Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

meeting of the Louisville Metro Board of zoning adjustment to hear cases is advertised and documented for hearing today. Public notice has been provided and materials have been available for Republic available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's meeting. Please silence all cell phones. Please be courteous and respectful to the board and your fellow citizens. For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the board must do so from the podium or virtually. There are time limits in effect for today's meeting. The applicant or their representative shall have no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons in favor of the application shall have a total of no more than three minutes per person. The opposition representative shall have a total of no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons opposed to the application shall have a total of no more than three minutes per person. Rebuttal by the applicant or the representative shall be no more than five minutes. If you plan on speaking, please fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. Procedures shall be as follows. Staff will present a summary of the request. The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation giving reasons for the request. Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or their representative will then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. If there are further questions by the opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The board may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time pursuant to KRS chapter 61 in the board bylaws, the board's deliberations and voting today will be held immediately following the public hearing for each case. No party will be allowed to speak during the deliberations of this board.

Roll call please. Present.

Ford? Present.

Lewis? Present. Fezzos?

Present.

Rodriguez? Not present.

Bond?

Present. We have a quorum. All right. Staff, would you stand so that I can swear you in? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

First item on the agenda. is approval of the minutes from the may 18th 2026 board of zone board of zoning adjustment meeting members have you had an opportunity to review the minutes are there any revisions is there a motion motion please yes yes please um i have read the minutes and i moved to approve them uh for the date of 5 18 2026 that was both uh board thank you is there a second second board it's been properly moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the may 18th 2026 board of zoning adjustment meeting roll call please yes yes ford yes lewis abstain bond yes the minutes have been approved We're moving into business session, beginning with Board of Zoning Adjustment Bylaws and Policies Update.

Julia Williams.

Julia Williams, Assistant Director, Office of Planning, 444 South 5th Street. If you wouldn't mind pulling up the section of the bylaws. Okay, so hopefully you had time to review this. We talked about this a little bit at the at the May 16, but mainly we were talking about changing the meeting date from. The 1st, and 3rd, Monday to the 2nd and 4th Wednesday. Uh, as indicated here, so then that would change the annual meeting from the 1st, Monday to the 2nd, Wednesday in February. It appeared that most that this met most of people's schedule that Wednesday seemed to be okay. And this wouldn't start until 2027. So we're asking for your approval. On this change to your bylaws.

Okay. the rationale for the changes that it allows additional time for staff to review applications information.

It is, and it also allows us to more conform with our other scheduling with the agendas and getting out notices for meetings. It helps with that. Monday's also somewhat of a difficult time for the public to be able to come. So that also hopefully helps the public out as well.

Okay. And I would add that I think it also helps sometimes we get interested party comments. And when we have the weekend, they come in on a Friday, but you don't get them till the Monday. And if it had a Wednesday, they could get them to you with more time to review before the meeting.

That would be helpful. That would be helpful. Okay. Members, any discussion? No issues with what's proposed. Is there a motion to approve?

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion regarding the meeting schedule change beginning in 2027 as discussed by Julie.

Thank you. Is there a second? Second. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the amendment to the Board of Zoning Adjustment Bylaws Article 7 as discussed. Roll call, please. Yes, yes, Louis.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. The amendment is approved. Thank you.

All right, we're in the public hearing portion of the agenda, uh, beginning with case 3. 26, Mark.

Good afternoon. Everyone mark pinto office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2, 26, 0, 0, 2, 9 was originally heard at the border zoning adjustment on April 20th. And it was continued from that border zoning adjustment, public hearing to give the operator an additional opportunity and time to speak about the program and answer additional questions just about how the program operates. And the case was continued again on the May 18th. Well, it was continued from 4 zone adjustment, April 20th to May 18th, where it was continued again, because the operators were present. But the property owner couldn't make it and they didn't want to give additional testimony without the property owner here. So the request of that continuance and that continuance was granted to today's border zoning adjustment, public hearing, and I can give the presentation again. I do have it prepared if you all would like for me to, but. The operator and property owner, they should be present now to answer additional questions.

From the members today members, do you need a refresher? Yes.

Quick review.

All right.

I figured it'd been about, you know, a little bit over a month. So.

So, again, this is a 26 to P 0, 0, 2, 9 for 60, 14 Robin hood lane. It is a conditional use permit for transitional housing in the R4 single family zoning district with relief to standard F, which is the no 30 feet from the property line rule. Again, the property is in the R4 single family zoning district, which limits the number of transitional housing occupants to 3 and the neighborhood form district without a conditional use permit. The property is developed with an existing 1 story home with 3 bedrooms and the applicant has requested a maximum of 6 residents in the home. here is a map of the zoning just showing the overall area as you can see it is located within an r4 subdivision and it is near preston highway in that commercial corridor next slide and here is an aerial just showing the existing site conditions of that property with an existing home And here is the group housing proximity map showing that there are no approved group housing, conditional use permits. That's boarding homes, transitional homes or rehabilitation homes with a conditional use permit within a 1000 feet of the subject property. And here is the applicant's floor plan. Although this floor plan is not to scale and it does not show the dimensions to scale, if this conditional use permit is approved and they pursue the group housing license, it is our understanding that the construction review department before issuing that license and that change of use permit does require a more robust floor plan that shows those dimensions for that department, that shows that they meet the codes and regulations guidelines. Or not guidelines, but rules here is the subject property looking in from Robin hood lane, just showing the existing home. And there are no approved group group or group house and conditional use permits within a 1000 feet of the subject property. No transitional, no rehab and no boarding homes with approved conditional use permits. And therefore it does meet that standard and staff does find that the conditional use permit is adequately justified for approval as well as standard F is justified for approval since it is existing site conditions and no new construction is proposed. And therefore, your required actions today are to record are to approve or deny the conditional use permit for transitional housing in the R4 single family zoning district with relief to standard F. Are there any questions for staff?

Thank you.

have three speaker cards related to this case john flynn jeffrey angel john flynn is the applicant jeffrey angel and um mr massacoy are all three in support all three are in support all right if you all three want to speak i'll swear you in now I want to leave it to them, but I'm certainly here to say what I said before. All right. I will swear you all in, and then we'll take testimony. If you'd raise your right hand, you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

Yes. Okay.

All right.

Mr. Flynn. Yeah, so quickly, we're the owner of the property.

I represent. Wait a minute. Name and address, please.

Excuse me?

Your name and address.

John Flynn, 4218 River Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 40207. So I'm just here as the property owner. I'm the chief financial officer of that company. They weren't really prepared the first time to go through their care plan and all the follow-up things they do for residents to help them get successfully from transitional back into the real world. And they're here today. So I'm just going to leave it to them because the time should be allocated to them in answering your questions. If you need me after, I'll be sitting right here. Okay. So, sir, so you're not involved in the management of the property? I'm not. We just rent the property to them, yes. Okay. All right, and that was the problem last time, ma'am was I was the only 1 really prepared to speak and I can only tell you that it is a transitional home. I've been there. We did the renovations to make it nice for people and they got to tell you what they do for people. So thank you. Awesome.

Thank you. All right. Name and address please.

My name is Lawrence master. 1 is 135 shadow. Our court is Shepherdsville, Kentucky. 4 0165.

Okay, what information would you like the board to consider?

I'm one of the district managers for the company, which is our House of Favor. What we do, we provide assistance to those that society consider the bottom low. We bring them in and assist them with how to get structured and rehabilitated into society. So what we do, we have a pre-screening. We pre-screen them once they're qualified to answer all the questions that we ask, then we can bring them into the program. And we provide a shelter for them because we can have them on the street and provide those shelters and assistance that they need. Because sometimes they come broken and we are the hope shot. We assist them with almost everything. They don't have nothing. They lose all their IDs, full stamp, bus passes. And we have programs that we run and these programs give them structures to come back into society. We even assist with job placements for them. And how are they referred to you? They are referred to us from 30 days to 28 days of program and sometimes they are here in place see the growth and sometimes from word of mouth the work that we do and then we also get referred to from other clients that have successfully completed the program

Could you talk to us a little bit about oversight of your is there someone on site during the day who works with the individuals?

Yes. Yes. We do have a staff on site. The structure of our program is a program director. And then goes to the general manager who is with me here and I'm 1 of the district managers. I'm over about 4 houses or 4 locations and it's about 30 clients and then we have and we have house men. So, when you leave in the morning, we pick them up, we provide transport. pick them up from the location, bring them to our location where we provide the program that they need and give them the transportation back. We're assisting to get their medication and things. Now, if the CSA leave from the building, we go to the houses too and provide services there as well. And after they leave and the house man comes in, we run from 6 to 12. But there's a From two to six, there's an open window that is there so that they can go out to and do what we call recovery-related activities. If they have to go find a job, if they have to go to the hospital, if they have to go for court appearances. So those slots are left so that they can be responsible because we don't hold them by hand. We suggest to them and recommend that they do it on their own.

That's from two to what daily? I'm sorry. Did you say two to six?

They just start in between five days a week from two. The staff goes in at 11 from 11 to leave at two o'clock. And then another staff goes in at six to 12 midnight.

Okay. Okay. Okay, and there are other group home other transitional homes that that you operate or overseas. You said you're the district manager. Yes. Is that correct? Okay. Over 4 other homes are for including this 1. it's about.

30 clients to a district manager. Okay. So 1, so it may not be a house per se, but it's just a number of clients that I'm over. That will see.

Okay. All right. And and how long have the other homes been in operation in this home?

Is a part we have apartments. And those are the homes almost the same time. But I can give you the exact well, just generally.

If you can give me an estimated that they've been, you've been operating these homes for.

So, like, we have, we have weather Avenue. Pardon me, there's another, there's another of houses on without Avenue. Which is under the same management that we're trying to get a disapproval for, but he's just the 1st 1.

But this home is not operating currently right? Is that correct?

It is operating.

