Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Let me just keep rolling.

Okay. Are we ready? Good afternoon.

This is the regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Board of zoning adjustment to hear cases as advertised and documented for hearing today. Public notice has been provided and materials have been 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 toward your fellow citizens. 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. 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. Priority 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 proposals will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. and the applicant or their representative will then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during the 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 and the board bylaws, the board's deliberation 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. There are speaker cards on the desk there and also on the desk as you came in. Please make sure you filled one of those out if you wish to speak, even if you're here just to answer questions.

Yeah.

If staff will stand, I will swear you in. I've got all of them. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Can we do a roll call for members in present?

Oh, okay.

Jane Horton present.

4 present.

Scott present present.

Hey, the 1st, order of business is approval of the minutes from our meeting on June the 15th, 2026. has everyone had a chance to read those minutes and are there any edits or corrections.

Motion that I'm sure all right. Um, I have read the minutes and, uh, move to approve them. The minutes of 615. 2026 of the both.

Sir, 2nd, 2nd, those are.

Thank you we have a properly made motion and 2nd. Roll call vote please. Present.

Yes, what is it? Yes.

4 abstain.

Yes, Scott. Yes, please.

Yes. Thank you. All right. We have 1 item under our business session today, which is 26 variance. 0, 047. this is a variance from Indian Hills land development code section. 4.4.6.2 to allow an encroachment into the required side yard setback. And Tyler is our case manager. Do we need any presentation on this or we can move on to approve only if you have questions? All right. Any board members have questions about this? It's on the business session because they got signatures from the adjoining property owners. So there's agreement on it. Any questions? All right, we need a motion to approve.

Madam chair Ford make a motion that we approve the, um. Variances for 26 dash variance. 0, 0, 4, 7.

We have a, we need to say in accordance with the staff report.

Yeah, I would just say based on the evidence in the staff report and staff analysis.

That's based on the staff report and staff analysis.

Sir, 2nd, 2nd, all right, we have a properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Roll call vote please.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, Scott.

Yes, Louise.

Yes, thank you. All right. Moving into the public hearing portion of our agenda.

Chair Lewis, I just want to announce for anyone in the audience and that's here will be utilizing translation services for the next case.

Thank you. And we all have our translators. Okay, the 1st case under public hearing is 26 C. U. P. 0, 0, 7, 9. it's a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit and Caitlin Deaver is our case manager.

Caitlin Deaver, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. This is 26 CUP 79 for an accessory dwelling unit at 11811 Mahogany Drive. Next slide. The request today is a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit in a residential zoning district with relief from items B and E.2. Next. Subject sites approximately 0.21 acres zoned R4 single family residential in the neighborhood form district is generally located south of the Greenbelt Highway and east of Dixie Highway in the Limon Acres subdivision. The site is currently developed with a 1 story, 1,050 square foot home in a 1 story, 1,152 square foot garage with driveway access. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an 832 square foot above the existing detached garage. The 80 will be accessed with exterior stairs and served by. Off street parking spaces, and the property owner will reside within the principal structure unit. Next slide here is the zoning map. It's predominantly our 4 and our 5 single family residential with some multi family residential zoning to the Northwest. Next slide. Here's the aerial photograph showing existing site conditions. Next slide. I have a couple photos of the subject property and adjacent properties. So this is the subject property from mahogany drive next slide. This is to the South on mahogany drive next slide. This is directly across mahogany drive next slide to the North. And then this is behind where the is located on pierce way. Next slide. Also, just for some additional neighborhood context, further South as drive transitions into fruit would drive and lane. There are 1 and a half to 2 story homes in this area. Next slide. So, here is the proposed site plan. Like I said, it's a 2nd story addition above that existing detached garage. Next slide. Here are the proposed elevations. It will maintain residential character that fits the neighborhood. Next slide. So, staff finds transportation given preliminary approval of the plan. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses general character and the appropriate residential height for the neighborhood form district. The addition remains within the existing garage footprint as a result of limited buildable area on site without the loss of green space. The requested relief from items B and E dot 2 are adequately justified based on staff's analysis and the standard of review. And the proposal otherwise appears to me all of the standards of the conditional use permit for accessory dwelling units. So your required actions today are to approve or deny the conditional use permit to allow an ADU in a residential zoning district with relief from items B and E.2. Do you have any questions for staff?

Could you clarify for me back to the slide that had the square footage on it? It's one of the very first slides. Well, we can probably talk about it even from that one. Are they building a second story that adds 832 square feet or are they just doing interior renovation or remodeling to make that an actual living unit?

The first floor will remain a garage and then they're doing the 832 square foot addition second floor. That will be the 80 living space.

So does that increase that square footage for the garage from 1152 by 832?

That's the footprint. The footprint is not changing. It is not encroaching any further in any setback than it is currently. It is only building up. So as far as gross floor area, yeah, that will be increasing, but the footprint remains the same.

Okay. But the height of the building is going to be changed?

Yes, because it's a 2nd story addition, it will be taller than the principal structure, which is why they require that relief from E dot 2 and taller than the current structure too.

Right?

Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

All right other questions. I think I have it in the staff report. Let me refer to that really quick. on page four the second floor accessory structure addition will be 24 feet and 2 inches which is greater than the 14 foot 3 inch height of the principal structure so it's approximately 10 feet and in the neighborhood form district new residential construction is permitted to be as tall as 35 feet thank you it's permitted to be as tall as 35 and what did you say it will be um it was 24 feet sorry i just put it back 24 feet and i think adding 10 feet three inches yeah okay so it'll be under the 35 yes yeah most definitely okay other questions i have a question is the the total square footage of the property that 9 000 square feet 9 286 yeah okay

All right.

Okay.

No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant. And there's this issue.

Uh, no, my name's Lenita Grimes. I'm the owner. Did you fill out a speaker form? Yeah, I didn't know if I needed to. Oh, yeah, if you're going to speak, we do need 1. yeah. So, yes, I did fill out a speaker form. Yes. What was the last name again? Grimes, G-R-I-M-E-S. Oh, here it is.

All right. I need your name and address, including zip code, and then we'll swear you in.

It's Lenita Grimes, 11811 Mahogany Drive, Louisville, Kentucky, 40272.

All right. If you would raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth? Yes. All right. You may begin.

Um, well, I was wanting to, you know, submitted the application to build a for my adult son to live and save on cost and available if anybody has any questions or I don't really know what I'm to say at these meetings. But it's for my adult son to live.

Okay, what's the timeline on on this? Um, total development, like. What what's the expected timeline? Like, how long do you expect to take to complete it?

How long do I expect him to live there?

No, not live there. How long are we expecting the development? Like, how long are we expecting to take for you to get it down for it to be built?

2 to 3 months. Okay. Yeah, I have my contractor here with me also. Thank you.

All right other questions and by the way, you had the wrong number on here, so I changed it. Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. Just let, you know, I did. Sorry. I went by email. I received. Sorry. All right, no further questions. All right. Mr. Rodriguez, he here to speak or just answer questions.

He's just here to answer questions to, I believe.

All right. Any questions of the builder? Do we need to bring him up? No. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you all for your consideration. All right, we'll close the public hearing go into deliberation any thoughts on this case. Ready for a motion go ahead.

Hey, um, we got 2 variances correct? No, just off.

It's just relief. Um, so if you vote to approve the conditional use permit, it would be to approve with relief from items B and E dot 2.

Oh, yeah, you need to or E dot 2. right?

Got it.

Go ahead.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for case 26-CUP-0079 to approve the request for the conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit Uh, in a residential are for zoning district, um, with relief from items B and E dot 2. Based on the staff findings staff report.

And the testimony today is there a 2nd, 2nd, all right properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Roll call vote please. Yes, 4. Yes, yes, Scott.

Yes, Louise.

Yes, thank you. Next case on the agenda is 26 variance. 0, 0, 6, 2, this is to allow a fence to exceed the maximum permitted height and Catherine Gomez is our.

