Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

reading the opening statement.

Thank you.

Okay.

This is the regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Development Review Committee to hear cases as documented for the meeting 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. One, silence all cell phones. 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 a message to the host number four today's proceedings are being recorded anyone wishing to address the committee may do so from the podium or virtually if you plan on speaking please fill out the speaker's form as soon as possible Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker form will be allowed to speak. Procedure shall be as follows. Number one, staff will present a summary of the request. Number two, The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation giving 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 their representative will have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. Number seven, if there are further questions by the opposition after the rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. A unanimous unanimous vote of this committee constitutes final action on most cases, however is the vote is not unanimous or if it's otherwise required or recommended the case will be placed on the regular agenda of the next planning Commission for further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time could have a roll call please.

Leonard. Present stupid here means step.

Here. Okay, 1st thing on our agenda today, the minutes from 61726. Seems like. A month ago. All right, as we had a chance to review that, and would someone like to make a motion or. Bring up an issue with that.

No one has any thoughts. I'll make a motion that we approve the 617-26 DRC meeting minutes.

Second. Properly made motion and second. Roll call.

Leonard?

Yes.

Yes. Mims? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Yes. Under old business, the item number two minutes of correction 21826-25. So I assume that there's a...

I mean, when I'm looking at the minutes, it looks like on binding element number nine, they're changing Binford Way to Street B. That seems to be the only change. Correct.

It's just a correction to the binding elements.

Okay. Someone like to make a motion on this.

So, in the case of the corrections of the review minutes from February, eighteen to twenty, twenty six, I make a motion that we accept the. Corrected version referencing Benford way being changed to street B.

2nd, probably made motion in 2nd, roll call. Yes.

Yes, yes, yes, step.

Yes, okay item number 3 under new business. Um, 26 street closure. Um, 0, 0, 1, 0. So, bro, I'll see Ali closure. and Sydney.

Sydney Fawcett, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, 40202. This is 26th Street, closure 10. The request today is a closure of public right-of-way. The applicant is requesting the closure of an unnamed alley near the intersection of West Breckenridge Street and South 8th Street, roughly 5500 square feet. Portions of the proposed closure will not be conveyed evenly to the adjacent property owners. However, the applicant has obtained agreements from those property owners saying that they're aware and agree to the conveyance. This is the zoning map of that right of way and 2. This is an aerial of the proposed closure. This is if you are looking at the alley along South 8th Street. And then if you're looking at the alley along West Breckenridge Street. And this is just that street closure plat showing that closure. The proposed closure will maintain public facilities and all agencies have been addressed and approvals have been received. The applicant has received a consent to street closure from more than 51% of the adjacent property owners. And the proposal is ready for the next available consent agenda for the planning commission. And then your required actions today is to place on the consent agenda at the next available planning commission. Any questions for staff.

Any questions I have a question concerning the just in general private agreements. How do those do those go to the go to record with the plan or they just in our meeting minutes?

They, I don't believe, get recorded. They're just for our records. And legal reviews them and makes sure that the language is good to go.

So at this stage, they get basically letters agreeing, but there will eventually be a written document that gets recorded. The street closure gets recorded, but then also another document gets recorded around the same time.

And you could reference it to the owners in terms of the location.

Yeah, but there'll be something of record placed that they've agreed to a different. Other than what the default is under the statute.

Yeah, that makes. I mean, I just have seen a couple of these private agreements and I was just curious about that. So helps out. Thank you.

Any other questions.

Thank you Sydney. Thank you. Um, Carl Lentz. Afternoon, Carl Lentz, L. J. B.

2373 Armstrong lane. I'm a representative for a don't answer bro. L. L. C. Like I said, Sydney pretty much explained everything. Any questions, I'll definitely try to answer them for you.

Does anyone have any questions at a curiosity? Is there a project going on here?

809 Sobro, they own the business on the east side of 8th Street there, and they also own, they have an office building there, and they also own Flavorman, and they own Moonshine University there. Right now, there's no plans what they were doing. If you see the fence, there's at the front of its fence, the alley, they had some people camping back in the corner, the corner of the building. Makes sense.

Yep.

I get it. All right. Thanks.

Any other questions? Carl, thank you. Is there anybody else online? Carl's the only one who filled out a sheet.

Nobody online, right?

Okay, we'll move into deliberation. What do we think and.

Any motions to be heard question this is go to tomorrow's planning commission.

It can if you put it on the if you place it on the consent agenda sure.