It is operating.

We have clients in there now.

Do you get a citation for that? Is that what brought you here?

According to husband has visited us, but I'm not sure it's because of citation, but to get approval from the state and just do it right away.

County are your other homes in Jefferson county. Correct and are they all licensed and have the proper.

Uh, no, they're all going through the same process. Like I said, uh, uh. Robin hood is the 1st 1, I think he's working on, uh, without avenue as well.

Is there any clients that you do not take based on their history, particularly criminal history?

Yes. What is it? Clients that are on the register sex offender list, client that are extremely violent, we don't take them. That's why we do the pre-screening first to see if the client meets our qualification.

So you don't take registered sex offenders or violent, somebody's been charged with a violent crime or?

No, we don't. Okay. But we can recommend, we don't just leave them out to the war. We will try to find other programs that might accept them because we might be the last bus stop. If they come and we shut the doors, there could be nowhere to go to. So we try to help them with other places that they can go to.

But none of your houses accept that? No, none of our houses.

Okay, so you're currently operating without a conditional use permit.

All right members any other questions just.

Again, on the, the staffing, I'm not clear on is there 24 hour a day. Staff there, or is it just during the. Daytime and evening another 24 hour.

Start by that from. Because we pick them up at 8 in the morning, start leave at 12 midnight. So, 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, 8 a.m. to 12, sometimes about 6 o'clock to get ready to. Come to the program, but we do have curfew too. I'm sorry we do have curfews, so our curfew runs at 11, 11 PM. Everyone should be in bed by 11 PM.

Is that on the property or in the house?

All properties. Pardon me? All properties. It's the rules that govern the entire program. There is no separate rules for this location, separate rules for that location.

But my question is, does the resident have to be in the house at 11 p.m. or just on the property?

They have to be in the house at 11 p.m. with exception because some of them has jobs. If you have a job, you bring down your schedule. We ask you to bring your job schedule. That permits you to stay after curfew. Guess about rehabilitation into society. And you have to manage that time. We govern that as well. So if you have a job, you bring your schedule from your job, and then you have that approval to come after curfew.

Are they responsible for it? How do they get to and from work?

They are responsible for that.

They are responsible for that. Okay.

We assist with legal and medical. If they have to go to court, we assist them. If they have to go for medical, we assist them. They have to come to the program, we assist them. but if you have a job, then we expect you to be responsible enough for money management. And we also assist with bus tickets if we have to.

Are they allowed to have a vehicle?

Yes, they're allowed to have a vehicle. But a vehicle that's on our property is subject to being searched.

And is there parking available on this property for, is this for six residents?

Oh, it's a drive is a drive in, so I'm not sure if it takes about 6 cars, but I'm thinking the given take might be 3 cars can fit in that spot.

3, yeah.

Okay, so you're going to have if they all had a car 3, and we're going to be on the street. And 3 in the driveway, is that what you're saying?

No, I'm just looking at the capacity for the parking space that we have on that property about 3. Maybe Max will be 4.

We do have a picture. Do you want to see the front of the house again?

Well, I was looking at this overview. It's hard to tell how long that driveway is or how wide it is. If you can get six.

Could we put that picture up, please?

Six cars in the driveway.

It looks like a single-width driveway.

Yeah. It's long, but I don't know that you can get six cars on it.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yes, please. And what kind of, or do you have mental health services? What kind of mental health do you have for them, for your clients?

Substance use. Say again. Substance use, drugs and alcohol.

Bipolar depression.

Thank you.

Anxiety.

And that's all treated offsite at medical facilities, right? You don't have treatment in the home.

That's why we transport them to our site to give them those services. Now, we do work with other companies outside of our scope, like the Peace Hospital. We use the Peace Hospital, St. Mary's, and other agencies as well. Because it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. So where we can, we provide. We cannot, if we feel that a client needs more services, we provide them or suggest that it go to these other agencies that might provide the services that they need.

Okay.

I believe that's all the questions for now, sir. Mr. Angel, do you have anything you want?

Yes.

Okay.

My name is Jeff and I'm with our house of favor. I'm the general manager.

Okay, your address, name and address please.

Full name and address. It's a 10803 Sparrow Circle. Louisville, Kentucky, well, Holloville, Kentucky, 40118. Your last name? Angel. I would like to elaborate a little bit on what Mr. Massacoy was saying. If we would also place them where we have apartments, so we wouldn't place someone that has so many vehicles, we would put them at the apartments. That way, say we have three with vehicles, because with most of them, we don't have vehicles. They're coming off the streets and they're not fortunate to have that yet, but we would place them at the apartments where we have a lot of parking spaces available. We own two whole apartments, so we have all the parking there. We would place them there if that became a problem or became an issue. And we would also like to, we do IOP services and therapeutic services. And I came in as a sober living. I came in from Lexington, Kentucky, and I had to come up here and I was in the sober living. And if it wasn't for a place like this to save my life, I wouldn't be where I am today. I started as a house manager. Then I became a peer support specialist. Then I became a CSA. Then I became a district manager. Then I became a general manager. Now I'm trying to go to school and be a counselor. And if it wasn't for somebody believing in me, and that's why I tell the clients every day that I believe in you, I believe that you can do this. And I think we have to really focus on reconnecting them back with society. They get disconnected and isolated. I think we can help when we do that and build relationships back with their family, that their families, you know, we put up walls too. We hurt our families. So they put up walls to protect themselves. And by doing the services and reaching out and dealing with the counselors and helping them and monitoring them and guiding them and building structure back in their life, sometimes it's all about the mouth they hear it from. It's all about the messenger and how you deliver it to them and understand them. So I think it's very important that some, we have to do, I mean, I feel like it has to be done that this needs to be done.

So if you place one of your clients in an apartment, this is a question for staff. Does that count against the six? Because they're not, they may come there for treatment counseling, but, but they live in an apartment. It sounds like.

No, no, no.

I'm not saying you, um, sir, you did say that, that, that occasionally you do have to place people in an apartment. Did I hear that correctly? Uh, apartments that you have available to you. Okay.

I think what he was trying to say, you could correct me if I'm wrong, sir, is that if the parking became an issue, they have another facility that has more parking available. So they may place those individuals that own cars at that facility and not at this facility. Is that correct, sir?

Yes, ma'am. So this facility, the application is for six. Yes. So if someone someone is in an apartment, Then does that count against the 6 is what I'm wondering?

No, no, no. Um, like I said, I think what he was trying to say was that to address the parking concern, if they had clients that had cars, they may place them at a different facility that they own to alleviate the parking issue at this. Property that they're applying, but they're still included in the 6. no, they wouldn't be included in the 6 because they would be, they would be housed at a different facility and they could bring in another client.

To fill that 6, right?

They could they could bring a different client. Maybe they didn't own a vehicle. Okay. To to fill this the 6 spot at this location. Yeah.

Is there TARP service near this home?

Yes, and the goodwill. The goodwill gives them jobs and helps them in so many ways. We're partnered with the goodwill too, and they're excellent with our clients.

Okay. Any other questions?

Yes.

Does the client contribute or pay for his or her stay there or a portion of their pay?

No, sir.

So how does the organization operate? Where do your funds come from?

through Medicaid when they come to the building and they do therapeutic, then their therapy, we pay for everything through what we receive through Medicaid. So that way they're still able. The only thing we want them to focus on is recovery and getting their life back. Okay. Thank you.

Is there a limit to how long they can stay?

It's normally a three to six month program used to be used to be a six to nine month program.

And now it's more like a three to six month program. Hey, I believe that's all the questions.

Thank you.

Yes. Well, I have one for staff. Yes. We We have to show relief from standard F. That's the 30 feet. That's an existing condition though, correct?

Yes, that's correct. Yeah, we often seek relief. The applicants often seek relief from that standard because I don't believe that that was the existing condition factor was considered. When creating that, if it was a new construction, I think staff will be less likely to support relief, but because these are existing homes, staff usually supports relief to that standard.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any other speaker cards related to this cake.

We have 1 online speaker.

Okay. In opposition. All right. We have a speaker in opposition to the application. After that speaker, you'll have five minutes for rebuttal.

Hi, this is Ann Ramser. Can you hear me?

I can. I can. Yes. Name and address, please.

Ann Ramser, PO Box 14243, Louisville, Kentucky, 40214.

All right, Ms. Ramser, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

I do. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you for listening to me today, letting me speak. I believe you're probably already aware this was before BOZA on April 20th, I believe. At that time, I presented a PowerPoint. I'm not going to do it again. It appears that all that information was included in the electronic documents that you should have received with the agenda. There are not only... zoning enforcement issues, but there were also property violations that were served on its property. Just as a reminder, the staff report indicates that there are three bedrooms, but that very crudely drawn outline of the property appears to say there's four bedrooms or maybe the other one's a bathroom. I really can't tell. It didn't make sense. I'm concerned about that. I looked up Our House of Favor. I could only find an address on Barry. It's not listed with the Secretary of State at all. That concerns me. And that 30-foot rule, I'm always going to say something because to say that it wasn't considered, we don't know that it wasn't considered. And by this, you know, every time I see a transitional home, it's an already built. So that means it's being put in neighborhoods that are already built. And I simply don't think that that is right. That is all I have to say. Again, I thank you for listening to me.

Thank you, Ms. Ramzer. All right. Who is speaking in in rebuttal? You've heard the opposition's testimony. You have five minutes to address the concerns that were raised.

Before he starts, I had a question. Are there like violations?

Outstanding there's a existing case, which will be in part remedied by today's decision. Um, but yes, there's apparently a couple of citations were issued and they're working through a process with codes and regulations, but. Today's decision could help them come into compliance with that. If you were to approve the conditional use, they would also need to get the license, which seems to be what they were. Sighted over not having so that was the citation is. Basically operating without license or based on what Rachel and I saw, it was over not having the license, not not having the, but it would that would have been redundant this item over both.

