's zoned residential is what's kicking in the variants. we also feel that the prohibition of the outdoor speakers and live entertainment will keep the bar from being a nuisance to the surrounding properties and we have these six conditions of approval including the hours of operation as the applicant has stated a prohibition of outdoor live entertainment and outdoor speakers and then staff also wanted to include a condition that the stairs that are the required fire emergency exit for those dwelling units be a barrier be installed per fire and emergency services requirements just so people utilizing the patio space can't access the residential uses up above and of course that all permits are obtained and we did include that shall the applicant no longer operate at this address that the conditional use for the cocktail lounge become null and void there have been concerns expressed by neighbors about the potential nuisances or noise disturbances with the proposed conditional use and staff just wants to be clear that nothing in the zoning ordinance specifically authorizes the applicant to create a nuisance specifically a noise disturbance even if they do receive a conditional use within the code of ordinances a noise disturbance is defined as any sound which one endangers or injures the safety or health of humans or animals two annoys or disturbs a reasonable person or norm of normal sensitivities or three endangers or injures personal or real property. So hearing any noise from a business will not be a per se noise disturbance. Not every sound that filters from a cocktail lounge is going to classify as a noise disturbance. Law enforcement, though, inspects and enforces noise disturbances and are able to cite the subject property if they agree. and that's regardless if they have a conditional use permit to operate as a cocktail lounge or not. That's it for staff. If the board has any questions for staff at this time, I'd be happy to... Hey, Megan, real quick. So they have, as of right, they can have the patio. That's correct. and they can have these hour of operations as of right if they so chose. The only thing we're looking at today is whether they could have the cocktail lounge, and we're reducing that distancing, which was normally 100 feet to 63. That's correct. I just want to make sure. And I do want to note that proposed hours of operations are for the bar. No bar is able to be operated past 2 a.m. Without the bar, they can operate whatever hours they so desire. And then one more thing on the 63 feet. If there's an apartment at the top of the building, how are we getting to the 63 feet? Isn't it like zero feet? So the zoning ordinance states that the variance is to residential zones. within the b1 zone you can have a residential use within a mixed use zone you can have residential and commercial so this does not count for those because inherently you can have a mix of those uses on the same property i figured you'd have a good answer for that appreciate it that's all my questions for now again the bar the barrier for the stairs uh how does that work obviously they have to the people who live there have to have easy access out of that down the stairs so How does that work? Is there a mechanism that keeps people from going up but people can come down? I am not aware as a planner, but the Division of Fire and Emergency Services may have a way to address those issues. One of our conditions of approval is that the applicant work with the Division of Fire and Emergency Services in order to install an appropriate barrier. that makes sense i just wonder how it works yeah thank you anything further staff okay we'll let the applicant come at this time thank you good afternoon ladies and gentlemen my name is gordon couch i'm here on behalf of mr jingy amate the owner proprietor of the 28 lounge we have read the approvals and we have read and understand the recommendations of the council we're more than willing and able to comply with any of these recommendations and i'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have understand that since i'm not the owner i'm just here on behalf of Mr. Amate that I might not have the answer right on hand. Will you state your last name again? Couch. C-O-U-C-H. Mr. Couch, do we have any questions? I don't have any questions. Obviously most of the responses are all about, it seemed, noise, and I think you guys are are accepting of that so it looks okay to me we are accepting of that all righty if you'd like to take a seat we'll we have some people in the public that want to comment is that correct thank you thank you oh yeah council member agrees first Hi, thank you all. My name is Hannah Legree. I'm the third district council member. And I'm simply speaking for the record in support of the staff's conditions regarding the prohibition of live outdoor entertainment and the prohibition of outdoor speakers for the establishment. staff's proposed conditions make 28 lounges proposal to operate an outdoor bar at 287 south limestone much more manageable when it comes to quality of life issues and as the third district council member as you can imagine i'm acutely aware of the quality of life life issues that sometimes can be associated with live outdoor entertainment or speakers in an outdoor space in a b1 or mixed use or residential zone any kind of establishment that's proximate to our residents and i i want to express appreciation that the staff has provided this recommendation especially given the variance from the typical 100 foot buffer between the cocktail lounge and the more residential space so thank you that's it thank you thank you my name is darren gulla i am a resident of 275 south limestone you could actually see my bedroom window and some of these these