Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

I'm gonna read the opening statement. This is the regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Development Review Committee to hear the cases as documented for the meeting today. Public notice notice has been provided, and materials have been available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's meeting. Number one, please silence all cell phones.

Number two, please be courteous and respectful to the committee and your fellow citizens. Number three, for those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and are 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. Number four, today's proceedings are being recorded.

Anyone wishing to address the committee must do so from the podium or virtually. If you plan on speaking, please fill out the speaker form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priority shall be given to the speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed speaker forms will be allowed to speak.

Procedures shall be as follows. Number one, the staff will present the summary of the request. Number two, the applicant or his representative will make a statement or presentation given reasons for the request. Number three, other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. Number four, the opposition, representative will be heard.

Number five, those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. Number six, the applicant or the representative will have the opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during the rebuttal. Number seven, if there are further questions by the opposition after the rebuttal, please fill out the form provided. A unanimous vote of this committee constitutes final action on most cases.

However, if the vote is not unanimous or if it's otherwise required or recommended, the case will be placed on the regular agenda, the next planning commission for further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions of the applicant, representative, or the opposition at any time. Could I have a roll call, please?

Leonard?

Present.

Mims?

Here.

Stuber? Here. Steph? Here. Fischer?

Here. Okay. First thing on our agenda is the minutes from five 06:26. Committee members, have you read them, and any questions and or motions?

I'd like to

make a motion that we accept the minutes from five 06:20 twenty six.

Second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Leonard?

Yes. Mims? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Fischer?

Yes. Under new business, number 226-0005. Case manager, Sydney Faucette.

Yep. Sydney Faucette, office of planning staff. 444 South Street, 40202. This is 265. The request today is a second extension of expiration. The original plan was a change in zoning with an associated development plan. It was approved on 06/23/2022 with an expiration date of 06/23/2024. The first extension was approved at staff level, extending the expiration date to 06/23/2026. The applicant has requested the second extension because a tenant has not been acquired for that approved development. And then if this was approved, the new expiration date would be 06/23/2028.

This is the zoning map of the subject property. It's zoned PEC. And then this is just an aerial of that subject site. This is a portion of the subject property if you're looking at it along Dupin Drive. And this is just another portion of the subject property along Minor Lane. These are some of the residential properties across Dupin Drive.

And then, again, some more residential properties across Minor Lane.

This was the originally approved development plan. Again, it was for an officewarehouse. Staff does find that the proposal provides good cause as to why the actions were not reasonably completed within the allotted time. And then your required action today is to approve or deny the second extension of expiration. Any questions for staff?

Yeah. Just one. Mean, typically, extensions, the only thing that really comes into play, has there been some change in the comp plan or so forth that would negate or want us to rethink this extension? And I'm not aware of anything.

Yeah. Not that I'm aware. Again, the only reason they just because of the size of the development, they've not been able to find a tenant that just needs that kind of space.

Yeah. And my other job, can say that I did meet with David Nicklies, and I know he was actively working on this because we were talking about sidewalks and drainage and so forth. But, you know, million square foot building, that's a pretty Mhmm. Sizable undertaking. So I don't I certainly don't have any objections to this extension.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you,

sir. Speaking

for the applicant, I guess, John Campbell.

Good afternoon. I did prepare a

name

and Oh, yes. Thank you, Sydney, for your presentation. I'm John Campbell with Heritage Engineering, 642 South 4th Street, Suite 100, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Also with me today is Grant Nicklies with Nicklies Development, and Grant is available to answer any questions you may have. Next slide, please.

This is a photo of the site. It is a part of a much larger development. The building you see there to the south of the highlighted area is Logistics Air Park 1, which Nick Lee has completed several years ago. This was Nick or Logistics Air Park 2, which is intended to be the second phase. This is in the intersection with the Outer Loop and Interstate 64.