Oh, Rachel will be our case manager. Yes. I'm just presenting on Kathy's behalf. So, Rachel Casey, uh, office of planning staff. 444 South 5th Street, 40202. So, this is 26 variance, 0, 0, 62 at 4904 Hyde Park drive. The requests are 2 variances, a variance from section 4.4.3 to allow a 6 foot fence to exceed the maximum permitted height of 4 feet in the required front yard setback. And then also variance from section 5.1. 12, which is the infill regulations to allow an accessory structure to encroach into the required front yard setback. So the locations there, that's the front yard fence site. Maximum is for the request is for 6 for variance of 2 feet and then the infill setback. The requirement is 38 feet and the request is for 20 feet for variance of 18 feet. I do believe that's different than what's on the staff report. So what's on the presentation is the accurate measurement for the variance request for the infill front yard setback 20 feet. Yeah. So the request is for 20 feet variance of 18 feet. This property is the R4 single family residential zoning district in the neighborhood form. There is an existing six foot fence parallel to the front yard setback, which you'll see on the map when it pulls up is a little bit of a unique site. So the front yard starts at the intersection of Elmore Street and Hyde Park Drive and extends to the rear. And then there's also an existing 10 by 16 foot accessory structure encroaching into that front yard setback as well. Here's zoning map. It's all single family residential subdivision. But you can see that this property has quite a unique shape there at the intersection of Elmore Street and Hyde Park Drive. The front yard is actually the smallest length there that you see facing Elmore Street. So based on the definitions in the land development code, that section is actually the front yard, even though the home itself, the entrance is facing Hyde Park Drive, that will be the street side yard. So in this case, they have a fence that is within the front yard setback. And then their accessory structure is also encroaching into the front yard setback just because of the unique shape of the lot. This is a view of the subject property from Hyde Park drive. Like I said, you can see that the home and the insurance faces Hyde Park, but technically this would be the street side yard. Whereas over to the left on that image is where the fences that's encroaching into what is the technical front yard setback. then this is looking at it from elmore street so again a good view of the fence uh in the setback as well as the small accessory structure that would be encroaching this is adjacent resident property along hyde park and then this is adjacent residential along elmore street on the other side of a drainage ditch This is the site plan. It's a little hard to see, but they have the measurements mapped out there where you can see since the fence is existing. The site plan is accepted. It's just an aerial image showing where the fence is located and then measurements for the accessory structure that shows the 20 foot setback. From the property line, and then this is just highlighting where the extra accessory structure is located. So staff finds that the variance is justified for approval based on staff's analysis. The subject property's abnormal configuration on a corner lot constrains the ability to develop the site and the proposed variance will not adversely impact adjoining owners or residents in the general vicinity. So required actions are to approve or deny the variance for the fence and approve or deny the variance for the accessory structure to encroach into the front yard setback.

So would they be two?

You can take them in one motion. They're under the same variance case number. Okay.

So site distance, I realize this is not a standard intersection, but site distance being impeded by that fence is not a problem? Not an issue, no. Okay. All right. Other questions for staff? All right. I have no speaker forms for this case. Is the applicant here?

If you guys want to speak, that's okay.

If you want to come to the front and then you can speak and Mr. Enright can translate if you would like. That's okay.

We can fill out the form afterwards.

Good are we going to use the deterrence?

Yes. Okay. If you'd like to use your access, please.

Thank you.

You speak and I stay out that normal.

Oh, so I came to see if you could approve this. No, I didn't know that.

Okay, before before he starts testifying, I do need his name and address and I need to swear him in a name.

Please. Penalty. Penalty. Oh, 49, 0, 0, 4, 0, 2, 1, 6.

All right, if you'd raise your right hand, please. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you get today will be the truth? Yes, yes, thank you. Okay. You go ahead with what you wanted to tell us.

It is.

Did you build the fence and this accessory structure or were they there when you bought the property?

When we bought the property, it was already there.

Do you know what year they were built?

About 6 years ago.

Okay, but it was on the property when you bought it.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

All right, thank you.

Okay, and if you would give him a speaker form, thank you. All right, I have no other speaker signed up for this. No 1 online. I assume. So, we will close the public hearing. And move into deliberation, is there any thoughts anyone would like to share on this case? Seems like it's been an existing condition for a while.

Yeah, sure.

Particularly for the applicant.

The first thing that catches your eye is that fence. Yeah. And you took my question.

All right. No more thoughts to share. We'll entertain a motion, and the variances can be taken together. Correct. Correct.

I'm chair. I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Member with regard to case number 26 variance. 0, 0, 6, 2 location for 9, 0, 4 Hyde Park drive. I move that we approve both variances as written in the staff report. Specifically. Uh, location of the 1st variance front yard fence height requirements 4 feet. The request is 6 feet. That's creating a variance of 2 feet on the fence height and the 2nd variance. Location is the infill setback. The requirement is 38 feet. The request is 20 feet thus creating a variance of 18 feet based on the staff report and testimony heard today.

2nd board.

Thank you. We've got a properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Hearing none roll call vote, please.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Scott. Yes. Yes. Thank you. The variance is approved.

Chair Lewis, can we take a 2 minute break just to collect the translation equipment?

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Yeah, really.

Oh, while we're waiting to get started again, I don't have speaker cards on. Agenda item number 6 or 8 if you're here for those cases. Please fill out a speaker form. Are we ready? Okay. Moving on with our agenda item number five on the agenda is twenty six variance zero zero six three. This is a variance to allow structured encroach in the required infield front yard setback and Zach is our case manager.

Yes, thank you. Zach swagger office planning for for South history. Uh, next slide please. Um, this is a variance request, uh, to encroach into the infill front yard setback. Um, the requirement is 53. the range is 53 to 57 feet. Uh, the request is 5 feet for a variance of 48 feet. Next slide. The zoning is our 4 single family residential. It's approximately a quarter of an acre and it's located on the West side of Victoria drive just north of Briscoe lane. And the applicant is proposing to construct a single family residents on the lot. It's a part of a minor subdivision to create 2 lots from 1. And we have another case on that later today, but next slide please. This is the plan. You can see the proposed structure. The main part is the 5 foot request. The green is the infill minimum. So, as we'll see with the zoomed out aerial and zoning maps that the lots are of a variety of different sizes and shapes. Next slide. Um, so this is the zoning of the subject area as you can see, like, I just said, uh, that's a Victoria drive is a dead end street. Um, and then you have deeper lots just north of the subject property. Uh, and then you also have just larger lots and narrow lots and then more high schools across the street. But, um, next slide. The minor subdivision was this property in the property just to the south, which is a case later today again. And as you can see, it is not as deep as the adjacent properties. And so the property is constricted. And so that's why the request is to be a little closer to Victoria drive. This is the front of the subject property. And then we're gonna look north down Victoria Drive. That's the dead end. And so the proposal is to be a little closer than those existing residences. Next slide, please. And staff finds that the variance is adequately justified and meets the standard of review. And the proposed structure would not negatively impact surrounding property owners or residents or infrastructure. Are there any questions for staff?

Questions members no questions. Okay. We'll hear from the applicant.

Thank you chair Lewis before we hear from the applicant. I wanted to point out that the applicant appears to be the same for this case and for case number 8, and they look to be related right next to each other. So, if you wanted to have Zach also present on case number 8 at this time, and then the applicant would only have to testify. Once and that way they don't have to wait for a couple more cases to testify again.

Sure. Okay. Sounds reasonable.

Yeah, it will still require 2 separate motions, 2 separate case numbers, 2 separate properties, but we can consolidate the testimony.

Okay, and is there a separate.

Yeah, there'll be a separate staff presentation. Zach. Do you want to go ahead and give the staff presentation for 26 variance? 72 and that will be at 7210 Victoria drive.

Yes. And like I said, so it was a part of a minor subdivision that met all standards of review for a minor subdivision. All agencies have reviewed that and this property is just to the south. Of what we just looked at, but it's essentially the same request. Um, it's just a corner a lot, but it's still the same section of code. Same requirement. Same request. Uh, 53 to 57 feet request is 5 feet for variance of 48 feet. It is still are for single family residential, except this is about 2 tenths of an acre, but it is on the Northwestern corner of Victoria drive in Briscoe lane. And then the applicant again is proposing to construct a single family residence that would encroach into the infill front yard setback. And then this is the kind of similar image just showing where the setback would be in where the request is. And then next slide and then again zoning. And aerial photo. And then this is a little further south, but same general area. And then we're going to look north again on Victoria Drive. And Steph finds that this variance request is also adequately justified and meet standard of review. And the proposed structure would not negatively impact any infrastructure residents, property owners, and the required action is to approve or deny the variance request from this line development code section.

Could you back up to that slide that actually showed the, the outline of the track that 1? so, How many tracks are on this? Like, what's that 1 in the front that doesn't have any track 3.