photos that you saw before you my problem and i do appreciate the the lounge they're restricting outdoor noise as much as they can but the existing hookah bar which they're going to be affiliated with is inside and it's louder than hell as it is music till four in the morning this is literally 20 feet from my bedroom so i'm just not all that confident that the noise suppression is going to be followed through on and that's something I'm a little concerned of. I know it's hard to see in some of those photos even though we're listed in that multi-use and not a residential. There are over 100 units in the Kimmel House Square condominiums and so that's not insignificant I don't think and I'm a little concerned this would be the closest. Obviously we understand where we live and it's going to be loud. Hell there's a hospital 30 feet away from us too with sirens going on all day long so I understand that but this would be incredibly close to where we live for me especially I'm the one that's on the farthest closest to Maxwell's anyone in the development and I just don't think I'll ever sleep ever again and I probably will never be able to sell this unit again either but that's all my complaints that I had I'm sure I know Mr. Wilcox who's also our HOA chairman who's not here today he's uh he's He's a little COVID paranoid still, but he's an older gentleman, so I understand that. And I'm sure he has reached out to you quite a bit, probably more than you care for. But nonetheless, I'm going to pass things over to my counsel here to finish off any kind of thoughts. Thank you. All right. To go on, can you click back to the aerial view here so I can show where my client's house is in relation to this lounge slash? And, sir, will you please state your name for the record? Scott Stutz, I'm an attorney for Darren Gala, resident at 275 South Limestone. All right, well our first issue my client has is this possible nuisance from noise which has continued to go on even with the hookah lounge till 4 a.m. Morning blasting rock music. This is documentation I have from someone that has several Airbnb and rentals in the lounge. And basically on these reviews here I'd be happy to pass this up to council that basically Everyone has rented from these Airbnbs in the Campbell House unit has complained of rap music blasting until after 4 a.m. in the morning. May I approach the, let you see this? I think these are the ones that are in our board package as well. And then, they said they're going to do a good job of trying to control the music and stuff. But recently as of this Friday, I came across evidence that they have served minors tobacco that are in high school. I can provide you documentation of this right here. And may I approach? Has staff seen the separate? Let's give it to staff first, please. that's a copy of the minor's ID and they're in the minor at the place and her transaction and another photo of her. This is a person that was in high school. Thank you. I'm the learners from that. Thank you. See pictures. Thank you. Thank you. Establishment. And according to that stuff I printed off the ABC's website that for an establishment that only serves tobacco products with hookah included here. They have to be 21 to be served it or beyond the premise. This is right off the website. And my client's issue, we have no issue with the other establishments. The main thing is here, as you can see from this photo, my client's bedroom is literally 15 feet from where the patio is where they're going to be serving alcohol. And they said yes, they aren't going to be having music, but my client and Obviously those Airbnb reports say they're blasting rap music till 4 in the morning. And my client is a respected college professor here, so obviously he has to go to work as a professional and not be tired teaching the new younger minds he has to teach. And also speaking of that, we were saying about the nuisance, there's some case law to support my client's argument in the city of Louisville v. Turner in the case of Kentucky Supreme Court held that excessive noise can be considered public nuisance, even if it does not pose a direct threat to health or safety. And also in the city of , I'm probably mispronouncing, saying that that loss of property value can be also due to noise can be considered a nuisance. On top of that, like my client, we have no issue if the other establishments on the limestone block. They have not caused my client issues, it's this hookah lounge with the noise. And they say there's going to be no music there, but what about intoxicated patrons? And obviously there's evidence of them letting minors in while they're just even serving tobacco products now that I presented to you. So what's to say that you're going to have drunk patrons up there to a man stop serving alcohol, but then getting loud to stay after they're enjoying hookah or whatever. Do you have any additional questions for me? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Is there any further comment? Absolutely. Hold on just a moment. I think we have another public comment. I'd like to ask Megan a question. And they could have an indoor bar currently? No. No. So this would be to allow them for outdoor and indoor? Sorry. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Okay. So right now in the, sorry, right now in this particular establishment, they cannot have any serving of alcohol. And with this permit, they could have indoor serving with alcohol and then potentially an outdoor bar area, too. In the application materials, the applicant did not state that they were pursuing indoor bar, just the outdoor bar, but I would be happy to let them clarify that. Okay, and then are we able to approve indoor cocktail but limit the bar from not being on the outside? Is that within our? Yes, I think you can because you can approve a lesser variance. Okay, so we can put a condition that says you can't have a bar, even though patrons could potentially order inside and come outside. It would still make it part of the cocktail lounge. And I would, oh. I'm just curious about what kind of some of the options are. Yeah. Yeah. But the, where they're referencing the hours of operation, so right now the hookah lounge itself does not have to close it too. But if there's a bar, it has to close it too, correct? Correct. So there may be a reason. But the bar has to close. The serving of alcohol has to end. That's right. The serving of alcohol has to end. Okay. Okay. And I'd just like to ask, have you been signed in or sworn as a witness? Signed in. Okay. The chair will administer a swearing of an oath before you speak. And then one more question. Are we allowed to say that the entire establishment will close at two if we so choose or just? Since that is not direct since they are already I don't know what their hours are currently are their hours currently till Sounds like 4 Then I don't think that we could since that's beyond the question that's in front of this board I don't think we could necessarily add that as a condition for the entire operation Okay, thank you Thank you Hey ma'am, I need to swear you in as a witness is that correct? Okay. Say, excuse me, state your name for the record please. Tell it Jamil. Okay. And do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Please. Yes, I have a condo in the property 275 side limestone and usually my tenants are grad students or young professionals, sometimes nurse from the hospital, the Good Samaritan hospitals and the residents and they whenever I mean they when I rent them they ask about the noise because you know having the businesses and the bar in that area so they're really concerned about that so whatever the businesses are there teen roof and the paddock and the lounge I mean it's it's loud still they complaint about it but they are just keeping you know it's it's it's loud but still we are managing with that but having addition to this you know the outdoor lounge with the big screen TV and and bar I mean it will very this will be very close to our residential area and it will just you know it will not be a a livable condition for the resident there. So I just don't understand that I mean how I would be able to rent it again. Because of these noises and this disturbance until 2 a.m. they can break the lease and they can leave. So I don't agree with this approval. That's my own interest. But I'm sure that it will be a noise of all the residents because we just want a peaceful environment and workable conditions for the property. I may go and live there. That was my plan later, but with these conditions, I don't find myself comfortable and peacefully retiring there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. The applicant? We want to thank those of the audience that have chosen to take the opportunity to voice their concerns. I, too, live at 275 South Limestone. In fact, that's my neighbor right there. And I can assure you that we're looking at every means necessary to avoid any interference in the evening with any of the residences in that neighborhood. The addition of acoustic materials, et cetera, no amplification of music, it really doesn't seem to be a problem for us to be able to manage that. We will look into every effort possible to ensure that we don't cause a disturbance in that neighborhood. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Couch, do I understand you have TV outside? There are TVs mounted inside the gated area of the back patio, yes. So I'm not sure how the fact that you have TVs with sound would interfere with the requirement not to have speakers. So how would that work? Because it seems like the sound of TV would be the same thing as an outdoor speaker. Well, that's easily remedied through muting them. But I understand the question, yes. And it is a good concern. In fact, Mr. Amati and I have already spoken about that. Having televisions back there as just visual entertainment without the amplification of sounds, spoken dialogue, or music shouldn't be a problem. and just real quickly is anyone else here to speak we still had a few people no okay Thank you. All right. So what's the board's move? Do we need a brief recess? Is anyone ready to make a motion? Okay. Madam Chair, I hereby move for approval of PLN BOA 23-11-28 Lounge, request for a conditional use permit for a cocktail lounge and a variance to reduce the required setback from a residential zone from 100 feet to the 63 feet within the defined infill and redevelopment area and historic district overlay zone and neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 287 South Limestone based upon the staff's report the evidence we heard today and subject to the conditions that are set forth in our report thank you mr. Gross do we have a second Yeah, I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Any discussion before we take a vote? All right. Thank you. Your motion has passed. Good luck with the project. Are we at the end? Was that all of them? Are you sure? Wait a minute. There we go. There we go. Okay. Now let's see. Let's see. Thank you. Let's see. Do we have any staff items to review at this time? No staff items? nothing else from the board I promised Brandon I'd keep them here till five I promised them well you too can have your own session well our next meeting is March the 13th 1.30 we already have a few cases pending so you guys study up on them you know what's coming ahead and not have a happy Valentine's Day and we'll see everybody next month meeting adjourned Thank you. Thank you.