Next slide. Just a brief summary of that original development plan. As part of that approval, the property was entirely zoned and or rezoned into a PEC planned employment center, and it is located in a suburban workplace form district. As noted, and mister Mims, are accurate, it is a million square foot building, which is unique in having that building and trying to position that building. Next slide.

This was just that aerial photo of the site plan that Sydney had shown. That's the building you see there in the middle of the screen. While the property to the west or left side is Interstate 64, and then along the right side to the east is Minor Lane. Primary access to the property is extended through Logistics Airpark 1 to the bottom of the page or to the south of the page. And that private roadway there, Elizabeth Brook Drive, actually connects down to Minor Lane in closer proximity to the outer loop, minimizing any impacts to those neighbors.

Next slide, please. So just to provide a little bit more context of an update, and and mister Mims, you are accurate, David, has worked on this as well as Grant. But while they have not started actual construction on-site, following that original development plan, they have and continue to work to advance the project. As part of those efforts, they have, at cost, started architectural design that is not active at this point. We're waiting for that tenant to really finish up those plans, but they have started that in the past.

They did prepare and obtain construction plan approval. They we prepared and they obtained landscape plan approval, and they've also obtained approval of that waterline plan. I mentioned all of this because we feel it demonstrates a commitment to the project as envisioned and allows them to continue to market the this project for a tenant who requires such a large facility under one roof. The last item there, just granting the extension will allow for this project to move forward without delay at that time as soon as a tenant requiring this type of space or building is confirmed. So for those reasons and and their continued commitment to the project, we're asking for this two year extension to give them more time to continue to market the property and obtain that that tenant or that user.

We'll be happy to answer any specific questions you may have.

Any questions for John? Yeah. For the record, you made a reference to I 64. That should be I 65.

Thank you.

And just out of curiosity, you showed two retention ponds there. Have those been constructed yet with the first phase, or is that just on record?

So those are actually former borrow pits when Interstate 65 and Outer Loop was constructed. They do contain water in them today. As part of this development, there will be some reworking of those detention lakes, pond areas, but they will have water in them. They have water today, and they will have water

Okay. I remember seeing the woman I went by. Yeah. Drove drive by it all the time, and I was just I saw it on the plan. I just wondered if y'all had kept those.

And they are functioning for the first phase of this. And then as this project is built out, those two lake areas will provide that detention for, both projects.

Okay. Thank you. I don't see no problem giving.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you, John. Is there anyone online or anyone else that is speaking for this project? Okay. I do have Rebecca Park has indicated she wanted to speak. Rebecca Park here.

K.

Rebecca, can you hear us?

Rebecca, you should be able to unmute yourself and start your video now.

Rebecca, can you hear us?

Oh, there it goes. Now it's unlocked.

Okay. Do you start by, giving us your name and address?

My name is Rebecca Park. My address is 10512 Fairview Avenue.

K. You can proceed.

So I just wanted to speak in opposition of the extension.

This is not the right case.

Okay.

I'm I'm sorry, Ms. Park. I think you were we have two extensions of expiration, and I think you want the next one, which is the Fairview Avenue townhomes. Yes. Okay. Alright. I I we're talking about another one right now, so I apologize for that.

The next case, not this one? Okay, Rebecca. Hang on. We'll get to that one. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak for or against this? K. We'll move into deliberation. Commissioners, what do you think?

Yes. I think it makes total sense. I understand the reason why. So if the other commissioner is on board, I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

In the case of 260005, I make a motion that we approve the extension for two years. I'd extend it out to, what, April 2028?

06/23/2028.

Okay. June 2028. I'll make the motion based on our staff report and testimony today.

Second.

Probably made motion and second roll call.

Leonard?

Yes. Mims? Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Fischel? Yes. Okay. Passes. Case number three, 260006. Tyler.