Are you talking about track 3 at the bottom? So that had to be dedicated to right of way with the minor subdivision. Okay. So that's not a part of that's why the lots are 1 slightly smaller. Then the other 1 is about a quarter of an acre 1 is about 2 tents. So this was had to be dedicated to right of way public right of way.

So it really was broken into three tracks, but track three just went to right away.

Correct.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for staff.

Is there any restrictions on any of this stuff or no there?

Yeah, this isn't part of a subdivision that has an. Okay.

And this new build will be facing Victoria drive.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, both. And that was 1 of the requirements with the minor subdivision that transportation had was that they couldn't access to briscoe lane because that's a. More heavily used road. Um, but yeah, so that that's the drive there, uh, and with, um, just on that question, the other agencies will have to review the building permits as well. Uh, so that will get reviewed, but. Yes, access will for both properties be on Victoria drive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right any other questions we'll hear from the applicant then.

James.

I need your name and address, including zip code, please.

James Judd, on behalf of Lew Developments. The company address is P.O. Box 20731, Louisville, Kentucky, 40250. All right.

If you'd raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth?

I do.

All right. Thank you. What would you like to tell us?

The, um, the, the purpose of the minor subplot in the project is to create 2 new contemporary single family homes. These will be for sale to the public. Um, so 2 new affordable homes within the little metro area. Um. The orientation of the current property is in opposition to the rest of the neighborhood. And therefore, if you were to follow the current infill lines, it'd be a struggle at least to say to build a property appropriately and not get into other encroachments along the back and sides. So, by approving the variance for a shorter driveway, essentially, we think the aesthetics will be better in the neighborhood and I think that would that would solve any issues.

I don't recall from the photos we saw, but are there sidewalks.

There's no sidewalks down Victoria drive. Okay. And just for clarification, there's already. The total distance of the build from the street, there's already a distance between the road and the start of the variance. So we're asking for an additional 5 feet. And then start the structures.

So, what's the total length of the driveway? I assume that is that is our garage there?

Yes.

So, if you park in front of the garage, what, what is the distance from there to the actual pavement of the street?

It's 25 feet, which is pretty standard within the traditional neighborhood structures for new builds.

Okay. Enough that the car won't impede the actual street traffic.

Correct?

Correct. Yes. Okay.

Other questions?

Are these houses going to be identical?

Similar, but not identical. If you need to review the house plans, we can pull that up.

There's another body that will do that, but I'm just wondering if you're giving them some character so they don't look identical.

So we'd like to do single-family, single-floor homes, and they're both three-bedroom, two-bath, 1,800 square feet. So like I said, affordable homes that match the current character of the neighborhood.

All right. Other questions?

How long will development be expected to last? Six to nine months. Thank you.

Are you building both of them at the same time?

That's the goal, yes, ma'am.

I'm just curious, what's the sale price going to be? That's the golden question.

I think in the mid 350s to 4.

It's hard to get an exact answer from a realtor. That's the general cost of construction now.

Thanks.

All right, anything else? I don't have any other speaker cards, so I think that's all we need. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and go into deliberation. Any thoughts a member would like to share on these two cases? And again, they're identical, but we need to take the motions separately. Anybody ready for a motion?

I'll make a motion. Some members with regard to case number 26 variance. 0, 063 location, 7208 Victoria drive move that we approve this variance as written in the staff report specifically the location of the info. requirement is 53 to 57 feet request is 5 feet that's creating a variance of 48 feet. I based that on the staff report and testimony heard today. Is there a 2nd 2nd forward?

All right. We have a properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion hearing non roll call vote. Yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes, please.

Yes. All right for the next case. 0, 0, 7, sure.

Yeah, I'm ready. Uh, this is member with regard to case number 26, variance, 0, 0, 7, 2, location 72, 10 Victoria drive. I move that we approve this variance as written in the staff report. the specifically locations, the infill front yard requirement 53 to 57 feet request is 5 feet, thus creating a variance of 48 feet based that on the staff report and testimony heard today. 2nd forward.

Okay. We have a properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion hearing none roll call vote please. Yes, 4. Yes, yes, Scott.

Yes.

Louise. Yes. Thank you. Both variances are approved. All right. Moving on with our agenda. The next case is 26th variance 0064. This is a variance to allow a fence to exceed a maximum permitted height on a street side yard. And looks like Rachel's going to present this case for us. I'm back. Yes. Presenting this case on behalf of Sydney Fawcett. And I don't have speaker cards. Is there somebody online for this one or a card that was done online for this?

All right, 26 variance 0, 064. this is located at 1469 bland street and this is a variance related to a privacy fence. Uh, this is a variance from section 4.4.3 to allow a fence to exceed the maximum permitted height in the street side yard in traditional forms. The street side yard. Uh, height requirement for offense, the maximum is 3 and a half feet and the request is for 6 feet for a variance of 2 and a half feet. Sites approximately 0.09 acres is zoned R6 multifamily residential in the traditional neighborhood form. A portion of the fence along East Burnett Avenue is exceeding the maximum permitted height. The applicant is requesting a variance to bring the existing six foot privacy fence into compliance with the land development code. This is a zoning map of the property. You'll be able to see when we look at the aerial that it's oriented towards bland street, which makes that the front yard and then East Burnett as you can see, there is the street side yard. So you see here that the applicant has a roughly three and a half foot fence in what would be considered their front yard. And then once it reaches the point of the home and starts to stretch towards the rear yard, the height of the fence goes up to six feet. These are other properties down Bland Street. all facing towards Bland. And this is across East Burnett Avenue where the homes face Burnett. And then this is a site plan that just shows where the fence is located. So as I said, there's a three foot fence that's in the front yard facing Bland Street and then a six foot fence that surrounds the home starting at the front of the home and then encircling the rear and the street side yard. And here's where the variance is requested for the six foot area within the street side yard setback. Staff finds the requested variance is adequately justified for approval. The existing fence is compatible with development in the surrounding area and it still allows for visibility at the corner of East Burnett and bland street because the fence is only three feet tall and at that intersection. And your required action is to approve or deny the variance to allow the fence to exceed three and a half feet in the street side yard setback.

So is that fence, it's out of the right of way though? It's on their property?

Yes, it's out of the right of way. It's very tight there.

Yeah, it's very close to the sidewalk. Yes, yeah. So we're only talking about where it goes to six feet.

Yeah, we're only talking about right in that area where it goes to six feet. Towards the rear.

Okay questions for staff.

Do you know if those 2 fences were installed at the same time?

I do not know. That would be a question for the applicant.

And I did find that was the speaker form Joe. You gave me from online. I don't know if she's here online, but. I do have a speaker form for the applicant. All right other questions for staff. Okay, thank you.

Latasha, Latasha Mathis. Okay.

Hello, good evening.

Hello, could you turn your camera on, please?

Yes.

Good afternoon. We need your name and address, including zip code, please.

LaTosha Mathis, 1469 Bland Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40217.

All right, and if you would raise your right hand, please. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes.

All right, thank you. You may begin.

Okay, so I was initially requesting this variance due to my child's safety. He is nonverbal and autistic and he tends to elope. We currently have a lot of construction going on on the street with the factory being built across the street. So that's created more hazards. His elopement is random, but I'm just taking the extra precaution for more safety measures for him. And I also have other children as well. So. Um, and to answer that question, yes, both fences was built probably about 5 years ago at the same time.

Okay, and is that when you own the property that they were built?

No, I bought the, I had the house bill in 2014 and I've been here since then. But I bought had the fence built 5 years ago.

Okay. All right. Questions?

All right. Doesn't appear we have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We will close the public hearing and go into deliberation. Any thoughts someone would like to share on this case? Anyone ready to make a motion?

Madam chair, thank you regarding case number 26 variance 0, 0, 6, 4, uh, move to approve, um, the, uh, application here, um, based on the staff report and the standards of review and the open hearing today testimony in the open hearing today. 2nd forward Thank you.

We have a properly made motion and 2nd any further discussion. Hearing none roll call vote place. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, the variance is approved. Moving on with the agenda item number seven is twenty six variance zero zero six five and twenty six waiver zero zero six six. This is for twenty six thirty five street and Abby bills is our case manager.

Yes, sorry everyone with Laura there. I'm going to bow out and everyone have a good afternoon. What do you say?

Okay, thank you. Travis.

Thank you all.