Well, I guess I'd want to see is, is there enough capacity. Looks it looks like it was a fairly substantial agenda.

It should be fine because it should just be an easy, simple vote on the consent agenda.

I don't think it'll just take the consent agenda and then there's a motion to approve the consent agenda. So, in terms of additional time to the meeting, you're talking minimal less than 5 minutes. Yeah. Notions sure.

Uh, so, in the case of, um, 26 street closure, 0, 0, 1, 0, I make a motion that, um, this matter be, um, placed on the. July 16th, uh, consent agenda for the planning commission. I make that based on our staff report in our discussion here today.

2nd, properly made motion and 2nd roll call.

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

Item number 4. Another street closure 26 street closed for 0, 017. Zach.

Thank you very much. Zach Jones for for South history. Little Kentucky for 202 26 street closure. 017. this is a closure for them right away. That is mermaid lane. Here's the request closure of public right away applicants requesting the closure of this right away perpendicular Collins lane, adjacent to the Ford properties. The surrounding properties all by the same owner that is forward and the right of way will be subsequent subsequently released to that common ownership. This is related to the proposed zone change 26 zone 0 056. that's going for plan commission tomorrow. Uh, there was a little bit of history on this 1 in terms of, uh, the property was up for discussion, whether it was actually public right away for sometimes is a little bit of a late edition. Um, but we've got that figured out. So we're just releasing that as part of that development. Transportation, all public utilities have provided preliminary approval. Here is a map of that right away. You can see Collins lane is that purple dash line. Here's the aerial of the same property. Here's a view of the entrance to that right away along Collins Lane looking southwest. Next slide. And then this is the same looking northwest. Whatever. I think you guys got it. Next slide. This is a copy of the exhibit. Next slide. And the proposed closure will maintain all public facilities. All agencies have addressed and approved. I received approvals from relevant utilities. Uh, the applicant is the owner of all the adjacent properties around this subject right away. And, uh, The required action is to place it on the consent agenda at the next available planning commission tomorrow with the following condition. This condition prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant must receive written confirmation from all affected utility agencies that the easement agreements are in place. They, again, because that was a little bit of a late addition, there's hammering out the fine details, but they've provided preliminary approval. So we're just going to get that reflected on the drawing. That's all we've got for the staff report, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

I had a question, and it may be what you're referencing is hearing out the details. But when I looked at say backs plant, it looked like a portion of mermaid kind of overlaid Collins. And, uh, and I, I'm just assuming that there are 2 separate right of ways, even though we're closing the mermaid portion over Collins that they're still right away there. Sure.

Is that yeah, we're keeping Collins as that contiguous right away. It's just closing that mermaid lane portion. That's flanked by all the 4 properties. Okay.

And I have talked to say back Wilson. Since we talked about it on Monday morning that asked them to just adjust the plat and make sure that clearly has 40 feet of right away within the Collins lane. Exactly strictly Collins lane right away.

Any other questions so do we have a, I mean, that are you comfortable enough that these details been worked out that this can be put on the consent agenda for absolutely okay. Yeah. Cool.

All right any other questions. Thank you, Zach. Um, anyone online or here that wants to speak to no one else to sign up. We'll move to deliberation. I think it's fairly cut and dry.

Sure. You want a motion?

Yes.

Okay. So, in the case of 26 street closures, there was our 17. I make a motion that this matter be put on the consent agenda of the planning commission of the July 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. I make a motion based on our staff report and testimony here today.

2nd. Properly made motion and second roll call.

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

All right item number 526 waiver. Oh, 5, 4 Abby bills.

Abby bills office of planning staff for for for South history level Kentucky for a 2 to 2. This is case 26 waiver 54 for a gas canopy on West Broadway. This is a waiver of land development code section 5, 5, 1 to allow a detached gas canopy to be located between the principal structure and the public street. The site is on commercial in the town center form district, and the applicant is proposing to construct a 720 square foot gas canopy in front of an existing building. This is a zoning map of the site, as you can see, we're on West Broadway and twenty seventh surrounded by commercial. This is an aerial view of the site. And then this is a view of the subject property from West Broadway. This is during construction of the existing building. And then this is a view from twenty seventh street on the side. These are some adjacent properties along Broadway. And then this is across Broadway. This is the site is directly across the Kroger on West Broadway. This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. As you can see, the existing building is outlined in black and then the proposed awning is going to go right in front. So, staff finds the justification for the request is adequate and recommends approval of the waiver. The waiver will not adversely affect to joining property owners and is the minimum necessary to afford relief. So, your required actions are to approve or deny the waiver to allow a detached canopy to be located between the principal structure and the public street. Any questions for staff.