It's Tyler Bozinski, office of planning, 444 South 5th Street, 40202. Here to talk about 26 Extension number 6. The request is the third extension of expiration. The original case, original was a change in zoning associated with a development plan that was approved in 04/22/2020, which made the expiration date of '22. They came for the first extension in twenty two extension four, which gave a new expiration date.

It was staff approved to 04/22/2024. They already filed for a second extension, which is 245. The second extension was recommended by DRC and approved by Chipson Town with a new expiration of 04/22/2026. This is the third extension request to to persistent personal health challenges over the past several years that have prevented the applicant from moving forward. Not on the side, but the applicant has stated that they have secured financing, and their discussions with contractor are underway to begin this fall.

If approved, the new expiration date would be 04/22/2028. There is a binding element, from the original zoning change and said if a building permit is not issued within two years of approval, the property shall be used not be used in any manner unless a revised district development plan is approved or an extension is granted by both the planning commission and the city of Jefferson Town. There's the zoning, so our five eight. Here's the area. It's currently a vacant lot.

There's a long Fairview Ave. This is the property to the Southwest. It's a bank. Adjacent property to the Northeast. And this is across Fairview Ave. Here is the development plan that was approved in 2020. And the staff finds that the proposal provides good cause to why the task cannot be reasonably completed within the allotted time. And the recommended action is to recommend approval or denial of the extension of expiration to the city of Objection Town. Any questions?

Any questions for Tyler? Okay. Thank you, Tyler. I have, two people that have signed out to speak in support. Christy Thompson.

Hello. I'm Christy Thompson. 10009 Bell Tower Court, Louisville 40299. This is my project. We want to build affordable housing in Jaytown on this empty lot that we own.

It's a project we're both passionate about, my partner and I. The past four years of my life, were interrupted with surgeries and medical problems. My employment and my income and finances were affected. Plus the longer we put it off, the higher the cost for materials and labor and interest rates have gone up too. My life is back to normal, and this project is back in the forefront. We aren't making any changes in the development plan, and we hope to start the project this fall.

Alright. Is that your statement?

Thank you

very much.

Thank you.

Amelia Herrero.

My name is Amelia Guerra.

And your address?

10009 Belt Tower Court.

K. And you wanted to speak, support of this?

Yeah. Correct.

Alright. You may proceed.

Well, we just, already have a talking about the keeping with the project, so I will be in charge to, as a foreman, try

to move on on financial materials and people.

K.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we're back to Rebecca speaking again. So is there anyone else who wanted to speak in favor of this?

I guess I have a question for the applicant, Bill, if that'd be okay.

Yeah. Any questions?

Did you say that you will be starting construction in fall or hope to be starting it?

We hope to be starting in the fall. Okay. That's the plan. So, yeah, hopefully nothing stops us from doing that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any other questions? Anybody online wants to speak? Neighbor? Okay. Rebecca, this is the case that you wanted to speak on, so I'm sorry for the misdirection there. You may

Thank you. So, my name is Rebecca Park. My address is 10512 Fairview Avenue. I'm a resident on the street that this property would be going on. I believe when this was originally approved, I had just moved to the neighborhood at that time, but now I have lived in this neighborhood for several years.

I'm opposed to the project for numerous reasons. The streets as they are now, they do not have sidewalks. Families, children, people with their dogs use the streets to walk up and down because there's no sidewalks, so we do not wish to have additional traffic. It is a really difficult intersection right there as well. There's a blind turn.

Increasing the number of renters on the street, we foresee being problematic. We've had issues with our neighbors that are renters in the past that have led to police involvement. I was not aware that it was also, going to be considered affordable housing. I'm very against having affordable housing on my street. I, of course, want people to be able to afford to live, but we want our property values to increase.

The last thing that I want is to have multiple units put in with lower rents, lower cost of living that become the the baseline for what the comps are for the area in addition to the increased traffic. This is a quiet neighborhood. While this is at the end of the street, we wish to keep our street a quiet neighborhood and not have this increased volume of turnover and increased housing on the street in general.