Go ahead Abby bills off as a planning staff for 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2, this is 26 variant 65 and 26 waiver 66 for a storage unit and on street. But there are 2 requests 1st is a variance from section 5.4.1 of the line development code to allow the accessory use area to exceed the maximum depth of 60 feet in traditional neighborhood form. And then the request is for 126 feet for a variance of 66 feet for that depth and then a waiver to allow the accessory structure to exceed the footprint of the principal structure. The site is approximately 0.19 acres and the R5 zoning district and traditional neighborhood form district. The existing single family structure is 625 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3120 square feet structure of 126 feet in depth. 2400 square feet will be dedicated to storage and 720 square feet will be dedicated to an, which will be reviewed and approved separately. This is a zoning map of the site as you can see, it's sound are 5 and then adjacent is our 1 and some industrial zoning across. This is an aerial view of the site. This is a view of the subject property from street in the front. And then these are side views of the subject property as there's no, um, accurate street views of the rear sides. So this is what we can see based on what we have. And then these are some adjacent properties to show neighborhood context along street. And then some more similar adjacent properties across the street. This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. The structure is in the back. I have delineated in red line where the accessory use area approximately would be. And then, yeah, as you can see, there's the primary structure in front. And then these are the renderings submitted by the applicant. You can see on the front elevation, that smaller part will be the ADU with the larger part in the back being the storage area. Staff finds that the requested variance and waiver are adequately justified for approval. The request of variance will not adversely affect public health safety or welfare and will not cause a hazard to the public. And the requested waiver will not adversely affect. Violate the guidelines of plan 2040. So your required actions are to approve or deny the variance to allow the accessory use area to exceed the maximum depth and approve or deny the waiver to allow the structure to exceed the footprint of the principal structure. Any questions for staff?

So the house that's there now remains? Yes. And this is new construction behind it, correct? Yes. Okay.

Is this like a barn dominium or something?

I'm not sure if it would be classified as that. We can see the applicant.

Is there access? Is there a driveway? I couldn't see that.

I don't believe there's a driveway. They will have to comply with all access requirements of the ADU, though, when they do their ADU approval. Does it back up to an alley? Can you go back to that? No, it backs up to a cemetery. There are no adjoining property owners in the rear.

So the only access is from the street in front? Correct. Correct.

I believe so. Yeah, they have an existing driveway on the right side there.

The one where the car is, is there a driveway? So they can get to this new structure down that driveway?

I believe that would be the plan, but the applicant can confirm. Can you go one slide forward?

And I'll keep going, not back, but forward. The one that had that site plan on it.

There does that show the driveway is in the site plan there. Okay.

And that front part right there, like that, you just went by with a mouse. That's the and then. The whole back of it, there is the storage.

Yeah, they're separated from storage and then there's a small porch in front of the.

Okay, is there an existing garage already?

It's not implicated on the site plan. The applicant can confirm whether or not that is to stay, but based on what we have on street view, there seems to be 1, but I'm not sure if it's still there. Oh, yeah.

All right any further questions. Okay, thank you. We will hear from the applicant and I've got 2. Speaker cards, Christopher Todd Perkins and Frank Baxter, who is speaking first. All right, give us your name and address, please, including zip code.

Name is Frank Baxter, 2635 Murhoff Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40217.

All right, if you'd raise your right hand, please. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Did you have a question or the reason?

Well, if you want to just, yeah, just tell us about the project, perhaps access. Is that garage still there?

The garage is not there anymore. Um, but the drive does have access to the, uh, the new structure that we plan to build. Um, The ADU is not bigger than my current home. It seemed like it was a little confusion with that. I know that we couldn't build, I guess the guy wanted to say we could not build an ADU that was bigger than this current structure that was there.

If there was any confusion.

The purpose of the ADU was I have an elderly Father that I was building structure for.

As he continues to get older.

I want to bring him closer to me. So.

we've got a variance for the distance exceeding the 60 feet and a waiver to allow the accessory structure to exceed the footprint of the principal structure. But I guess that's the storage unit and the living area.

That would be correct. The ADU will sit in front. I think they said we could go 25 foot from the existing structure.

That'll be the living unit for your father, right?

Yes, 25 feet from the existing structure down, which is in front. We also had a height requirement. So that was also a part of it. I think it could not be taller than the existing structure. I think that was unless you had another question, I think questions panel structure is going to be it cannot exceed the right.

So it's going to be all structure. It'll be the same height as the house. Yes. Okay. Is it just going to be used for storage or business stuff?

It's going to serve a few purposes. I'm a car guy. So I will also put automobiles in there probably some recreational use. So it's going to serve. you know, a few purposes, man cave, you know, a few things, you know.

Yeah, I have a lot of space there. Thanks.

All right. Does Mr. Perkins wish to speak? Are you here for just questions? Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Perkins? You're the builder, correct? He's the owner?

Yes.

So, any questions do we need to swear in the builder for any reason? I have 1 question is, well, do you want to ask the builder this or the owner?

Either 1, the builder is fine.

All right, I need to he's already been sworn in. Yeah, let's let's see if the owner can answer it. If not, we'll swear the builder.

Yes, sir. Will the structure be a metal building?

What do you mean availability?

Will the structure be a metal building?

Yes, sir. It will be a metal building.

Okay.

Thank you. But everything should blend in. I think we had a requirement on the door size of the garage. It has to be a certain height. So everything is, the structure will pretty much blend in to the neighborhood. You won't even really know it's there. Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? All right. Hearing none, we will close the public hearing and go into deliberations.

Thoughts on this one?

Anyone ready for a motion? And I guess we need to take the variance and waiver separate. So we need two motions, one for the variance, one for the waiver.

Do you want to go for it?

Go for it. Go for it.

In regards to case number 26, variance 650065, I move to approve the variance to allow an accessory use area to exceed the maximum depth of 60. Based on the staff report, staff analysis, and the testimony that I heard today. Good, Doc.

Second, Ford.

All right, we have a properly made motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Hardin?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Bozos?

Yes.

Scott?

Yes.

Luis?

Yes. All right, for the waiver.

Same case number, right?

Yeah. Right. As in reference to case number 26, Waiver 066. Based off the staff analysis and the testimony that was heard today, I approve the waiver for land development to allow an accessory structure to exceed the footprint of the principal structure.

All right. Is there a 2nd, 2nd, 1st, all right. Properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Hearing none roll call vote.

Yes, yes, yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you. Your waiver and variants are approved. Okay, the next case is 26 modified conditional use permit 0002 and Mark Pinto is a case manager.

Good afternoon everyone. Mark Pinto, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. This is a 26 modified CUP0002 for First Baptist Church of Fairdale at 413 Fairdale Road. So, this is a request for a modified conditional use permit for a private institutional use with relief from standard a, from that conditional use permit. There's also a variance and a couple waivers. The 1st, being a variance from land development code section. 522c table 522 to allow the new proposed building to exceed the maximum front yard setback along fairdale road because fairdale is a village and this property is within the village center forum district the maximum front yard setback is 25 feet And the request for the new building is roughly 174 feet back from that front property line, making it a variance of 149 feet next slide. There's also a waiver from land development code section 10 to 4 to reduce the size of the required 20 foot landscape buffer area down to 5 feet along a section of the property and the screening requirement down from 6 feet to 3 feet. And that's along the northern property line. And also a waiver from land development code section 561 D to not provide roofline variation along a building that exceeds 100 feet in length. The subject property is within the R4 zoning district, and it should be village center form district. It's roughly 9.8 acres and it's developed with an existing private institutional use. There's the main church building and then there's an accessory storage building and then a playground area as well. Um, the approved conditional use permit back in 2021 under 21 CP 0177 was, um, initially approved to allow the new 2000 square foot storage building again. That is currently there. Um, the church had existed there long before that 2021 date where the private institutional use conditional use permit was retrieved. However, they had to get it because it was an addition to an existing private institutional use in our 4 zoning. Um, and this modified is to allow a new 11,930 square foot building that will be at an athletic facility and also just another building for the church, like, an extension of the existing church. Transportation planning and MSD have reviewed the development plan and given preliminary approval. All of those agency comments have been addressed. And here is a copy of the site plan that shows the new proposed building. So, a large majority of this property is, um, unutilized and it's a tree canopy that's to be preserved and the church portion and the parking and the existing storage building in the new proposed building are all located near the front of the property. That newly proposed building is outlined in black behind where it has the proposed playground where that's shifting to next slide. And here is a zoning map of the area. The highlight or the subject property is highlighted in blue. It's zoned are for residential. It's adjacent to some commercial along man slick road. This is right before the roundabout when you get to on a man slick road and fairdale road. And here's an aerial showing the existing site conditions. And here it's just the front of the subject property looking in from fairdale road. At the existing church and the existing parking that's proposed to remain and then here's another view from fairdale road that looks into the site. You can see that playground there and the storage building behind it. And here are just some adjacent properties along fair road, looking down where it is residential with some existing are for lots. And here are just some more Jason properties looking the other way on road towards road and where the roundabout is. There are some commercial uses. And here's the waiver and variance exhibit. So this is a more zoomed in version of where new changes are proposed. So, in green is the, um, landscape buffer waiver where they're requesting to reduce it down to 5 feet. Where that exists, or that, uh, newly proposed vehicular use driveway area. And then in yellow is where the required setback line would be, which is the 25 feet from the front property line along road. And then the red arrow indicates. How far back that building is to be located that newly proposed. 11,900 square foot building, and the playground is proposed to shift in front of that building. So, although the building is being set back further. The playground kind of helps hold the frontage. and as stated previously the conditional use permit does need relief from standard a which requires all structures to be located at least 30 feet from any property line adjacent to an existing residentially zoned or used property the proposed new building is about 25 feet from that side property line so relief that standard is necessary And here are just some basic elevations provided by the applicant of what the building is proposed to look like the top 1, the West elevation should be what faces internally to the site. And then the North East and. South elevation. Staff finds the modified conditional use permit, including relief for standard a is adequately justified for approval based upon staff's analysis contained in the standard of review and the variance and waivers are also adequately justified for approval. And therefore, your required actions today are to approve or deny the modified conditional use permit and to approve or deny the variance and to approve or deny the waivers for site design.