Yeah, so that no property maintenance violations are not in the recent past that I see all of the violations appear to be with the shelter license and with the not having the conditional use permit.

Okay, so are you speaking in rebuttal to miss Ramser's concern?

There needs to be much of that, but I think we also did just pay some fines as the property owner. I believe my partner was the actual property owner paid some fines. So whatever fines are supposed to be paid, we're, of course, going to pay them. I mean, there's no question about that. Whether or not we would be approved. We have to pay them. You know, we've lots of property in Louisville and Lake Louisville. So. But no, I don't think so. We heard her complaints before and I understand she complains on each item. So there you go. Thank you very much for taking the time. I know you guys are busy. I'm sorry for the delays. I didn't I wasn't here the last delay. I was traveling and I couldn't get back. But okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. At this point, I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 26 CUP 0029, the transitional home on Robin Hood Lane. We did have two continuances. We're here today to hear more from the applicant. We have heard the applicant's testimony and had an opportunity to review the staff report.

Is there any discussion? If there's no discussion, is anyone ready to make a motion? Are there concerns or is there discussion that we need to have?

Just curious what member Horton's opinion was on the organization and, you know, methods and

Clinical stuff I've got mixed feelings. Okay. Um. I don't I don't understand exactly what they're going to be doing. They haven't very well explained that very well yet about, uh, I mean, we know. We know about curfews and we know, uh. Of course, on the other hand, they've got other locations that apparently are operating in those folks at least. probably being taken care of better than being on the street. I don't expect these kinds of things really to be medical clinics and so forth. They're not meant for that, but it appears that they're doing what they say they can do. So I'm inclined to lean that way.

Okay. This one seems like, you know, it's more oriented towards getting people back into society rather than a lot of the ones that we hear are just, you know, getting people stabilized and kind of off the street and into recovery.

Yeah. I have difficulty keeping up with exactly which one's doing what. And he said that three to six months, that seems pretty short to me, but that may be controlled by Medicaid or something. But if I understood correctly, none of the properties are operating with a license and a CUP. They're going through that on all of them. And I guess I'm always mystified how you can run a business and you don't know you need to do those things. Now, I don't know that that keeps us from making it right. They are here now. But we just see this over and over again that these type of homes are operating. What's the penalty?

Agree.

Let me ask staff this. Once you have a CUP, it's running as long as that's what you're operating, but does that license have to be renewed?

Yes, it's an annual renewal of the license and the CUP isn't guaranteed, right? We've had this come up recently where it wasn't exercised within two years. So if they don't get the license within two years, then the conditional use permits null and void because part of the condition Right is 1 of the conditions of approval that we place on it is that they must be in compliance with all other necessary licenses and permits from Louisville Metro. So it's not necessarily there in perpetuity. They still have to get the license in order for the conditional use permit to continue on the property.

And what is. What is checked or what's the standard they have to meet to get that license? I mean, do you just walk in and get a license or is there a process and getting that that you may be turned down? It can be somewhat arduous.

I'm not, we're not the authority on that to be able to say, but what. Uh, from from our knowledge, what holds people up the most is that as a part of that license, you must also get a change in use on your property because the building code, the building and the residential code regulate this type of use differently than just a normal residential home. And so oftentimes. The interior renovations and safety renovations that are necessary to get that change of use can be cost prohibitive or can take a long time to fulfill and they can't get that license until they get the change of use. So there's some building code compliance issues essentially at the heart of it.

Okay, but if if they take more than 2 years to do that, then the becomes null and void. Correct? Correct.

Or they would it can become null and void. Um. They would not be able to further exercise it without review from the board.

And member Lewis, I would also like to add this is Mark Pinto again, office of planning staff. I do have an additional condition of approval condition of approval number 4 that requires the applicant to submit the application or initiate the licensing process as required by chapter 115 with codes and regulations within 30 days. If the conditional use permit is approved. So, within 30 days of approval of the conditional use permit, they must initiate that licensing process with the Department of codes and regulations.

Okay, and then, but that can go on as long as necessary back to the safety and other things they've got to meet to actually get the license.

Correct.

Well, yeah, yeah, I would, I would argue that it could go on for 2 years because then by the point that 2 years has happened, then they haven't exercised it within 2 years because they're not in compliance with the conditions. So then, if they didn't have the process completed in 2 years, they would have to come back to the board to ask for your review to allow them to exercise it. But with this condition of approval, they got to start, they have to start the process in 30 days. Yeah. So there's kind of 2 timelines there start in 30 days, but completed within 2 years.

And if they don't start in 30 days. The, they have to come back for the borders that just null and void.

Well, it would be considered that they're out of compliance with the conditions. And so there will be null avoidance subject to revocation. So they would have to come back before the board. We could initiate a revocation and bring it before the board for you to make a determination on whether to revoke the permit because they're out of compliance with the conditions.

They shouldn't they should not be operating during all this time.

I know they should not be there. I mean, they're, they're not lawfully operating. I'll just say that.

So there may be safety concerns with that house that these people are in today, right? Because they haven't been through those building inspections and other things that are required.

I don't think that we're, I don't think that planning staff is really in a good position to answer that question. Um, I think that there's some questions about. whether the requirements may be a little too arduous from a building code perspective. And there's some conversations, not just here, but nationally on those building code requirements. And maybe they're a little bit too stringent. So I don't really feel we're in a position to be able to answer that question just because we don't interpret the residential and building code. But I'll just say that whether or not it's a safety issue, it's certainly not in compliance. Okay.

Well, it's good to know that the applicant is trying to address the concerns and seeking the conditional use permit. My concern is similar to one that was voiced by Member Lewis, and that is basically understanding the rules, understanding the requirements, and continuing to operate without a CUP. I thought we discussed that last time. I thought that was a subject that came up. All right. Any other discussion?

Well, I was going to say, when I look at it, they've been operating illegally, but are you can they or are they prepared to to offer what the transitional home is supposed to offer i'm not sure individually what those things are can you enlighten me a little bit about what they're supposed to provide according to a definition maybe a transitional home does what can you off the top of your head

yeah so we have a definition for transitional home in the land development code and that's what we're based off of it doesn't necessarily we don't necessarily we wouldn't get into the exact services that a transitional home should provide um and it's also on page one of the staff report under the technical review they've got the definition Yeah, there we go. That's a lot easier than me going to the code. Thanks Laura. So that yeah, so the definition here that's in the land development code and how we consider it a transitional home is a temporary residential living arrangement for persons participating in a program that provides supportive services, such as counseling, education, training, et cetera, to help them achieve personal independence staff is available as needed. And then it goes on to say that. a transitional home is not the same thing as a boarding home, rehabilitation home, et cetera. So it's a pretty broad definition for transitional home.

I just wanted to get that on the record here, too. I'm just not convinced that they can provide those things. I haven't heard here that they can actually provide those. Normally, what we see here is some folks that give the answers to these kinds of things. We're going to do this, which fulfills that. We have this. And then they have the persons to the clinicians to show that they're going to be counseling. and what their qualifications are to do that. And if they don't offer it there, how do they offer it offsite? I haven't heard anything about that regarding mental health and counseling. So I just don't think from what I've heard so far that they can fulfill the total responsibilities that go along with this.

I guess the question is, where does our obligation begin and end on that? Is that a land development code issue or is that a licensing issue as far as.

The services that are provided, it's really not a land development code issue. The definition of transitional home is really to determine the type of land use. Right? Because we would also consider things transitional homes. That may not be what we traditional seat traditionally see. We, we traditionally see recovery for drug and alcohol abuse or potential potentially coming out of. Uh, incarceration, but transitional homes can also be for youth in crisis or women in crisis or other types of things that we don't see. And that would still fall under that definition. And so the point of the definition in the land development code is to define the land use and the use of the land and to make a separation between. The level of service that's being provided, not necessarily the type of service that's being provided. For instance, transitional home could be staffed. It doesn't have to be a rehabilitation home under the definition requires 24 hour staff. And so that's a difference in the level of service, but not necessarily in the type and the detailing of the services that are provided.

I got two questions and the first one's probably for Mark. That condition of approval that requires the 30-day, do you use that for all transitional homes or do you use that because they're already operating illegally and you want them to, in good faith, move on with this?

Yeah, so that's not a historic sort of condition of approval that we've used routinely in the past, like numbers one and two, but That is a condition of approval that's on this conditional use permit and on a couple of their ones before I believe, um. To make sure that they do initiate that process because our office, um, we have encountered several, um, older conditional use permits that were granted, you know, 123 years ago, so on and so forth and they. Clearly have not. Even gone, like, initiated that process with the Department of codes and regulations and we saw 1 of those a couple of weeks ago that Amy Brooks was the case manager for that never initiated that process. So, therefore, the conditional use permit had not been exercised because in that 2 years, they hadn't started that licensing process to come into compliance. So.

Okay, 2nd question is the opposition we got to this in writing had to do with whether or not they would allow registered sex offenders on the property. And they, they testified they would not. But how is that. Enforced or is that not a land development code issue? It came to us as an opposition comment though.

Yeah, I mean, it's it's not a land development code issue. The land development code does not. Uh, make into consideration mostly because those laws are elsewhere, right? The land development code often doesn't step on the toes of other ordinances and laws that are in place. And so it's not a consideration for the land development code. You could always you're always able to add conditions if you feel that that is something that would be there, but it might be getting into a sticky situation with regulating the types of people that can be in a residential use.

It's going to enforce that. And how are you going to know?

And that's why I said, we don't get in the land development code again is about land use when it comes to other things that it. have uh you know a criminal background or history they may also say we're not going to accept people with a criminal background or history but there's also no way to enforce that right there because we just know there are other laws in place to take care of that

Well, maybe this question is for the attorney. So what's the weight of testimony? We just heard under oath that they would not have registered sex offenders or violent.