K. Any questions of, Rebecca? Rebecca, thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you.

K. Christy Thompson, would you like to respond to that?

Yes, sir. Thank you. This isn't necessarily an affordable housing project. What we mean is we don't intend to rent them all. They units will be sold, and these are townhomes, so they won't be used as comps for the neighborhood, you know, for the housing nearby.

It's true that there are not sidewalks on the street. I mean, I know we will be required to put some in front of our project, but I can't speak as to the remainder of the street not having sidewalks. And that's all I have on that.

Right. Are sure there's any questions of

Well, just a follow-up quest question. You did mention, and I would I thought I remembered seeing it on the plan that you you are building sidewalks in front of your with the with your property.

That's right.

And presumably tying an end to the sidewalk that's there at Stockyards Bank. So it does give, you know, a little bit more in terms of the residents that will be living in your in your community, it gives them access to presumably

At least in front of our townhouses. Yeah.

All the way out to Tailsville Road.

Mhmm. Okay. And,

you know, you are I mean, if if you're turning out of that community, you're more inclined to make a right out to Tails Of Road than heading back in the other direction. But, anyway, that's just my kind of individual observations.

I I'd like to add the you know, this is a recommendation to Jefferson Town for approval. So you're go you're not at the end of the process. Yes. I understand. But I would like you to be a little bit more clear about the subsidies and or the

There wouldn't be subsidies. It wouldn't be that like a a low income, project.

So how many how many units were are you gonna be for sale?

We have four units. We intend to sell two and keep two as rentals.

K. And that's the total amount of residents?

That's right.

K. So it's not a subsidized development.

No. It is not subsidized.

To give you the opportunity to make that clear.

Thank you. Yes. I appreciate that.

Alright. Any other questions? K. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

We don't have anyone else that's speaking. Right? So, commissioners, let's go to liberation. What are your feelings?

Miss Ferguson, when someone applies for an extension, do they for the time in which to construct a building, do they have to do it before the expiration, or are they allowed to do it after the expiration as is the case here?

So

This expired 04/22/2026 or 04/23/2026. So since it's expired, were they supposed to apply before the expiration, or are they allowed to apply to extend it after the expiration?

So so they submitted the application to us, to our office. That's They have to submit the application to us. Before the expert. At is the staff report where the one paragraph ends that the expiration date was April 22, and then it says it's submitted on April 23. I think that's what he's asking about. I'd I'd have to look at the date. I'm sorry. I don't have the staff report in front of me. So, but we can look at the application date. But it should they they have the ability to apply up to the date of the expiration. It could be that, like, the April 22 was a weekend, in which case that would extend out really to the next stay.

So Christy acts like she wants to can I open it back up to allow this additional Yeah? April 9. Allow this clarification to be made by you.

Thank you, sir. April 9 is the day that we reapplied.

Thank you very much.

April 9, which would be prior to April 22.

So as long as they apply before the deadline.

Right. That's

I just wanted to know the procedural part. I'm not

Yeah. As long as they apply before.

Case. I just procedurally wanted them. When was it Thank

you. K.

Well, we got Tyler.

Tyler yeah. Just clarifying.

So, I've I've got the application pulled up in our system. Tyler had it as the twenty third because that's when our office took it in. That's when we accepted it, but it was submitted by the applicant on the twenty second. Yes.

K. Any more questions? Any any comments and or motions? We're making a a recommendation to city of Jefferson.

I'll make a motion on 26006 for an extension of expiration that we recommend to the city of J Town that this extension be granted for two years based on testimony heard from staff, staff report, and Applicant. Applicant's testimony. I'm sorry. I'm

Second. I probably made motion and second roll call.

Leonard?

Yes. Mims? Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Steph?

Yes. Fisher? Yes. Okay. Moving on to the next case. Case number four. 26DDP0007. Catherine Gonzales.