Are there any questions for staff to back up about 4 slides to that 1 that had the. The waivers and yeah, so is that a driveway that's going around this building?

Yes, that's what they proposed on the site plan. It's not parking. It's not where vehicles will be parked or stored, but it's an access drive that allows an additional access point to that existing storage building into the parking area.

But that's not the main entrance to the church, is it?

No. The main entrance to the church, to my understanding, is remaining unchanged, and it's to the south of that.

Okay. All right. Other questions for staff? None. All right. Thank you. We will go to the applicant. Mason. Give us your name and address, including zip code, please.

Yeah, it's, uh, Mason, Glenn, Mendel, Scott, 51 51 Jefferson Boulevard 40219.

So, all right, raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth? Yes. Thank you. Go ahead.

Um, I think Mark pretty much covered everything. Um, if you want to kind of just flip through this, uh, pretty quickly.

Now we can go ahead. I just kind of want to look at the end of it.

Um, so I will say, I think the reasoning from what I remember my original meetings with the client, um, for not having that building closer is that playground they want to leave open to the community and they don't want to have it behind a building and it feels more closed off. Um, and then as far as the access drive, they do a fair bit of food bank work, I think, with this church. So. This new building is going to have a decent kitchen in it, and I think they just want to be able to. have a clear way of getting people in and out of there without having them go in the parking lot and in and out. And then actually, I think it was in the, I don't know if it was in the case file or the staff report, but the neighbor next to them that we're requesting the waiver for, he signed a letter of support for it. I think he's actually a member of the church, and he actually requested that we not put up, you know, something that's going to block him from just kind of walking over.

He wanted to have a gate so he could get through the fence.

Yeah, he mentioned the fence.

fence so is there a fence no there's not a fence it would be required i believe to do um a six foot screen and so that's why we're reducing it to three just so it's not cutting off his access either but um and is that drive two way or one way no it's just one way it's just an entry drive so yeah i believe that's if you want to go to the very end um so that go back one maybe So that kind of shows what it'll look like. There's a couple of mature trees at the playground. I don't think it'll really be that much of a disruption to the view shed from Fairdale Road.

So is that the actual size the playground will be?

I would say it'll be a little bit larger, honestly, because I think it's larger now. I believe that's probably AI throwing a playground in there.

Any more questions? Other questions?

No. Thank you. All right, I don't have any other speaker cards for this case. So we'll close the public hearing and go into deliberation. Thoughts on this one?

Anybody ready to make a motion?

And for the relief from standard a, you can rely on the staff report for justification of that. And you can take the 2 waivers together, but you'll need to make the other stuff separate. But we'll need 3, 3 motions from 4 items. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Anybody want to try a motion on this?

I'll do the motion.

Thank you.

This is Member Vozos. With regard to case number 26 MCUP0002, location 413 Fairdale Road, I move that we approve the modified conditional use permit. As written in the staff report. And with relief from standard a justified in the staff report based that on the staff report and testimony here today, did you want to include the 2 conditions conditions? Yes. Thank you conditions on page 10.

All right, is there a 2nd.

2nd Ford.

All right, properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Hearing none roll call vote.

Yes, yes, yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Okay, the variance needs to be taken alone and then the waivers can be done together.

Yes.

Uh, with regard to case number 26 variance 0 031. I move that we approve the variance from the land development code as written in the staff report to allow the proposed building to exceed the maximum 25 front foot front yard setback and based that on staff report and testimony heard today.

2nd, 4, we have a property made motion and 2nd, any further discussion hearing none roll call vote. Please. Yes, 4.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Yes, thank you.

And now the waivers all right take both the waivers, uh, regarding 26 waiver. 0, 0, 3, 1, and 26 waiver. 0, 0, 5, 5. I move that we approve both of these waivers as written. In the staff report based that on staff report and testimony heard today.

2nd forward.

All right. Properly made motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote. Horton?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Bozos?

Yes.

Scott?

Yes.

Lewis? Yes. All actions are approved. Thank you. All right. We have four cases left. Anyone need a break? Hearing none, we'll keep moving. Okay, 26M modified conditional use permit 0010. And Mark is our case manager on this one.

Yes, Mark Pinto again, office of planning staff. This is 26 modified conditional use permit 10 for 12111 Taylorsville road. It's a private proprietary club. So this is a modified conditional use permit for a private proprietary club in the R4 single family residential zoning district with relief from standard A. The standard A on this one is slightly different, but similar with respect to setback from property lines. And also at variance from land development code section 531C table 532 to allow the proposed building To encroach into the required 15 foot non residential to residential building setback. The proposed is 2.7. actually, that's a slight discrepancy from what was in the staff report. The original site plan. States that it's approximately 3 feet from the side property line, but upon further review of another, like, supplemental site plan. That's also being presented today. The fine print says 2.7. so, although it's just a matter of inches, it is important to get that. Measurement correct and exactly to the point. So, again, the requirement is 15 feet and the proposed is 2.7 feet, making it a variance of 12 feet, 4 inches or 12.3 feet. So, again, the property is in the R4 zoning district neighborhood form district. It's a 6.3 acre property with extensive mature tree canopy throughout it. That is proposed to remain and not be disrupted. Um, the approved conditional use permit was recent, um, 25, 0, 0, 4, 1, it was for the private proprietary club. It was for an 1800 square foot structure with an 800 foot square foot covered patio, maximum 70 guests and a modified conditional use permit is simply to change the location of the proposed building. Nothing materially on the site is changing as far as parking or landscaping, or even the size of the building is just about the location of the building. Once the applicant was. Um, closer to being ready to pull building permits, and they got the survey done. The location of this proposed building was closer to the side property line that what was previously. Um, thought out to be so that's the need for the modified conditional use permit and for the variance. Um, here's the previously approved site plan that just showed the, um, proposed building with parking and access off of Taylor's full road. And here is the newly proposed site plan, which again, nothing is really changing except for the location of that existing building with respect to the side property line. Now, it's roughly 3 feet off. And here is a, um, more on version of the site plan that the applicant submitted with this proposal, um, that remove some of the landscaping details. So you could see the parking in the building more and where 3 feet. Is highlighted right above it in kind of finer, like, lighter text is, it says 2.7 feet. So that's why there's that change. And here is an outline of the property in blue that shows the zoning of the area. The side of Taylorsville road is all. Residential zoning to the South is some commercial zoning and some special plan development zoning for the talent town center at the intersection of Taylor's for road and Sweeney lane. And Tucker station road. And here's an aerial showing the outline of the property in blue, just showing the existing site conditions. There was a barn structure on the property. I'm not sure if that has been removed yet. I'll let the applicant. And for that question, if it comes up, but to the left. Or rather to the West of the property is the is owned by the applicant and that is where the relief is being requested with the 3 foot. Setback versus or the 2.7 foot setback versus the 15 foot setback. Here's a subject property looking at in from Taylor's for road. It's got some very nice natural screening that was a highlight brought up during the original conditional use permit. The existing landscaping and trees are all. To stay there, and here is just some adjacent property across the street carrying green on Taylor's for road a senior. Housing or townhome. Type condominium development and here's East along Taylor for just looking at some neighboring single family homes. So relief from standard a similar to the previous request, all new building structures and facilities shall be 30 feet from any property line. That's the standard for the private proprietary club conditional use permit. And since the new building is going to be roughly 3 feet from that side property line, 2.7 feet to be exact, it needs relief from that standard. And here are just some elevations of the proposed. Private proprietary club to my understanding. The elevations are very similar, if not the same as what was proposed. With the original conditional use permit. And staff finds the modified conditional use permit with relief to standard a is adequately justified for approval as is the variance, um, according to the staff analysis contained in the standard of review and the staff report. And therefore, your required actions today are to approve or deny the modified conditional use permit and approve or deny the variance. And again, when you take the motion for the variance, please. Use the measurements on the 1st slide of this presentation if we want to go back there just real quick. Again, the proposed is 2.7 feet, not 3 feet, making it a variance of 2.3 feet. Are there any questions for staff?