I mean, technically they're under oath. So, I mean, it could be perjury. It could be a violation. Right. But I think it's really dealt with more through the licensing than it is through the land use at the end of the day. Understood.

I think what my colleague Marilyn here said is an important part. And from my perspective, when I look at these things, it's not necessarily critiquing or looking at the quality of the service they're giving, but whether they can provide it. So we're not really looking at, as far as mental health is concerned, if they provide something for mental health, I think it feels as if that's in our purview.

we're not here to assess the quality of that yeah i mean what you're really here to look at i know we've strayed kind of far here i just want to be clear i mean what you're really here to consider is what's in the standard of review right is it consistent with the comprehensive plan is it compatible with surrounding land uses and then does it comply with the standards for this conditional use permit and that's really what is under consideration right so any you Any argument or evidence has to be based in that in that standard of review. And so if it meets, if you feel that it meets all the standards of the conditional use permit, and that it's compatible with surrounding land uses, and it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, then those are reasons for approval. Or if you don't believe those things, then those are reasons for denial.

And these other things are taken care of by licensing and other. Most of them, yes, entities correct. So, really. The, the 1 that we have to be comfortable with is F, which is the 30 feet, which is an existing condition. Yes, we see that.

Yeah, that is the only standard that they do not meet according to the staff report.

I think they, they testified that that they. Either provide transportation to or, um. have programs they don't have programs but they provide the ability for the residents to get to get to the kind of treatment that they need for whatever their issues are so i'm ready to make a motion unless please proceed please proceed um Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion on case number 26-CUP-0029. I make the motion that we approve the request for the conditional use permit based on the staff findings, the staff report that was given today. And the testimony we heard from the employees as well as our discussion.

2 things did you want to include relief from standard F based on the staff report?

Yeah. And then there's, we have 5 conditions of approval on page 7 of 7. and did you also want to include the testimony from April 20th? Uh, sure. Absolutely. We would like to include the testimony from, uh, April 20th, May, April 20th. Yeah. And, uh, what was the other one? Yes. Has has been satisfied their second second.

Right. It's been properly moved and seconded. to approve 26 CUP 0029. Roll call, please. Borden?

Are you still on the testimony? Yes. Yes.

Bosos? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

And Bond?

No. The CUP has been approved.

I don't know what you will take.

Next is 26 variance 0049.

Molly. Molly Scherer, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. This is 26 variance 49 at 737 and 739 South 27th Street. The request is from the land development code table 522 to allow principal structures to encroach into the side yard setbacks. Um, so the 1st variant, it would be 3 variances that I believe can be taken in 1 motion. Um, but the 1st 1 would be for the side yards that they would share. That would be where they share the property line. The requirement is 10 feet. The request would be for 0 feet for a 10 foot variance and then also a variance for each side yard. So, 1 of them would be a request of 7 and a half feet for 3 and a half foot variance and the other 1 would be about a quarter or a 3rd of a foot. For a variance site is located in the easy 1 enterprise zoning district and traditional workplace form district. The lots are approximately 2800 square feet each. They're 24 feet wide and the applicant is proposing to construct 2 dwelling units that are attached, but on separate parcels. Says a zoning map of the property, it's all easy 1 surrounding. And this is an aerial view of the property. This is a subject view of the property from South 17th Street. And then this is across the street at Dr. William H. Perry Elementary School's parking lot. This is the site plan the applicant provided, showing the two homes sharing a property line and then the elevations for the structure. Staff finds that the variances have been justified for approval based on staff's analysis and the standard of review, and the proposed dwellings will not adversely impact joining property owners, residents, or local infrastructure. The required action for today is to approve or deny the variance of land development code table 522 to allow principal structures to encroach into the side yard setbacks. Are there any questions for staff?

I got a question. So, Are these variances necessary basically just because these are very narrow lots? Do you know what the width of the lot?

Each lot is 24 feet wide and the requirement says that there needs to be 10 foot side yard set back on each side. So it only leaves 14 feet of buildable space for a structure. That's why the variance is requested.

Other questions?

Thank you.

All right. I don't have a speaker card for this case. Is Shannon Bright in the courtroom?

I believe my applicant is online. Mr. Taylor?

Mr. Taylor, can you hear me?

Yes.

All right. Are you able to turn your camera on?

Sure. Give me one second. I'm sorry. I was not prepared for that.

You're speaking for the applicant. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Yeah, I don't see how to turn my camera on.

Okay. All right. We'll take your, your testimony without that name and address please.

Name's Donald Taylor. Address is 6618 Orchard Club place representing min max construction.

Is that in Louisville?

Yes.

And your, your zip code 40291. All right. Would you raise your right hand please?

race where that do you swear that the testimony you're about to give today is the truth yes all right please proceed with your testimony regarding this case yeah our proposal i think we believe it further the neighborhood compatibility goes outlined by the office of planning and their staff report confirms that our variance does not disrupt the local character but rather kind of enhances the intent of the zone And we have worked closely with the plaintiff's staff to refine this application, and their support reflects a comprehensive review, ensuring that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief while fully protecting the surrounding properties. While the plaintiff has verified that our application meets all technical and policy criteria for support, we're just bringing this to the board today to demonstrate how we satisfy the legal findings required for your approval.

Okay members, any questions for Mr. Taylor? I don't believe there are any questions at this point, Mr. Taylor. Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

All right, I don't have anybody else signed up to speak on this case, so I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 26 variance 0049. Members, any discussion on the request

or the information, the case summary that was discussed.

There enough information for to proceed with emotion.

Yes, please make a motion. This is member of those with regard to case number 26 variance. 0, 0, 4, 9, location, 737, 739, South 17th street. I move that we approve the variance from land development code as written in the staff report. Um, specifically locations side yard, internal requirements, 10 feet. The request is 0 feet thus creating a variance of 10 feet. and then the side yard 737 external requirement 10 feet request of seven and a half feet creating a variance of 3.5 feet and the side yard 739 external the requirement is 10 feet and the request is 9.67 feet thus creating a variance of 0.33 feet and i based this on the staff report and testimony heard today is there a second second gordon

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variance. 0, 0, 4, 9 roll call please.

Yes, yes.

Louis, yes, yes. Yes, the variance has been approved. Next is 26 variance. 0, 0, 5, 5.

Abby bills off as a planning staff for 4, 4, 4, South history level, Kentucky, 402 to this is 26 variance 55 on Bards town road. This is a variance from section 5, 1, 12 to allow a parking lot to encroach in the front yard infill setback. The requirement is 51 feet and the request is 16 feet for a variance of 35 feet. The site is approximately half an acre zone to see 1 commercial in the town center form district. The applicant is proposing to construct a swig with 8 parking spaces. 6 of those spaces are going to be located in the front yard and they'll set back. There was also a waiver to allow parking in front of the building on this site. That was approved the May 6 meeting and on the adjacent site, there was a variance in waiver of the same request approved at the last meeting. This is a zoning map of the property.

This is an aerial view of the property. This is the subject property from Bardstown Road.

These are the adjacent properties across Bardstown Road. And then this is the site plan, and in yellow is the area of the variance. As you can see, there's six spaces located in the infill setback. The requested variance is adequately justified for approval based on the standard of review, as strict application of the regulation would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. So your required actions are to approve or deny the variance from LDC Section 512 to allow the parking lot to encroach in the front yard infill setback. Any questions for staff?

Don't believe so, Abby. Thank you.

Mr. Bernstein? Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Name and address please.

Seb Bernstein, 503 Washburn Avenue, Little Kentucky, 40222. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth. I do. Please proceed. Thank you. I'll proceed very quickly. Next slide please. As you can see, this is the site with an aerial that was taken during construction of the planted and approved commercial subdivision basically. Next slide. Um, so this is a more recent aerial, um, and it clearly shows our line. That was, uh, our lot that was just created by minor plan and was approved within the last. I want to say 2 weeks next slide. So, this is the entry that was existing prior to my client, uh, leasing the land or moving wanting to build on the property next slide. And so this circle shows a drainage structure that was built in conjunction with the overall subdivision. And that does become important if you see where the placement of that drainage structure is. Next slide. So, as you can see, this is our plan, both squares or rectangles are existing, but as you see, if you offset 24 feet and then 18 feet for a parking spot, that drainage structure was meant to be at the front of the parking spot. So it really was an existing condition that we walked into that would require us to ask for the variance we're here today for.

Next slide.

Um, this is the 16 feet. Uh, we can provide the required landscape buffer out front, which is 15 feet and it will be planted for regulations next slide. Um, just this is what the building will look like next slide. Next slide. And this is our category 2 plan, so it does fall within a category 2 plan because the actual structure itself is only 990 square feet. It's a very small structure. Very similar to the 7 Bruce you're seeing being built around town. Um, and it had so few parking spaces that the threshold for review was a category 2 plan without answering questions that you may have.

I have a question is there inside service or are those parking spaces just for the workers?

There is not there will be no inside service. This is completely a drive through use. You simply drive through order the drink and then pick it up on your way out. So it'll really just be the workers? It's really just the workers. I'm sure there'll be instances where somebody gets the wrong drink, possibly. I mean, I'm sure that's handled in the drive-thru lane, but it would give them an opportunity to park there or maybe they get a phone call before they go into the drive-thru lane like we all have. It at least provides some parking for people that are visiting the store.

Okay, thank you. Anything else, Mr. Bernstein?

Thank you. Thank you.

I don't have any other speaker cards related to this case, so I'll close the public hearing. We're in deliberations on 26 variance 0055, a variance related to the front yard infill setback. 51 feet is the requirement, 16 feet is the request. So that's variance of 35 feet. Any discussion or is there a motion?

I'll make a motion in the case of 26 variance, 0, 0, 5, 5, I make a motion that we approve this variance request based on the staff report and analysis and testimony we heard today.