Any questions. All right, thank you. Thank you. Um.

I need a little help with your last name if you don't mind.

Okay. It's 2701 West Broadway. No, well, used to be a gas station for many years. It was there are probably like 70. 80 years history, and we took it down. It wasn't good enough for what the purpose we're going to use it for new gas station. We got approved by BP and. And we were requesting for the new canopy.

Okay, so you so you have got your approval for your. Supplier right? Yes, we do have a supplier from BP and you're going to put this canopy above the pumps that are going to go in. Yes. Okay, is there did a did I miss a, did you have an illustration of what the was? Yes, we did.

I think it was in the staff presentation. where it showed the building coming down in the new building.

That's a site plan right there.

Okay.

All right. Any questions? If she is there a,

Existing pumps area going to be building new ones.

No, there is already tanks in the ground fiberglass tanks. There is. We are going to work on a sub some of the lining stage 2 lining was done years ago. We're going to redo that. Or we will do that and we're going to install new pumps. There's already old pumps there. There's existing pumps there. We're going to take them now.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone else that's going to speak? And there's no one else here. No one on internet. All right. What do we think?

I mean, there was a canopy in when I looked at Google Street View, there was a canopy there in 2019 2020. I mean, so this is not, you know, a radical change. All right. Same use. Yeah, same use.

All right.

Um, motion anybody make a motion that we approve the waiver. Um. of case twenty six waivers years of fifty four for the gas canopy based on the system we've heard today in the staff report second probably made motion second roll call land it yes stuber yes means yes step yes official yes okay item number six twenty six waiver oh seven two sydney

Sydney Fawcett, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, 40202. This is 26, waiver 72. The request today is a waiver of LDC section 10.2.12 to not provide the required interior landscaping areas. the site is little over half an acre zone cm commercial manufacturing in the neighborhood form the applicant is proposing to convert an existing storage building to an athletic facility the change in use does trigger the landscaping requirements of the land development code including the interior landscaping areas however there is no new construction being proposed and the applicant does not want to alter the existing parking on site however the applicant will be replacing the existing chain link fence that Circles or encloses the parking lot with a 6 foot wooden fence. This is a zoning map of the subject site again, zoned CM surrounded by other commercial. This is the aerial of the subject site. This is the subject property if you're looking at it along Lytle street. This is some of the adjacent commercial activity. And this is some of the residential across the street. This is the site plan. They will be providing the required plantings along Lytle. Staff staff finds that the applicant will be installing a 6 foot wooden fence to screen the existing parking lot from the adjacent properties. Again, the required buffering and plantings will be provided along Lytle street and the requested waiver is adequately justified based on staff's analysis contained in the standard of review. And then your required action today is to approve or deny the waiver. Any questions for staff?

You mentioned the six-foot fence will be on the side and the back, not the front, right?

It'll be entirely. It'll be in the front along Vital Street and then the side and the rear.

Can they do that?

It's commercially zoned, so they can have a six-foot fence.

And the residential requirements don't extend into that area?

No, the requirements that you're thinking of are only for properties that are residentially zoned in the commercial industrial and industrial districts. The height limitation for offense is the same as the height limitation for the building.

So, there'll be and I assume when I, when I looked at the plan, there was trees.

Yeah, they'll have plantings along Lytle Street as well, in front of the fence.

So when you say plantings, does that also mean planting in front of the wooden fence? Yes. Yeah.

So the plantings will not be inside. They'll be along the street. You'll be able to see it from Lytle.

Okay.

Is there anywhere we can get a binding element that the fence will be properly maintained?

We can't, you can't condition a waiver since this is just a waiver request. There's no way to put that in as a condition. The code doesn't allow us to place conditions on waivers.

Okay. Any other questions?

Okay, Sydney, thank you very much. Joe Reverman.

I think that's for the next one. Added number six on it.

Nathan Grimes.

You don't need to swear in, but just give us your name.

Nathan Grimes, 1012 South 4th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40203. We're the engineers for the project for Mr. Hanka. And they use the parking lot and the building for youth football training and things like that. That's what he's been doing out of the facility. So they don't want interior landscape areas to mess up pillar buildings. Training kids to play football and other sports. So. That's the real reason why we're doing this and it's already a parking lot. So they want to want territory parking lot to put in landscape area. So that's the reason for the request for their waiver. So.