12.3 feet? Yeah. 12.3 feet.

Sorry.

You said the buildings in the same place. Did the survey just indicate that measurement to be different or did they slide the building over towards that property line?

I'll let the applicant enter that since the building footprint isn't changing in the design of the building isn't changing. Um, my understanding was like, the exact placement of it wasn't really changing. It's just when they got the survey and they noticed that property line going down, um, that the building was closer to that property line that they previously thought. But again, part of the justification, and the applicant will also attest to this, that neighboring property is their property. It's their residence. They just have the properties subdivided and do not want to consolidate them.

All right. Questions for staff? No? Okay. I have one. Speaker Carr, Don Wenzel. There is the applicant. If you would start with the name and address, including zip code, please.

Yes, my name is Donald Wenzel. Address is 12109 Taylorsville Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 40299.

Raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

I do.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mark, thanks for queuing up the presentation today. Mark and I have been working on this project for a couple of years and very much appreciate his very good support. Um, if we could flip to the 1st slide here, I'm just showing you the location of the subject property. We're about a mile West of interstate 265 the gene Snyder freeway off of Taylor's full road. As Mark indicated, we actually own two parcels there, each about six and a half acres for a total of roughly 13 acres. The subject parcel where the barn is, is approximately 6.5 acres.

Next slide please.

Here's a closer look at the actual site and what we can see are the 2 different parcels that are owned 12109 on the left is a residential property where we actually live as our primary residence. Property on the right again, another approximately 6.5 acre parcel. That is the site of the barn to answer a question that came up during Mark's testimony. There was a barn on the site that was deemed to be unsafe. And so we got a proper demolition permit. uh last spring demolished the existing barn and the replacement barn is actually a historic barn that we're bringing in from pennsylvania has now been brought in from pennsylvania and matches the historic character of the site the site is part of the tyler rural settlement district both of these subject properties are on the national register of historic places next slide please Here is the original site survey that I had done when the property was purchased by me in 2021. Again, it shows you the two parcels, the one on the right being the barn parcel and indicated in the red outlined area is the CUP portion of that parcel. So the CUP that Mark and I worked on did not encompass the entire 6.5 acre parcel. Rather, as you can see, it encompasses just over one acre. of that parcel next slide please so here's a photograph that shows you um essentially the uh property line between 12111 and 12109 so on the on the left the large brick structure is uh the existing historic home where we live the structure on the right is the barn under construction And I've just tagged in here a red dotted line. So you can see roughly property line between the 2 parcels. Obviously, it's a little closer to the barn. But given the orientation was a little hard to to draw that. So here's a quick. Just overview the timeline. I thought this would be important just to kind of connect all the dots here. So, as Mark mentioned, we were approved for a private proprietary club back in April of 2025. we then began the planning phase with architectural and site planning work that continued through December of 2025 when the building permit was issued. Um, we did, we were able to locate the historic barn frame, 18 seventies from Pennsylvania. Um, we'd transport it to the site in early 2026. Um, after the building program was issued, we obviously began with construction of the barn itself. We're now sitting at approximately 70% complete on the bar and I do have a few photos to show you. Um, here is the here's part of the reason to the question that was asked earlier during construction. We did encounter some bedrock formation on the property. It required us to slightly adjust the actual placement and foundation. The name of this property is actually called Rockdale for a reason. It is a solid ledge of limestone. Incredibly beautiful, but incredibly hard to move. So it became easier to adjust the location of the barn than to blast through, you know, tons of rock. Next slide please. Okay, Mark showed this slide again here. We're just showing you the orientation at the top. To the property line location, um, approximately 2.7 feet, 3 feet. The reason for the 3 foot to 2.7 foot discrepancy when did the actual, um, site plan work they measured at 2.7. so we just wanted to be accurate about that.

Next slide please.

Here are the elevations and what I did is overlay for you at the top left. This would be the South elevation and what I'm showing you is the corner of the barn from the South elevation perspective of where the roughly 3 foot setback is. And then in the lower right, that is the West elevation. So, that is the other view of that corner where the 3 foot setback is next slide please. So, here are a couple of photographs. Um, you can see much more clearly here the picture on the left. Um, that Southwest corner, it's, I mean, you got 14 acres here roughly. Um, so a movement of 12 feet is completely immaterial, particularly when I own the property on the side where we're encroaching. And then you can see, if you look closely on the photo on the right, below the foundation of the barn, you can see that is solid limestone. Okay. And so to my point earlier, we encountered a lot of limestone bedrock, limestone in the process of building the foundation, which caused that slight shift in the location of the barn. So last slide, um, our request today is for approval of this slightly modified barn location on that Southwest corner, um, uh, to comply with the land development code, which the project otherwise complies with all aspects of any questions, questions for the app.

None.

Nope.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I don't have any other speakers for this case, so we'll close the public hearing and go into deliberation. Any thoughts any member would like to share on this or is anyone ready for. A motion, and I guess we need 2 motions. Correct.

Okay. Madam chair. yes i'd like to make a motion on case 26-m cup-0010 on rock 12 111 taylorsville road um The request is first for a modified conditional use permit for a private, private, private, private territory club in the R4 single family residential zoning district with relief from the standard A land development code 4.2.44. And Cesar. Now, with the proposed conditions of approval on 8 of 8, there are 8 proposed conditions of approval. Oh, and of course, it's all based on the staff report, the staff analysis and the testimony we've heard today.

Is there a second?

2nd, Horton, thank you.

We have a property made motion and 2nd, any further discussion hearing 9 roll call vote. Please.

Yes, 4 yes. Yes, Scott. Yes, Louise.

Yes. Okay for the variance.

Okay, next in the same case, 26, uh, M. C. P dash 0, 0. The variance request as we approve the variance from the land development code section 5.3.1.C table 5.3.2 to allow the proposed building to encroach into the 15-foot non-residential to residential building setback. Uh, 26 variance dash 0, 0, 6, 6. And this is based on the staff report and staff analysis and the testimony we've heard today.

And just to be clear, the request is going to be 2.7 feet and the variance 12.3 feet as shown in the staff presentation, right?

The staff presentation did show the request of 3 feet and. I'm sorry.

2.7.

And it's actually going to be, but it's actually 2.7. And then the variance is 12.3 feet as opposed to just 12 feet.

Is there a second?

Second, Horton.

All right. Property made motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote. Horton?

Yes.

Bozos? Yes. For yes, Scott yes, please. Yes, thank you. The request are approved. The next 2 cases, do you have online speakers? Because I don't. For the next case. Okay. All right. While you're pulling those over, let's take a short break. Keep it as short as you can. So we don't take up too much time, but he can pull these folks over. All right, we will get back to our agenda. This is item number 11, 26 CUP-0083, and Jude Mattingly is our case manager.

Good afternoon, Jude Mattingly, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. And yes, before you today is a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit that's not meeting one of the special standards contained within the Land Development Code. If you go to the next slide, please. So the request is seeking relief from item J, which is the owner-occupied requirement associated with accessory dwelling units. If you go to the next slide, please.

Maybe.