Thank you. Is there a 2nd 2nd for it's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variance, 0, 0, 5, 5 roll call please. Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes, and bond.

Yes, the variance has been approved. Thank you. Next 26 variance. 0, 0, 5, 7.

Catherine Gomez office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, little Kentucky 402. 0, 2, I did receive receive a letter, um, public comment this over the weekend. So that wasn't included in prime. Gov. So you all should have a copy of that.

If you want to take a look. Thank you.

This is for 26 variance. 0, 0, 5, 7, Bowman warehouse at 2421 Bowman Avenue. This is for request a variance request from land development code table. 5.2. point to excuse me to allow a principal structure to encroach into the required side yard setback. This is for 2 of the side yard setbacks the North side yard setback for a requirement of 10 feet. The request is 5 feet for variance of 5 feet. And then again, on the southern side, the requirement is 10 feet. They're requesting 4 feet 4 inches for variance of 5 feet 8 inches. And this is a correction on the staff report. I think the staff report only has 1 side. Say it again. I'm sorry the staff report that was uploaded only had 1 of the requests. So this is a correction of that.

Yep.

Next slide please.

Okay.

This isn't in 1 zoning district in the traditional neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing a 6350 square foot warehouse. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure to construct the warehouse, which is encouraging within those side yard setbacks. Next slide please. It's all within the M2 and 1 industrial zoning area adjacent to residential along the 65. Next slide please. Yeah, so that's the existing structure on site. That's going to be demolished for the warehouse.

It seems like we have just connection issues.

Here's the front view of that property that's going to be demolished and then adjacent to it is just more industrial use on the next slide. I think you'll find. Industrial use on boom and Avenue and then I think the final shot is across the street of moment Avenue. So hopefully you get to see this.

Is that structure being used as a residence now or not?

I think the applicant can can say whether it is or not.

To spill your green paint looks like it.

Okay, there you go.

So this is south of Bowman Avenue. And then on the next slide, you'll find adjacent property north of Bowman Avenue. And then the final is across the street of Bowman Avenue. And then on the next slide, you'll see the site plan of the proposed warehouse. Those arrows are pointing to the side yard. Yep. And that's where the building is encouraging on both sides. staff finds the variance has been justified for approval based on staff's analysis the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity because of the industrial use within that general vicinity and the proposed variance will not adversely impact the joining owners your required action for today is to approve or deny the variance questions for staff was there yeah go back a couple

These are just side yard.

Excuse me. These are just side yard setbacks. Nothing in the rear or the front. Correct. I'm trying to put into context. Yes. This letter of opposition that we received, which says their address is 2428 Crittenden Drive. Would that be behind that property? Is there an aerial that shows that? I think that's the property right there. All right. I'm trying to figure out how these setbacks on the side on property located on Bowman Avenue affects a residence on Crittenden Drive.

Well, it looks like underneath it, it says Crittenden Drive. And then to the right of it, it also says Crittenden Drive. So it must be near where Bowman hits Crittenden Drive.

Okay.

2428 Crittenden Drive is the property to the south. It's a larger property that extends between Bowman and Crittenden. So it has a Crittenden address. Oh, so it is like the bottom. Yeah, it's the property to the south.

2428 is. So, it affects that property with. What is that the South side setback?

Correct. That is. They're asking for a variance of five feet, eight inches. Okay. Anything else for Catherine? Thank you. I have a speaker card for the applicant. Mr. all right Thank you.

Good afternoon name and address please. Good afternoon. Uh, name is David cool and address is 222 South 1st street unit, 210 Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. I'm the architect on this project representing the owner.

Thank you. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

so the uh the reason for variance is uh the owner did a performer on this project to look at the financial returns and uh recuperating costs to build this this warehouse and uh if it's under 5 000 square feet um there's there's an issue with recuperating costs and generate income this is meant to Meant as a rental property, so. We don't know who the tenants are at this point. So he's just going to he's moving forward with the project, build the warehouse and rent it out. So, if it's under 5,000 square feet. Listen, there's a lengthier time to recuperate. That the initial cost for what the building. Hence, we need the encroachment on the site setbacks. That's the reason for the variance.

How close to that south property line is the current structure on the property?

It's four feet, four inches.

The house is 4 feet 4 inches from the property. That's correct to the South, which basically you're asking for the same thing for the new building, right? Right.

Hey, any other questions for Mr.

So, what is the distance going to be from. The edge of the structure to that other structure that's on the South side. Do you know what that's distance is going to be?

The, the, the neighboring structure is about. Less than a foot to the property line. Oh, they're, they're, they're really close to the property line.

So the neighbor, so the structure on the South side is within 1 foot of the property line. Yes.

Well, well, well, so that's that's not good.

Sorry, I'm sorry. Thank you for that information. Sure.

Any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other speaker cards is anyone online to speak to this case.

No, 1 has indicated they want to speak. So, if you are online and you want to speak to this case, please let us know.

So, there's no 1 here to speak in opposition. My question is whether the applicant has had an opportunity to see the concerns because there's no 1 to speak in opposition. Therefore there would be no rebuttal.

Do you want to speak to that Kathy? Since I got the letter over the weekend, I haven't shown the applicant.

I can show him the letter now that I received and see if he wants to respond and rebuttal.

If there's no, it would have to be rebuttal to testimony, but he's still got.

13 minutes left. Yeah, but I was gonna say he could add it to his applicant testimony.

Yes, sure.

Okay. Yeah. But if we could share that, that would be, I think.

Appropriate question for staff is appropriate. Okay. Um, do applications like this automatically go through the review committee or or what? Like, the fire department, the utilities and so forth.

Yeah, so they don't as part of the variance process, but certainly when they go to pull a building permit, that will be considered it will be they'll have to meet all construction and fire safety standards separation between buildings and the fire safety issues concerned with that are part of the building code and will be considered when they have the permitting extra fire rating will likely be necessary. In addition to other fire safety components, it's not really in our purview. Ours is just the setback from the property line itself. But they have significant construction standards when buildings are close together.

So the concern about fire and so forth is being addressed through channels.

Correct. It's generally any kind of building or life safety concerns are addressed through the building permit process.

Okay. Thank you.

okay sir you've had an opportunity to review the letter all right so this is this is in addition to your testimony it's not a rebuttal right um well i just want to address the the neighbor neighbor's concern about the this variance so currently with the existing house structure sitting on there it's four four and a half four and a half feet from the property line, right? So we're asking to maintain that existing setback grandfather us in for that south side, right? Currently it's already four and a half feet from the property line. So we're not making changes to the current condition on the south side.

So I just want to point that out.

All right. So would there be any concern with, in your opinion, with safety or fire risks because of the proximity of the warehouse? I know there's already a structure there.

Well, the adjacent warehouse, it's a solid wall, solid masonry wall. There's no openings along that wall there. And so will the proposed structure. There are no openings, no window doors. So I don't see an issue. And it has to comply with fire safety code. Right.

It would have to go through the building code and get the building permit and address those concerns just because you grant the variance doesn't override the building code. It just lets them move forward with it in that location, but they're still going to have to comply with all those requirements.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Is that house currently being used as a residence?

No, it's vacant. All right. So the property owner,

mention there are people dumping trash and and leave debris on on the property so it's been an issue all right i believe that's all the questions okay thank you at this point i'll close the public hearing we'll move into deliberations on 26 variance zero zero five seven Members any? Any discussion or concerns? Or is anyone ready to move forward with emotion? And note that we do have a change to the staff report related to the north side yard setback. Catherine briefed us on that.

Requirements 10 feet, the request is five feet, resulting in a variance of five feet. Since our variances, so they can be taken together.

In the case of 28 variance, 0, 0, 5, 7, I will make a motion that we approve the variance from land development code table. 5.2.2 is. Discussed on both the North and South setbacks, and I'll base that on the staff report and analysis and testimony we've heard today.

Thank you. Is there a 2nd 2nd, it's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variance. 0, 0, 5, 7 roll call please. Yes, yes, Lewis.

Yes. Yes.

Yes, the variance has been approved. 25 modified CEP 0004.

Mark.

Mark Pinto, Office of Planning Staff.

This is 25 modified CEP 0004 for student housing success at 200 West Broadway. The request is a modified conditional use permit for argue to residential housing in the Broadway sub area of the South Broadway, or otherwise known as development district, which is a PD. It's a special zoning district with its own regulations as far as set back land use goes. So, this conditional use permit is directly out of that PD, the development. Plan was originally for an education institution with offices and a retail component that serves. Um, it's a non story building. So many of us are likely familiar with this building. It's on the corner of Broadway and South 2nd, it's got the Barnes and noble on the 1st floor and then the offices above it with that big parking garage connected to it. Um. The original conditional use permit under 24, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1 was to convert. Those existing office floors of the building on the corner into 62 dwelling units for student housing next slide. The modified conditional use permit does go a step farther. They're now going to convert the existing building to dorms. So instead of 62 dwelling units, it's going to be about 309. Dorms for the students and the main portion of the building at South 2nd and Broadway is to remain. And the existing parking garage that's connected to the back of it is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new parking garage on the 1st, few levels of it. And then on the top floor is going to be or top few floors. I believe the, um, the ground floor is retail. And then student housing, it makes up those top 3 floors of the parking garage. The applicant can specify or clarify if I made an error in that.

Sorry, Joe and Rachel and everybody here with us today for the technical delays. I'll give it a moment. Of course, I am prepared though. I can continue on without it.

Yeah, yeah, yes. Okay.

The next slide was a copy of the previously approved plan, which was, again, twenty four zero zero one one, but that plan essentially just showed the existing building and that's it. And the details on what they wanted to convert it to. There was no proposed construction and I'll wait for the proposed site plan to come up. So we can get a better look of that. No, I won't. We do have copies of the plan. Large format copies should I distribute them? Okay. This is a previously approved plan. And this is the proposed site plan. So, again, you can see that existing building on the corner of South 2nd and Broadway that's to remain and then the rear portion, which is that. Right now, the existing parking garage is going to be replaced with a new parking garage with retail on the 1st floor parking and then above the parking more student housing.