Yep. Good afternoon. Catherine Gomez, office of planning staff. 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. This is 26DDP007 TNC maintenance garage. The request is for a revised district development plan subject to binding elements. This is an m two industrial zoning site in the neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing a 6,150 square foot maintenance garage. The site does have existing storage and maintenance buildings and office space related to the industrial use, so this would be an addition. The site is adjacent to Weaver Rent.

Oh, you don't have to worry about that. They went to BOSA on Monday for a protected waterway buffer variance, but that got approved. Anyway, we can move on. This is a zoning map for the site. It is all within that M2 zoning portion of the site. On the next slide, you'll find the existing conditions. This is an aerial view of the site. On the next slide, you'll find the front view of the property. I believe the applicant has updated images of the front view of the site, so it looks a little different now. On the next slide, you'll find the adjacent property directly to the right of the subject site.

On the next slide, you'll find residential property along Pendleton Road. This is west of the site. And then this is across the street. It's a vacant property. On the left side, you'll see the total site. But on the left or on the right side, I'm sorry, you'll see the addition. As you can see, it's all within that gray and in front of that existing maintenance garage. So transportation and MSD have given preliminary approval. The proposal does meet the guidelines in the comprehensive plan and the requirements of the Land Development Code. And then the proposal is compatible with existing industrial use on-site.

So your required action is to approve or deny the revised district development plan subject to binding elements. Do you all have any questions for me?

Any questions? That would take very much. John?

Thank you, chairman Fisher, members of the committee. John Baker, Bricker, Graydon, Wyatt, 400, West Market Street, Suite 2000 here on behalf of the applicant's Peekaboo LLC, which is the property owner and t plus c or t and c contractors. They're the land users. Scott Thornberry, who's the t and TNC contractors, is here today with us, as well as Keith Olm and Jay Jason Black on behalf of Olm Advisors. Keith Holz, that is.

I'm sorry. And they're the ones that drafted the plan. Should there be any questions about dimensions on the plan, those questions can be provided or answers to you by those gentlemen. And this is a site plan amendment to allow a maintenance facility, which can also be used to store some of the heavier equipment inside the building. What you see here is is a picture of the office portion of the property.

That's the OR 3. And, to the right of that building on the site, you you will see what is being proposed as an area for what's really a metal kind of pole barn looking structure, which we have an image of. If we can go to the next slide. That is the site plan. The building, which on this image, this colored kind of rendering the the oh, is that a brown yellowish?

Is the footprint of the building, where the gray is the is concrete on the side of the building. That entire rectangle is not the confines of the structure, but just more of the the square part. And to the left, can see that office building you just saw on the title slide. And then behind that is an existing storage maintenance garage building that looks similar to what is being proposed. And the building location on the property, there was actually a building there years ago that had burned down.

So this is replacing that building plus expanding to fit their needs. TNC contractors have been on the property since 1983, and this property was rezoned in, I believe, '93. And they've just been successful throughout the years, and they have a need to for more storage interior storage space to help work on on their equipment. If we can go to the next slide. This was an image to the left that is current day image.

That is an area where the building will be built. But we use that image because on Monday, we were in front of the border zoning adjustment where we applied for a waiver to encroach into the the stream bank or protected waterway buffer. That is the encroachment to the 100 foot buffer from Weaver Run, which is more of a man made constructed drainage ditch that drains the helps drain the area. And that area right there that is improved with gravel is within that setback. So that's why we have that picture.

And the building on the right is the building that's being proposed for the site to store heavy equipment. And the characteristics you can see up there, height, 30 feet, and that's to the top. That's not even to the mean. And then the area of that is just over 6,000 square feet. If we can go to the next slide. This shows you some historical photos. You can see where that original storage building was in the foreground that it's since burned down. That's part of the building that's being replaced. And then the building behind that is in existence today. We can go to the next slide.