Oh, sorry. All right. So, yeah. Struck down. Okay. So the subject site is approximately 0.23 acres. It is zoned R5, which is a single family residential zoning classification and it falls within a traditional neighborhood form district. The subject site can be located north of the South 3rd and West Wellington Avenue intersection. If you're familiar with that part of town, it's very near the Beachmont community center. Uh, it's currently developed with a 2 and a half story, single family, residential structure and a 2 story detached accessory structure that contains a garage and where the will be located up at the top floor. The applicant has indicated that the is 600 square feet. Uh. And they are requesting the conditional use permit because it had 1 time been approved while they were living there and now they're moving out and they want to still be able to offer both units as long term rentals. So now the conditional use permit is being triggered. The is access through an interior staircase and it also contains 2 dedicated parking spaces that you'll see in photographs later on in the presentation. Next slide please. All right, so here is the zoning of the immediate area. It is our 5 zoning, but you can see these pockets of our 6 and our 7, which are multi family districts that can allow for multiple residential units. And if you go to the next slide, we'll get a little bit of an aerial here. Uh, so obviously primary structure is closer to South 3rd street and the accessory structure where the will be is in the rear. If you go to the next slide, please. All right, so here is the subject property. This is the principal structure facing South 3rd street and the next slide here. If I have my memory correct on the order, so this is the accessory structure and again, the is taking place on that 2nd floor. So above the garage. And if you go to the next slide, we'll just get some site context. So this is facing both South and North down South 3rd street. It's just a row of residential homes. And if you go to the next slide. For further neighborhood context, this is down a little bit where if you're at the South 3rd and West Wellington Avenue intersection, and the next slide will be where you can see you can actually access. This is the unnamed alley where you can access the accessory structure in those parking spaces that brick building. That's very lovely. On the right hand side is the community center. So, if you go to the next slide, and then I know that this maybe doesn't translate super well when you're looking at it on the screen, but this is again, kind of further neighborhood site context of what exists in this area. Again, I'll reference the beach month community center. I know it can be difficult to see, but you can see South 3rd street obviously has a well developed, like, torque stop system. if you can see those little bus indicators. And then you can just see a couple like private institutional uses that exist in the area. If you go to the next slide, please. All right, so these are photos supplied by the applicant. This is the exterior of the accessory structure that contains the ADU. I know their note can be hard to see on this presentation, but the door on the left is what takes you to this interior staircase where you access the unit. Next slide, please. And just as a friendly reminder, this was approved at 1 point when it was in line with all the special standards. And now that they've moved, they need the conditional use permits. So don't be dismayed by it already existing. But this is the interior where you can see how they kind of have it set up and the next slide here. After this, all right, so this is our staff findings and just like all conditional use permits. This was reviewed by the Department of transportation and and it's met any and all requirements that they have. This proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses general character and the accessory structure is in line with all setbacks and height requirements of accessory structures in the traditional neighborhood form district. I want to point out that the subject site does not have any recorded history of code enforcement complaints or violations that we've observed. Um, and as such, there's also been no reported nuisance nuisances or other observed issues. Um, and the requested relief from item J, in our opinion is adequately justified for approval based on staff's analysis of that standard overview. And the proposal otherwise meets all the other standards of an accessory dwelling unit. And I know that, um, you know, the board sees the majority of them are just approved administratively within the office planning, but it's maybe been a bit since we've seen 1 requesting relief from this specific item. I'm more than happy to answer any questions about research that we did in preparation of writing the staff report and or just other general questions before we turn it over to the applicant. And that's my, uh, that's my alarm to go off times up.

Okay. Questions for staff. None. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. So we have an applicant online.

Hi, yes, I'm here.

Hold on just a 2nd, let's.

Are you able to hear me?

Yes, can you turn your camera on please?

Oh, yes. Give me 1 moment.

All right, thank you. If you would give us your name address, including zip code, I'll swear you in before you start.

My name is. My address is 4, 5, or 9, 3, 1, 0. Whitley Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 40272.

If you'd raise your right hand, please. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth?

Yes.

All right. Thank you. You may go ahead.

Hi, everyone. So I submitted this application because I had, up until the later part of last year, I'd lived in the address in question. Before I had moved in, the structure had already existed and it's already, in my opinion, well set up to exist as a studio apartment. At the point that we had moved out, my intention was to maintain ownership of the property and rent out the main residence. After looking into it, I figured it would make more sense to try to rent both units separately rather than having one person taking on the entirety of the property for the sake of getting more property options for people to rent and then also for the sake of being able to get the most effective use out of the property. For most of the time that I've lived there, I'd had somebody staying in the apartment or the studio apartment and had no issues. They have all reasonable access to everything that a dwelling unit would require and my intentions would be to maintain that along with having the main structure rented out as a separate property, same property, just as a separate unit.

Okay. And you intend to rent both of these to long-term renters identified as being more than 30 days?

Yes.

Okay.

All right. Any questions for the applicant?

None. All right. Thank you. Do we have another speaker on this case?

Yes, we have a speaker in opposition.

Okay. Online too.

Yes.

And whenever you're ready. Ann, do you have a camera you can turn on? Can she hear us?

I can't tell if she can hear us. We have changed the settings. She can unmute herself, but I can't unmute her.

Ann, can you hear us? You apparently are muted.

Hold on, I just got a chat message.

All right, try now. Ann?

Can you unmute yourself?

She's having some Webex difficulties. We just checked the settings and settings have worked in the past, so I don't quite know what's going on in this case. They updated WebEx. It might have changed on her end, but we have it so people can unmute themselves.

So she can communicate to you through chat, but she can't unmute to speak, is it?

Correct. And they made some updates to WebEx that we had kind of had to sort through our settings to make sure that they'll work for a meeting. I don't know how that changed for people that participate. It might have changed how her computer allows permissions to the WebEx app. Sometimes if you've got to select that you get permission to WebEx to use your microphone and video, that could be it. But one thing is now we can't unmute somebody. I guess that's a privacy thing so that we don't unmute them and hear a conversation we're not supposed to hear.

And that's only for people you pull over into our meeting, correct? I mean, everybody that might be

tuned into this can't unmute and start when you come in you're classified as an attendee and you're you can only listen and watch you you can't unmute yourself you can send a chat message but you can't speak when we bring you over to the panel it's it's just like how travis was in the previous applicant was you can speak whenever you would like to so what do we do about technical difficulties The bylaws state that if there's it's at the discretion of the chair, but the bylaws state that if there's technical difficulties on the behalf of any online speaker that we move on that. We don't have to delay the case because it's not working out for them.

Okay, and on the other hand, if the technical difficulty was on our end, we would pause the meeting.

All right. So it looks like we will just move on. I think we've made enough attempts to communicate with Ms. Ramseur. So that's the only speakers we had, correct? We can close the public hearing and agreement. All right. Any thoughts on this case? Anyone would like to share? Or is anyone ready to do a motion? It seems to me that this is a case where not much is changing except the owner is not going to live in the primary structure. He's had renters there before and he will, he's asking to continue that as well as renting the primary structure, which he previously lived in, but Uh, doesn't seem like that's a huge change to the neighborhood with regard to affordable housing that would.

Maintain an affordable housing unit studio apartment in that neighborhood. An affordable housing unit, so I think that's important at this. Stage.

You're ready to make a motion.

There's no more discussion. I'll make the motion. Um, this is member of those with regard to case number 26 C. U. P. 0, 0, 8, 3 location 4561 South 3rd street. I move that we approve this conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit. That does not meet the provisions of. Section 4.3.27 of the land development code. Um, any reliefs that oh, the conditions, right?

Yeah, there's there's. 3 conditions of approval, and there's also relief from item J. And relief is justified per the staff report.

Yes, I do allow relief from item J. As justified in the staff report and want to bring attention to the conditions on page 6 of 6, 3 conditions there and base. This on the staff report and testimony heard today.

2nd forward I, we have a properly made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Hearing none roll call vote, please. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. The request for the conditional use permit is approved. All right, the next case is 26 C. U. P. 0, 0, 7, 5. Abby bills is the case manager. And I was just given a speaker card for the applicant who is here. Do you have anyone online for this next case?

We did, but I just saw him come in, so I think he's here now.

Yeah, I have a speaker. Okay. Thank you.