So.

And here is a zoning map of the overall area in the light orangish red color is the PD zone, which again is the sober plan development district and to the north of that and around is C3, which is the commercial zoning for downtown. And right across the street on 2nd, and Broadway, as many of us are familiar is the main campus where they've recently constructed a new parking garage with some new buildings. So. This should serve as an extension to that work that's already being done. Here is an aerial of the existing site conditions of the building highlighted in blue.

And here is the subject property looking from the corner of 2nd and Broadway.

And the next slides are the elevations, so.

Here is the East elevation facing South 2nd. So this would be as you're coming up towards Broadway, you see the retail shops on the bottom floor and then the parking garage and dorms above it. And here is the North elevation facing Broadway. So that existing building is to be preserved. Um, so that elevation shouldn't change too dramatically, except for what's on the inside.

And here is the South elevation.

And staff does find the modified conditional use permit is adequately justified for approval. It meets all of the standard of review for conditional use permit in chapter 11 of the land development code and the development plan itself meets all of the land development code. And so bro regulations, including for setbacks, building height, um, so on and so forth. There are no variances in waivers requested with this 1. So, are there any questions for staff? Or sorry, your required actions today are to approve or deny the modified conditional use permit. And also, there's a correction to the staff report condition of approval number 2. um. It says it mentions a accessory dwelling unit. This was just simply a copy and paste error on my part. It should say, um, the site should not be used for residential housing until further review and approval by the board. For that standard condition of approval number 2, that mentions the conditional use permit being exercised.

Okay, so, Mark, the original original was 62 dwelling units. Now there'll be 300 plus 309. what's what's driving this just an increase in student body population needing housing.

I'll leave that question to the applicant to answer since I believe that they are representing the client on this 1, but. 62 dwelling units. was the request before and that would essentially mean each unit is like an apartment where you have a multiple rooms and a bathroom and everything in this case more than one resident in each of the apartments yeah correct okay all right thank you thank you all all right i have three three speaker cards for those in support um

Mr. Sellers, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Wolf. Do all three of you?

Madam Chair, we also have the architect online if you want to swear her in as well.

All right. Mr. Hill in the courtroom?

Actually, Mr. Sellers.

All right.

But I have a speaker card for Mr. Hill.

Okay.

And Mr. Wolf's not here. We filled one out for him just in case he needed to be here.

Okay. All right. Name and address, please.

Good afternoon. It's Doug Sellers with Sayback Wilson and Lingo. Our address is 301 East Main Street, Suite 201, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. All right. You squared the testimony you're about to give today as the truth. I do. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm afraid to ask for my slideshow.

We're afraid for you to ask.

So we're requesting a modified conditional use permit for student housing at the corner of South 2nd Street and Broadway. Mark did a great job showing what's there now. I'm just gonna provide a little extra visibility for it. This is kind of a site plan showing our site plan or proposed site plan and also a colored version of what we're proposing as well as some data in the middle. You can kind of see the addition, the existing garage Is in the hatch on the left hand side, there's a, there's a darker hatch below the existing building. That's all coming down and we're going to be adding a. 2 level parking garage in place of that 1 level will be actually in the basement level. So it'll be below grade and then there will be a 5 story tower above sitting on top of that parking structure that will house the new proposed dorm rooms. as well as the modification to the existing building. So in the remodeled existing building and the new tower will be a total of 309 student dorms. These are some existing conditions of the site. West facade there in the upper left-hand corner. South facade looking from 2nd Street north. Southwest facade is actually from the parking lot that's kind of the southwest as well. And also the north facade showing from Broadway. The existing building again, the elevations that Mark showed earlier shows the different elevations. The front facade facing Broadway is pretty nondescript. It's not changing much. You can kind of see the addition on the rear, the lower right hand side of that upper. Is where the, the access to the garage will be and it'll be interest interest drive will be off of Broadway. For the parking garage. This is kind of a before and after, the east facade currently, and then the proposed addition to the south of the building afterwards. Again, east facade, this kind of shows a little bit better example of what the building's gonna look like, the tower that'll be proposed. It will have a courtyard kind of in the center on the top of the, on the third level that'll be for students to kind of hang out and have some outside space. Next slide. Another example also showing how the courtyards laid out, how the dorms will be surrounding that courtyard and it'll be attached to the existing building. Next slide. And again, this is just another example of it. Any questions?

No questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. wolf.

Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Um, we have the architect on online ma'am. Do you wish to speak?

Yeah, I can speak to it for a moment.

Okay. All right name and address please.

Julia, um, 4641 South 14 away. In Salt Lake City, Utah, thank you.

Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? Yes, I do. All right. What would you like to share with the board, Beth, project?

I think most of the project's been kind of described pretty well. I just wanted to clarify a couple things. The original conditional use permit was for apartments, as was noted. So those were three and four bedroom units. Okay. So they had 62, so it was somewhere around 250 or so beds. This based on a market study that was done to the students of the preference was for more dorm style as opposed to apartment style. And so that's partially where that change came from was to remove the kitchens. The preference was for predominantly singles. So individual rooms. So that's what's being provided singles and a handful of doubles. based on the price point that the students wanted to pay. Additionally, the biggest reason that this change was happening, so the building that is facing Broadway The lower 4 stories will remain offices. Those are support functions that support and will support the students. That'll be in the building. The upper levels in that tower are being converted into dorms. And then originally there were 2 stories of offices on that parking structure, the existing parking structure that were being converted as we got into the design and started looking at that parking structure. There's a lot of deficiencies within that parking structure that made kind of further investment. concerning to the owner and so that's why the decision was made to replace it with new construction and part of that was is additional costs obviously that go into that which is how the the number of beds was increased but still within the capacity needs for what jctc is looking for okay questions

I think that it's a good use of the space. And you answered the question with the market study that was done. It's interesting that the students preferred dorm housing versus apartment living. So I don't believe there are any other questions at this point. We do have, is that the only speaker card? Okay. All right. At this point, I'll close the public hearing. We're in deliberations on 25 modified CUP 0004.

Discussion or is there a motion?

Madam Chair, please. Motion? Yes, and there are two conditions of approval on page 5 of 5.

And that second condition will be modified as yes, read by staff.

Yes, please proceed.

regarding excuse me regarding case number 25 m cup0004 make a motion to approve based on the staff findings and the standard of review and the staff analysis including the two conditions of approval item three and noting on item number two The change regarding the need to come back to, um, to come back for any kind of changes regarding residents.

2nd, thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 25 modified 0, 0, 0, 0, 4 roll call. Please.

Yes, yes. Yes, Louis. Yes. Bond. Yes.

The modified CUP has been approved. Thank you. Yes, we're going to take a 10 minute break.

He said insurance and people require back down now to 2 months.

So you got to.

All right, we're resuming the public hearing.

All right, thank you very much. We're here for 26 M. C. P. 0, 0, 0, 4, the Richmond drive parking lot at 1971 Richmond drive. My name is Zach Jones 4, 4, 4, South history. Uh, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2, I'm not sure if I said that already again is for an off street parking lot per 4.2.39 in the R5 single family zoning district. Uh, this is in again that our 5 district traditional neighborhood form. It's on roughly a quarter acre. There is an off street parking area that was originally approved in connection with the church across the alley, which is now the restaurant mixed use building. No, that was done in 1987 back when it was the church. It's been last modified in 2016. we're updating it here. Uh, the. Request is to reduce that off street parking area to subdivide the lot that is proposed to face Richmond, which you'll see in a moment into a residential building lot. Transportation have preliminarily approved the proposal and this minor plat in association with this request would go to on June 3rd, which is in 2 days for the creation of a substandard lot. The proposed plans here, you can see that residential tract fronting Richmond drive and then the reduced parking area. It's kind of shaded out, but you can see where the parking spaces were, or still are on that residential building tract fronting Richmond. But those will all be reduced. Next slide. I'll go through the pictures kind of quick because I know Nick's got them in his presentation too, but you can see the zoning here next slide. There's an aerial of the property next slide and then you've got the subject property. It's behind this little wooded area. That was part of the original approval back in the 80s. This is the rear of that parking lot from Kenilworth alley. And then the adjacent property just Southwest. The across the street, uh, looking down Richmond drive away from Bart's town road. This is back looking towards parts town road from that alley. You can see the parking lot to the right note to the left. And then this is from Bart's town road. You can see and, uh, the other business. So the modified conditional use is adequately justified and complies with the standards of the comprehensive plan. The development plan does meet the requirements of the LDC. No waivers or variances are part of this request. And your required actions are to approve or deny that off-street parking area, again, per LDC 4.2.39. That's all I've got for the staff report, unless you all have questions.