Okay, any questions.

All right, thank you very much.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this? Uh, no, but online, I assume. Okay, what do we think commissioners.

Anyone would like to make a motion.

Oh, I'll put the motion out there, I guess.

Um, I recommend that we approve waiver. Um. 0, 072, um, based on the, uh, staff report in what we've heard today in testimony.

2nd, probably made motion and 2nd call.

Yes, yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Moving along, item number seven in the agenda, 26 Waiver 0077, Catherine Gomez. Rachel, how are you?

Hello. I'll be presenting on Kathy's behalf, Rachel Casey, Office of Planning Staff. This is 26 Waiver 0077 for a signature entrance sign on Echo Trail. This is a waiver from section 3.1.3. That is the Floyd's fork special zoning overlay section. So this is a waiver of the Floyd's fork special zoning overlay to permit a signature entrance sign to exceed the maximum height of 6 feet when located along a designated scenic corridor. The properties are for single family residential, and the neighborhood form district is, of course, within the boundaries of the Floyd's for special zoning overlay. This is related to previously approved major subdivision. The applicant is proposing a 14 foot tall at its highest point signature entrance monument sign along echo trail, which is a designated senior corridor. Here is a zoning map. The property is a little windy, but you can see that the portion that is along Echo Trail there is located within the special Floyd's Fork special zoning overlay. That's what's indicated by the hatched lines there. And then this is an aerial image of the larger property. But again, the sign will be located towards the west along Echo Trail. Uh, this is the subject property viewed from the front on echo trail again. This is being developed as a major subdivision.

And this is looking South along echo trail.

And this is looking North.

This is the proposed signature entrance sign. You can see that at the highest point, the sign is around. It's actually blocked off there, but I believe it's around 14 feet. 8 inches, and that would be on what would be the right side of the fence. Or sorry, the sign at the tallest portion, the actual sign itself that has the subdivision name goes up about 7 feet. But the other pieces of the monument are what is increasing the height of the sign to well past the. Maximum of 6 feet. So, staff finds that the requested waiver is not adequately justified based on the analysis in the standard of review. The proposal is incompatible with the regulations set forth in the Floyd's fork overlay zoning district, and at the height of the monument sign would have a negative impact on the visual quality of the scenic corridor. So your required action is to approve or deny the waiver from section 3 to permit a signature entrance sign to exceed the maximum height of 6 feet along a designated scenic corridor. We did receive 1 comment after publishing the agenda, which should be provided to you. At your dice any questions for staff.

Thank you very much.

I guess I have a question for staff. I know this is a scenic corridor and this waiver is applied to. In general, do we have a height restriction on subdivision signs in general? Because 14 does sound pretty tall in general.

I am not sure the answer to that question, but I'm sure Joe can figure it out.

Okay, I'm just curious. I didn't mean to give Joe homework.

Yeah.

Any other remarks? All right, Joe Reverman.

Hello, Joe Reverman with Mendel Scott, 5151 Jefferson Boulevard, Louisville, Kentucky, 40219. answer a question, then I have a question to start. But the general signature entrance height standard is 14 feet for signature entrance outside of the Floyd's Fork overlay. And then the Floyd's Fork scenic corridors within the Floyd's Fork are limited to six feet. And then the question on the comment that was received, I don't think I've seen that or that we've seen that. I don't know if we can have a copy of that or read that into the record or

Thank you.

Oh, that's okay.