All right, Abby, go ahead. Abby bills, office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0, 2, 2, this is 26 75 for a short term rental on Newberg road. This is a conditional use permit to allow short term rental of a dwelling unit. That's not the primary residents of the owner. We're in our 5 residential zoning district and neighborhood form district. There's a single family dwelling on the property. There's 4 bedrooms, which allows 10 guests maximum and there are no 600 foot issues. This is a zoning map of the property. It's owned our 5 adjacent to our 1. And then this is an aerial of the property. You can see the existing conditions. Here's a view of the subject subject property from Newberg road. You have the driveway on the right. And then this is the view from shady lane. And then these are adjacent properties along shady lane to give some neighborhood context. And then these are other properties across Newberg Road. So staff findings, staff finds that the request is sufficiently justified for approval. There is no 600 foot issue within the subject property. There's sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the use and it meets all standards of the CUP. So your required actions are to approve or deny the conditional use permit for the short term rental. Any questions for staff?

What is that property across

Newberg Road. Is that? It's a cemetery. I'm not sure exactly who the owner is. Okay. That's what those gates go to? Yeah.

All right. Other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. We will move to the applicant.

You would start with your name and address, including zip code, please.

My name is Farouk Shaheen. The property address is 1, 6, 0, 1, Newberg, but my address is 9 North field lane in Westbury in New York.

What's the zip code?

1, 1, 5, 9, 0.

If you raise your right hand, do you swear and affirm that the testimony you gave will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Um, so basically I've applied for this conditional use permit. It meets the 600 feet rule. Um, I'm familiar with this process. I've been here a few times. Uh, so, um, basically I'm here to answer any of your questions or concerns. I've had a neighborhood meeting that went pretty well. Um, no, 1 pretty much showed up, but I. Took the opportunity to go knock on people's doors and there was 1 couple who showed up, but we couldn't meet each other. So I was, I went around the house trying to knock people's doors to find that neighbor who came up. I was luckily able to find them. I spoke to them. They just had some. Questions regarding the process and how the 600 feet rule works and, um, which I answered them and, uh, I was able to alleviate any concerns they might have. And, um, as of right now, I have no opposition or any issues with any of the neighbors.

And do you have other short term rentals? I do.

Correct. Okay.

And how are you going to manage this 1? Do you do it yourself or do you have.

I'm very actively managing. I have cameras on all my properties. I actively manage them every day from New York, but I also have a local team on ground that manages all my properties. And I've put that information in my application also. The manager, her name is Shannon Cecil. I've provided that to the neighbors as well. I've given them her phone number, her email address, her address, her name, everything. So they have my information also. Any issues, they can always contact me as well.

And how far does she live from the property?

Maybe 10 minutes.

Yeah. Okay.

Questions, members? No? Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

You don't have any online speakers for this case? Okay. We'll close the public hearing then and go into deliberation. Any thoughts on this case you'd like to share or is anyone ready to make a motion?

Just that New York.

Concern with the out of state owners?

Out of state owners of multiple units and that sort of thing. I don't know if Louisville's the, I should have asked it, but if Kentucky's the only state that he has rental units.

I mean, I don't know the answer to the question. I can only tell you that the ordinance doesn't Prohibit or restrict out of state owners. It only focuses on making sure that there's a local person to respond to issues immediately. And he testified that he would have that and. I'm aware of some of his other rentals and he has that in place for some of the other rentals that have been approved here and it'll have to be confirmed at time of registration.

They'll have to put a host and emergency contact on the registration as well.

And they checked the distance? Doesn't the ordinance say how far away or how quickly? Yeah, 25 miles. That host can get there. And he did take effort to run down. I recall this was the case where some folks that attended the neighborhood meeting were directed to the wrong meeting location and thought they missed it. He took the time to find those people and talk with them one on one. I think he's been very open with it.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion on 26-CUP-075 regarding conditional use. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a dwelling unit that is not the primary residence of the owner, Land Development Code 4.2.63. I make the motion that we approve the P permit based on the staff findings and staff review the testimony we've heard today. And then we also have 2 conditions of approval on page 8 of 8.

Okay, is there a 2nd. Scott 2nd, I probably made motion and 2nd, any further discussion. Hearing none roll call vote.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, Scott yes.

Yes, conditional use permit is approved. All right the last case on our agenda today is 26 088 and. Rachel is again presenting the staff report.

yes once again rachel casey presenting on behalf of kathy gomez for 26 cup0088 while joe's joe is pulling it up this is a can request for a conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a dwelling unit that's not the primary residence of the owner located at 1535 south 32nd street Uh, so this property is zoned R6 multifamily residential in the traditional neighborhood form. The structure is a duplex. Uh, it, uh, each unit. Each individual unit contains 2 bedrooms for a maximum of 6 guests per unit. There's no short term rental approved by conditional use permit within 600 feet of the subject property and there's off street parking available in the existing driveway. This is a zoning map of the property. You can see it's at the intersection of South 32nd Street and Young Avenue.

And then here's an aerial image of the property.

Here is the front of the subject property. It looks like it was under renovation at the time that this was taken. These are adjacent to the north of the property, other adjacent residential to the north. And this is looking south on 32nd street across young Avenue.

More residential, and this is a church that is across South 32nd street from the property.

So staff finds the request is sufficiently justified for approval based on staff's analysis. There's no short-term rental approved by CUP within 600 feet. It includes sufficient onsite parking and it meets all applicable standards of the conditional use permit. So your required action is to approve or deny the CUP to allow a short-term rental of a dwelling unit that is not the primary residence of the owner.

Any questions? Questions for staff?

No.

All right. Thank you. We will hear from the applicant, Mr. George. We appreciate you spending the afternoon with us.

Thank you for breaking me in.

Yeah, you probably know the drill now. We need your name and address and zip code.

Okay. My name is Elmore George III. The property address that's in question is 1535 South 32nd Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40211.

If you'd raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Like, I'm brand new, so, I mean, I don't really know what all y'all want to know. I mean, the picture that they showed was a very old picture. It is completed and everything, and I haven't had any tenants in it yet. Everything's freshly renovated. I'm totally renovated.

Is this your first short-term rental?

Well, my primary, I have a primary residence there.

Ran out, but this is my first non-residential.

Non? Yes, ma'am. So this is a duplex that has two different units, correct?

Yes, ma'am. Upstairs unit and a basement unit. Okay. Because it's kind of, if you look at the pictures, kind of the bottom unit is kind of like halfway in the ground and halfway out.

And is there a single door? It looked like in that picture there was a single door you went in. Do you?

But in the front, the top, the upstairs unit, the front door, it actually goes up to the upstairs unit.

And in the back, you go up the deck, and it goes to the back.

But then in the bottom, it only has one doorway, which I made sure that I had to have egress windows. And so I had to adjust, make sure that the windows was egress. It was 44 inches from the bottom of the window.

And has this structure always been a duplex or did you renovate it to be a duplex?

Well, when I purchased it, I think they changed, looked like they changed the outside to make it into a single family. But inside they had the duplex, like the electrical boxes. So I put them back because I wanted to try to maximize my income and stuff. And I want to keep it for long term.

Okay, questions members, did you have a neighborhood meeting and how did that go?

Yes, sir. I had a neighborhood meeting, but, you know, nobody show and then most of my. Most of my, uh, those papers I had to fill out. I mean, I sent. Most of them came back, so I wasted all my money. Okay, so nobody showed up. Yeah, I mean, but a couple people that did show up, actually, they was trying to rent it. Like, they want to try to rent the whole place. Oh, okay.

Long-term real.

Okay.

Are you going to be the manager and. Yes, sir.

Yeah, I don't really stay. I'm from the West End. So I'm just like. five, ten minutes away. So I'm like, I can always get there.

And as far as cleaning and handling reservations? Airbnb.

I have some cleaners that I already use for my other unit. So I'm going to have that. And I'm going to have the Airbnb cleaners come over and do that.

Sounds good. Thank you.

Other questions.

All right, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Joe. Do we have anyone online? No, so I don't have any more speaker forms either. So if we have no more questions, we'll close the public hearing. Going to deliberation any thoughts on this 1. Or anyone ready to make a motion.

I'm sure motion please. I move to approve the case number 26 C. U. P. 0, 0, 8, 8, based on the staff report. And the staff analysis in addition to the testimony in today's open hearing. 2nd board.

All right. We have a properly made motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Horton?

Yes.

Pozos?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Scott?

Yes.

Louise? Yes. Thank you. The CUP is approved. Thank you.

We appreciate your patience. Absolutely.

Okay, nothing further. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Yes, ma'am. Motion to adjourn please. Thank you.

Thank you.

What was it? Probably the 2nd. Oh, okay.

That's what it makes.