I don't believe there are any at this point. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, Nick, Barger for tablet and Roberts 1000 North Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky for 223. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today as the church please proceed and I have a short presentation and as Zach mentioned, it'll go through fairly quickly because it's there's some slides that are very similar to what was just shown. But this is. a request basically to better utilize a property that is a vacant property today that has been used for parking, but to allow the creation of a new buildable lot, a residential home lot, Uh, to do so, we would need to reduce the parking, the parking that are approved by roughly half, which I'll show. And, as mentioned, this is for a minor subdivision plot. That'll be at here this Wednesday. This shows the property where it is. It is owned our 5 straight next to right off of Bart's town road and a restaurant there. And then if you go to the next, so this is a slide, this was back from 2016, but this is when that church, the Calvary Lutheran Church was for sale. It even has a sign in the picture here, but when the property was sold, our client had acquired the property and converted it to apartments and then to a restaurant. But part of that, the, the church had a conditional permit for off street parking and that remained with it. If you go to the next. Next slide this shows the where the property is and in relation to both those apartments and as well as the restaurant there. And if you go to the next image, I'll show then, so the portion of the property that we'd be abandoning would be the portion that's fronts on Richmond drive. Uh, the purpose being to allow the, uh. That lot to become a buildable lot for a home to front on Richmond and then the part that's in yellow would be the part that would remain for the conditional use permit. So we're essentially requesting to modify to abandon half of it, or approximately half of our conditions permit. If we go to the next slide, this was our original approved development plan that showed those 25 spaces. And if you go to the next image, and this just shows the modified plan with 11 spaces, and then the portion on the right would be the area that would be modified to be eliminated with it. You can see on the left here, there is a proposed dumpster and a proposed dumpster enclosure that would be constructed with this as well. If you go to the next slide, so here's a view of Richmond. This is the portion of the site that would be. The residual track that would be for home construction, just as you can see on the home to the left and right there. If you go to the next slide, and then this is a view looking from Barstown road down the alley towards the site. And if you go next image, this is looking the other direction to the left of this image. There's Barstown row, but this just shows that. Existing parking area as it is today, then another image further and then this is again that parking area that the. Portion that is in the distance right past that gate. That's the portion that would be eliminated. So the portion is closer in on this picture would be the part that would remain. And the further out would be the part that we're requesting to eliminate. And then here there would be a proposed fence between them. And then if you go to the next one, there are some additional conditions that we are in agreement with, but just provide protections regarding future use of the lot. And with that, I can take any questions you have Mike Hill is here with me. From land design development for technical questions, but again, this is just a request to reduce or modify the conditions permit to reduce the, the area.

Doesn't look like there are any questions at this point. Thank you. All right. I have a card for an opposition speaker. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Name and address, please. My name is Herbert Delegal. I live at 1958 Roanoke Avenue, Louisville, 40205.

Sir, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? I do. Please proceed.

I live three doors from that restaurant, Noche, that used to be Calvary Lutheran Church. I've lived there for 46 years, 46 and a half years. And I've seen many things happen there, and many of them not very good. But I'll just mention the restaurant, first of all. I don't know how the restaurant was even approved for zoning because of the lack of parking that they have. That church building has 11 apartments in it and that part that you saw of the parking lot that's fenced off, that's for supposedly for the residents who live there and they're the only ones that have access to that area. those 11 parking places for noche restaurant is totally inadequate for that restaurant and if you try to park on roanoke avenue anytime that that restaurant is open you have to go very far down the street whether you're a resident or a diner The parking is totally inadequate, even though there is parking on Bards town road now that they've changed the, the traffic pattern there. But if you add more apartments to that. To that plot. Without parking for them, and then you're taking away all the parking for the residents in that apartment building and not adding any more for the restaurant. You could you could use those whole there's 2 lots there. There were 2 houses there at 1 time that the church owned and rented out. and tore down so that they'd have more parking. The church needed more parking and the church didn't need nearly as much parking as the restaurant needs now. I'm totally against any kind of building on that lot unless they change the restaurant to something that does not require so much parking. Besides the parking, the restaurant also has deliveries every several times a week in which they block the alley completely. Nobody can get in or out because the only other exit to the alley is a quarter mile down the street. And I've even seen the garbage trucks come down the alley and a semi parked in the alley have to back up across Barts town road to to leave. It's been a really terrible situation there for all the residents, the whole area. It seems like a nice restaurant, but it's too busy for that area and the parking is totally inadequate.

Thank you. Any questions? Members? Thank you. We have anyone online to speak? No.

All right. So, Mr. Pregliasco, you get five minutes for rebuttal.

I'll be a lot shorter than that. A couple of things I didn't mention 1 is when we started this process of the minor subdivision plot. There's a lot of question about whether we needed to be here today to modify the conditions from it. The reason being is, is there is we have eliminated our parking minimums for. Uh, this form district, uh, for this property, so there, there was no parking requirements for that whatsoever. So, you know, in our code, we don't require these parking spaces, but we're not proposing to eliminate all of them. We're just proposing to eliminate a portion of them. Um, and that, um, and with that, the comment, as far as apartments, uh, the portion of the property that would be. Removed before a single family residence, it is own single family. So it could not be there could not be a multi family building construct on there without going through a full rezoning. So what their quest today is just to eliminate. Part of the parking and as shown on the plan, we still retain the rest of it as, as indicated. Will they take any questions that you may have.

No questions. Thank you.

I'll close the public hearing. We are in deliberations on 26. Modified CUP 0004.

The Richmond Drive parking lot.

Any discussion?

So when this CUP was originally granted, there was a requirement for parking certain number of spaces and now there's not. Is that true? Yeah.

Uh, when they originally had the church, there was a certain amount that was required. In addition to that, the church had a certain amount extra in cooperation with the community. They wanted to provide some parking, recognizing that there were some parking issues on Bards town road. Um, so I think it was even in surplus to that at the time in 87, but since. 2016, when this modified last came the parking. Minimums for this building that we're talking about have gone away because of the age of the building and the form district like Mr. said.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions any discussion.

Is there a motion.

I'll make a motion in 26 mcu P 0 0 0 4 that we approve the modified conditional use permit request or the off street parking area in the R 5 single family residential zoning district. And I'll base that on the staff report and analysis and the testimony we heard today as well as the 4 conditions of approval on page 7 of 7 there second.

Second. Board.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 modified CUP for roll call, please.

Horton. Yes. Bozos. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Ford.

Yes. Bond. Yes. The CUP has been approved. Next is number nine on the agenda. 26 CUP 610061.

Caitlin Deaver office of planning staff for for for South history level Kentucky for 0202. this is 26 C. P. 0, 0, 6, 1 at 1203 avenue. Next the request today is a conditional use permit to allow licensed healthcare provider office in a residential R5 zoning district with reliefs from items a, and be a waiver from section 10 to 4 to eliminate the required 35 foot property perimeter landscape buffer area at the Eastern property line. A waiver from land development code section 10 to 8 to reduce the required street trees from 11 to 5 type C trees on the Preston highway frontage and a waiver from land development code section 10 to 10 to eliminate the required 5 foot at the Eastern property line. The subject sites approximately point 47 acres owned our 5 single family residential in the neighborhood form district. It's at the intersection of avenue and Preston highway. It's currently developed with a 1600 square foot. Residential structure with some accessory structures and driveway access from the route Avenue. The applicant is requesting the CP to allow a professional mental health therapy practice staffed by 4 employees within the existing structure. And there's no exterior site construction proposed at this time. Next slide series, the zoning map is predominantly are 5 there to the East and then see 1 along the Preston, how a commercial corridor. Next slide. Here is the aerial photograph showing existing site conditions. Next slide. Here's the subject property from LaRue Avenue. Next slide. Here's the view from Preston Highway of the subject property. Next slide. These are the adjacent properties to the east on LaRue. Next slide. Across LaRue to the south. Next slide. And across Preston Highway to the west. Next slide. And this is to the north at the corner of Union Avenue and Preston Highway. Next slide. Here is the proposed site plan. So, again, there's no new site construction proposed at this time that Eastern property perimeter landscape buffer area on the right hand side of the property on the plan, right? That's what's being waived due to an existing utility easement encroachment in that area and also the existing location of the home and the parking that's in the back. And then again, there's a waiver on Preston highway to reduce those street trees also again to utility locations, and they cannot provide that 5 foot view a LBA on that Eastern property line for that same reason for that easement. Next slide. So, staff finds transportation given preliminary approval of the plan, the extent of the waivers are the minimum necessary to afford relief due to again, the existing site conditions and the utility locations, the waivers for screening at the Eastern property line are partially mitigated by the proposed hours of operation, which will negate the impacts of any headlines from cars parked in the back. The requested waivers and relief from items a, and B are adequately justified based on staff's analysis contained in the standard of review and the proposal otherwise appears to me all of the standards of the conditional use permit. Next slide. So your required actions today are to approve or deny the three waivers and approve or deny the conditional use permit. Do you have any questions for staff?

Thank you.

I don't have any speaker cards related to this case. Is the applicant in the courtroom? Do you wish to speak? It's up to you.

Good afternoon. Hi, I'm Catherine Fisher. Okay, name and address. 2724 Lamont Road, Louisville, 40205.

All right. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

Yes.

All right. Yes.

Hi, I'm Stephanie Kennard, 2724 Lamont, Louisville, Kentucky, 40205.

Are you testifying? All right. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? All right. Ma'am, do you want to start?

Um, yeah, so we are the Co owners, um, we have been in private practice for about 6 years. So, um, our goal here is to transition our current private practice, which we rent over on popular level a mile down the road to Preston. Um. As she had stated, like, there's no, we intend on maintaining the structure. It's going to look like a house. That is the idea. We don't want anyone to know that there's a business being operated there for the simple fact that it's a therapeutic environment. So supposed to feel like home. So there's not going to be a lot of signage. It's just the 2 of us. So we maintain basically got a part time caseload. So we don't have a lot of foot traffic. As it stands now, you know, we're, we only operate during normal business hours. And I would say, really, we operate about half of that because we don't work full time all the time. I think that's pretty much it. We just wanted to be available if you all had any questions or anything.

There's adequate parking for your. Yes, there is. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Yes.

All right. And you said your hours of operation are less than.

What Caitlin breathed. Nine to five-ish. And sometimes, you know, we will see a client at night if there's like a reason, you know, teachers, people work, everybody can't get to therapy during the day or on the weekends. You know, there are some times where clients are in crisis and we need to be able to respond to that and see them in the practice. We also operate, it's mixed. So we see some people telehealth too. So there's a vast majority or not vast majority. There's a lot of time where we're seeing people just telehealth. So they're not actually on the property.

Okay.

But if you're gonna have occasional outside of that maybe we need to address that because right now the condition of approval says Monday through Friday 9 6 I think it would be best to Yeah, add something to that condition of approval just so that they aren't at risk of any enforcement in the future.