And to the left, as Catherine pointed out, were images taken previously, and to the right are those images again showing the the landscape plantings that the applicant has has put into the site to dress up as it relates to Pendleton. And if we can go to the next slide, should be our our concluding slide. So really straightforward request here to add basically one building to the site for interior storage and maintenance. Have a team here happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Appreciate your time.

Thank you, John. Any questions to John?

Well, yeah. Just about the last slide. Were were were the images you showed of the landscaping along Pendleton, is that what's there now or what's being proposed?

That's there today.

Okay. I get it. Alright.

And there was a fee in lieu that, as Captain said, both MSD and Public Works have, preapproved the plan, and a fee in lieu was paid or agreed to pay for the sidewalk that runs in front.

Thank you.

John, the Weaver Run You Weaver Creek or whatever it was you mentioned Mhmm. Does it flood?

According to Scott, that has not left its banks even during the '97 flood. It got to the very top in '97, but there was an image we had that we showed Boza that there you can see the fence in the front. That's along Pendleton, but that fence encircles the entire property. It's more inside the property line, but there's still a good nine to 12 feet between the fence and the top of the stream bank buffer. That's all grass, and water's never been on that grass part of the property.

So Okay. And the only reason I asked that, you said you went to Bolsa for an encroachment.

I I had the same question.

So only reason I asked that. I'm sorry.

No. You're fine. Well, one more question about we were is that a tributary of Mill Creek?

I believe it is, isn't it? Or

It's called Mud Ditch.

It was called Mud Ditch. I know Scott's father helped Dig Weaver run.

So greasy ditch. And yeah. I got it. Alright. And that may be some of it because there's a big initiative to try to, you know, renew Mill Creek, and that that may have a lot of tentacles that go out to other contributing is is Don still alive? I mean, is he still around? Oh, okay. Darn it. Okay. Alright. He's a good man.

Any other questions? I don't have anybody else here speaking in opposition. No one's online. I

forgot the binding. There's as part of, the development plan, the existing binding elements were struck. There was an existing binding element seven that says there shall be no outdoor lighting permitted on-site. And we would ask the committee to say, except for lighting affixed to the building, comma, there shall be no outdoor lighting permitted on-site because there needs to be some level of security lighting on the property. There is a street light on Pendleton that provides some illumination. But as you get into the property, which is well screened on the outside, it it gets a little dark. They would like to have at least the light on the exterior of of the structure.

I don't have any problems with that. Will they have shields? Because, you know, if it's a wall pack, they just throw out light everywhere kind of uncontrolled. But if it is a a shielded fixture Okay. Yeah. No. So it's it it it would have a shield to, you know, to light up what you're trying to light as opposed to the, you know,

the internal shaper. Down.

Yeah. It it would have to meet the lighting standards of the line development code. Okay.

Sure. Not a problem at all. Cool. Thank you. Thank you.

K. Anybody else that wants to speak? No one's online. Right? Alright. Commissioners, what do we think? Remarks? Motions?

Place has been there a long time, and I've worked with that company. Not that that would affect my vote here, and but I I know that they've been a long time in business. And it it it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Right. Having dealt with a Weaver run-in the past, my professional opinion is that the buffer or setback is entirely too large for what is in essence an unsightly overgrown ditch. So I think the request should be granted.

K. Anyone wanna make a motion?

Now when are we are we striking number

two?

No. I think the suggestion was we're gonna change proposed by the element number two to say except for lighting affixed to the building, comma, and then the remainder will stay.

Okay. Alright. That's good. Case number 26DDPDash007. Make a motion that we approve the revised detailed district development plan with revisions to the binding elements based on testimony heard staff staff report and the applicant.

Did we wanna include the change to binding element number two?

Yes. Yes. Change binding element number two to allow fixed lighting to the building. Second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Leonard?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Steph?

Yes. Fischer? Yes. Make a motion we adjourn. Motion granted. Tom

Baker. Please.

Appreciate it. Tom Baker. Hey,