Yeah Me and Joe work on that All right, so we may have to modify a condition of approval that currently states that

Operation until 6, because if you're occasionally going to have somebody later than 6, or occasionally have somebody on the weekend, we need to build that in because otherwise you're going to do that. And then somebody might complain and then we're going to say, well, you're. Sure, contrary to what it says. Yeah. So do you have an idea of what those outside kind of look like?

I think that the latest that it would be on an evening would be like, 7, we would wrap up at 7. so if we put 8, we'd cover you.

Yeah.

Yeah, for sure. And that's still Monday through Friday. Yes, still Monday through Friday. And as far as a weekend is concerned, I'm typically the only one that ever sees anybody on a weekend. And it would be like on a Saturday, we would be done by two o'clock.

If so, maybe something like Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Yeah, I think that would be more than adequate.

That's a question. Sure. Of course.

You said you were going to maintain this structure to look like a house. Yes. Is one of you going to live in it or is it simply the office?

No, no one is going to live in it.

So it won't be occupied unless you're actually seeing clients there. Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Ma'am, did you have anything you wanted to add?

No. Okay.

Okay. All right, so we're crafting a new condition of approval.

Okay, great.

Might take us just a minute. Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Oh, and we will need have you had the opportunity to fill out a speaker's form? Okay. All right.

I got a question for Caitlin. I think I understand this, but all these waivers, et cetera are existing conditions. Is that right?

Yes. Yeah. So in that Eastern property line, there is a 10 foot utility easement and the existing location of the structure. And as well as the parking would make the 35 foot property printer landscape buffer, you know, extremely difficult or impossible to meet there. And then again, there's existing utility locations on the present highway frontage that necessitate the reduction in the street trees.

Okay, thank you. We just wanted to circle back on this operation thing. Yeah, I think where we talk about it.

Yeah, I think staff's recommendation actually, our recommendation would just be to remove the condition entirely because we don't feel that the hours of operation is a necessary condition to place it. It's currently a single family home and. Cars could come and go from a single family home with headlights at any time. Right? So it's not creating a larger impact if that's if that's the primary reason for the hours of operation is to provide mitigation for the landscape buffering stuff. Doesn't feel the impact is large enough to warrant those hours of operation. However, if you're still concerned about. Um, you know, there being an impact of. Clients on site at different times of day, another option could potentially be to limit the number of clients on site at any given time. And that may help lessen the impact as well. But overall staff just recommends we're moving.

Given the type of operation, I can't imagine they're going to have multiple.

Well, and if they were going to expand the building or expand the parking, then that would come back for some other review and you could review it then.

And it's right against Breslin Highway.

It's not like it's buried back in the neighborhood. Right. And I think with there only being two licensed providers, I can't imagine there being more cars on the site than there would be if it was just a regular home.

So the only modification to the staff report is to eliminate.

That would be our recommendation if that's what the board wants to do.

Okay. All right. That makes sense. Okay.

I'm sure a question.

Yes.

Thank you. Do you all either have or are you taking any dual diagnosis clients?

No, we well, so a lot of people that you treat for anxiety or depression as a primary diagnosis, some of them do present with substance abuse issues, but we do not treat substance abuse as a primary diagnosis. We also do not treat serious mental illness. So your clients with schizophrenia that require a lot of medications, we don't have a psych provider. So we don't see people that are really medication heavy that can't be managed outside of their own primary care physician.

Do any group zipper don't do any group?

We do not. Not right now. Honestly, the space doesn't allow for it in its current condition. So if we were to get to a place where we wanted to have groups, we would be back here talking about expanding parking. Because it's just not, it's not plausible given this current shape.

I retired when we have to use the DSM three.

Oh, okay. All right. Among friends.

Thank you.

Yes. All right. Um, I believe that's all the questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. I don't have any other speaker cards, so I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 26 61.

any now it's two conditions of approval you'll need relief from items a and b but that's justified in the staff report and then you can take the three waivers together in one motion thank you is there a motion i'll make a motion in the case of 26 cup0061 i move that we approve the conditional use permit to allow licensed healthcare provider office in this residential zoning district. And the staff report addresses the relief from items A and B and the change to the conditional conditions of approval to eliminate number three. So there will only be two conditions of approval. for the CUP, and I base that on the staff report analysis and testimony we've heard today.

Is there a second? Second. Horton. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the conditional use permit as stated. Roll call, please.

Horton.

Yes.

Lewis. Yes. Bozos.

Yes.

Ford.

Yes. Bond. Yes. Is there a motion on the waivers?

In the case of 26 CUP0061, I move that we approve the three waivers, which are listed as waiver number one, number two, and number three, all under 26 waiver 0050. Again, based on the staff report and analysis and testimony we've heard today.

Is there a second? Second, Horton. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the three waivers as appears in the staff report. We're ready to vote.

Horton.

Yes.

Bozos. Board.

Yes.

Lewis. Yes. Bond.

Yes. The waivers have been approved and the conditional use permit has also been approved. Thank you. Number 10 on the agenda.

26 cup 0055 short term rental hello rachel casey office of planning staff 444 south 5th street 40202 our first one here is 26 cup 0055 for short-term rental Located at 3184 South 3rd street.

And talk really slow and maybe it'll work. I don't know. It might speed up who knows.

As we said, it's conditional use permit to allow the short term rental of a dwelling unit. That is not the primary residents of the owner. This property is in our 7 multifamily residential zoning in the traditional neighborhood form districts. It is currently developed with a duplex residential structure with vehicular access from the rear on Oakdale Avenue. The applicant intends to rent the home as a single unit with 5 bedrooms for a maximum of 12 guests. So it's currently a duplex. Um. An applicant can speak further to it for now. The units will stay separate, but the only they may be combined in the future into 1 unit, but the only. They only intend to rent under 1 contract, and that contract would have up to 5 bedrooms and that would be the maximum that the single contract would ever have on it.

So 1 contract that both it could be both.

It could be structures together under 1. Contract we had the discussion about whether to have the conditional use permit for the duplex so that he could rent them under separate contracts. But the applicant, that's not the path that he wanted to take. He wanted to just have the single contract with 5 with the possibility of up to 5 bedrooms for up to a maximum of 12 guests. Here's the zoning district are 7 located on 3rd street that is Churchill downs just over to the West. You'll see better on the aerial image when it comes up the backside of Churchill downs and you can see there's the front of the property fronts 3rd street and then there's vehicular access off of Oakdale Avenue kind of acts like an alley on that side.

And there's a.

At least 4 off street parking spaces provided in that rear area. This is the front of the property from 3rd street.

Blue building.

This is the rear from Oakdale Avenue, so you can see the parking area that's available. There, and then there's also on street parking on 3rd street. This is adjacent on 3rd street, so this is to the right if you're looking at the building. Further north of 3rd street.

And then this is to the South on 3rd street, it's a little park at the intersection. And this is across 3rd street, just in more homes.

Okay, so staff finds it's sufficiently justified for approval. There are no short term rentals approved by within 600 feet of the subject property. It has sufficient onsite parking and it meets all of the applicable standards of the conditional use permit. So your required actions are just to approve or deny the conditional use permit for short term rental of a dwelling unit. That is not the primary residents of the owner.

Any questions. I don't believe so. Third Street is a minor arterial.

It is a minor arterial roadway.

This is a duplex, so there's two entrances that face 3rd Street?

I think the applicant can answer that question. I'm not sure how the building is arranged, actually. The information I have is that it's a duplex. I'm not sure if it's two exterior entrances or interior entrances.

But they would rent it as a whole or as a half, but not?

But not not not 2 at the same time. Correct. So they may he may do, um, he can speak to the number of bedrooms. I believe there's like 3 bedrooms in 1 unit 2 and another. So he may do 3 bedrooms in 1 unit while the other 1 has a long term rental or something or then also the possibility to rent. The entire thing is 1. But he could do that under 1 contract as long as he was for up to 5 bedrooms.

Okay, thank you. So basically 1.

one property uh so there's no 600 foot issue associated with there's no 600 foot issue associated with this one uh when we get to the next one we can have a discussion okay all right thank you okay um i don't have any any speaker cards associated with this case Good afternoon. Hi. Name and address, please.

Daniel Bowling, 3608 Graham Road, 40207.

Do you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

I do. Please proceed.

Um, what would you like to share with the board? Oh, I was, I thought there were questions that I heard 1 there. Maybe there may be the side entrance. Uh, there is, uh, the duplex upstairs is a, uh, you enter from the side. And there's 2 entrances to the 1st floor 1 on 3rd street 1 on Oakdale. and it's in the middle of being remodeled right now. There's a tenant upstairs currently in the unit upstairs and the first floor's been gutted and is in the middle of renovation right now.

Okay.

Is this your, would this be your first short terminal?

Yes. So do you have, how many bedrooms will be on the first floor and second floor?

One on the first floor, four on the first floor. We have an option actually to put two down and three up, but right now it's one and four.

One and four, okay. Is there an inside entrance with these units or would they only be outside?

Outside entrances only.

And how would the property be managed? Are you managing the property?

I am right now, but if I. If if when it's utilized for short term rental, I'll, I'll be hiring a management company who does that.

Do you have other short term rentals?

No.

And how did the neighborhood meeting go on this?

No, 1 showed. Oh, it went pretty smoothly.

okay um if you had an opportunity to review the staff report and are you familiar with conditions of approval the requirement to register the property yes i think 30 days yes yes then there's annual registration as well all right members any questions for mr bowling any other questions So if there were to be an emergency situation, are you relatively close to where the property is located? Could you get there within 20, 25 minutes? Yes.

Okay.

All right. Would you be willing to share your contact information with adjacent, with neighbors if there were to be an issue?

Sure.

Okay. All right. That's all the questions that I have. I don't think there are any others. Thank you.

Thank you.