Okay, um, okay and you've got my presentation. I don't have much to show. Uh, but if you just want to go to the next slide, I'll go through it really quick. So, um, you can kind of see it on here. This is just a, um, Rachel's had the whole subdivision, which is a much larger property. Of course, we kind of zoomed in on that northern part where the sign is proposed. Uh, so you can already see where Floyd's. flats trail is already uh it's not dedicated yet but it is kind of reserved that that right of way there for the street that'll be the first street that comes into the subdivision and the sign is kind of on the north side of that so that blue star is actually a little bit too far north it's actually right next to that floyd's flats trail on the north side of that so that is where we are proposing the first signature entrance sign if you go to the next slide And this is the plan we showed on there. We've actually updated it. This is the same as what Rachel showed, except where it says subdivision name. We have changed that from a 7 by 2 foot sign to a 5 by 3 foot sign. So either way, it's within the 15 square feet limitations for a signature entrance sign. Next slide. Which should be the last 1 and just a composite rendering for what that would look like. And a couple of. Things I wanted to note on on these Floyd's fork. So this is not a typical scenic corridor and mobile Metro. This is a specific scenic corridor to Floyd's fork trail, which is different from the scenic. Corridors that are talked about in chapter 10 of the land development code. So it's a little bit specific just to the scenic corridor. Um. And before a few years ago, all of those regulations and the Floyd's fork that have been in place since sometime in the early nineties were considered recommendations. So it's not till the last few years that these have been regulations for Floyd's fork. So this might be a little bit of a unique request, uh, As far as I know, there's not another 1, but I think in large part, that's just because these are now regulations over the last few years, whereas before they were recommendations. So they were handled a little bit differently. So that's that's why it might seem a little bit different to you from. Uh, or unique to you, so, um. So. I think, uh, staff and I kind of agreed on a couple of things, uh, on this proposal. Uh, we don't necessarily think this would adversely affect adjacent property owners. Um. You know, that we, we are not adversely affecting the impacts, uh, or, uh, we're not adversely affecting impacts to the waterways. So a large purpose of the Floyd's for. district is to make sure we protect the health of the waterways, specifically Floyd's Fork and its tributaries. So this sign would certainly not have any impact on those. I think where we kind of disagreed on that is just the necessity of having this sign. And so the reason we wanted the 14 feet in height, which is typically allowed by right for most subdivisions outside of the scenic corridors in Floyd's Fork, Um, in large part is just for kind of visibility because this is, uh, of course, we do want to maintain the scenic nature of the corridor. Uh, but with it being kind of a senior corridor with a lot of trees, uh, we felt like having this taller sound that might be a little bit more visible. would be safer in a lot of ways so that the entrance to the subdivision would be more visible. So that's one of the main reasons that we wanted to make it a little bit higher so that it was a little bit more visible and a little bit safer. So we think the compensation for what we're requesting is mainly the design of the sign. So we're kind of relying on providing a design that kind of hopefully incorporates into the design of a scenic area with natural materials using that stone veneer, the wood framing around the sign, and that frame that you see around the sign would also be some type of natural material like wood or otherwise. So we're really trying to incorporate this into the scenic nature of the area. And so that's not necessarily required, but we did want to kind of uh, offer that as a justification for allowing us to have a larger, uh, taller sign in this area. So, uh, we do think that this would kind of blend in with the area a little bit better than a lot of signature entrances. Um. And so we're, we're pretty proud of that 1 and we think it, it does kind of between that and just encouraging safety of people, you know, going around the winding bins of echo trail and seeing the entrance to the subdivision. would kind of encourage safety in the area in general. There would obviously be no internal elimination or anything like that. So just to make sure it kind of blends in and fits in with that kind of natural materials. Again, it's not going to adversely affect the waterways or anything. We don't believe it's going to adversely affect adjacent property owners. And then incorporating those natural materials, I think, does comply with the comprehensive plan. So there are kind of blending it in with that scenic nature that's talked about in the comprehensive plan so we do think that qualifies for comprehensive plan compliance and we're as far as you know making it the minimum necessary again we're kind of looking at this from a safety standpoint as well as blending in with the with the scenic corridor Um, but it's, you know, the 14 feet is generally allowed and most other places in the city. So, um, we do want to. Take the hope you take that into consideration when looking at this. So, um, with that, I can answer any questions you might have. And Kent wants to say something so.

Sorry.

Can't goody middle Scott, uh, 5151 Jerusalem Boulevard 40219. sorry. I can't keep my mouth shut. Um, I just wanted to point out that the regulations, uh, note that we can have 2, uh, entrance wall signs for the entrance. 25 feet long and 6 feet in height. So, if you take that in consideration, this is a significant reduction than what actually is allowed for the corridor. So, we felt that it was also a compromise for allowing for a little bit additional height because we're not impacting the corridors as much as we would be allowed by code. All right. That's all. Thanks.

So, how wide. Would a standard sign be 25 feet?

You actually could have two 15-foot square foot signs inside a wall that's six feet tall and 25 feet long on both sides of the entrance in there.

How far back from the road are you?

We're at least 15 feet from the right-of-way, which would be more so from the pavement.

So the orientation of that sign, is it red from both sides or is it back up on a hill or what is it?

If you want to go back to the slide, I believe it was on that plan slide. So yeah, on the kind of the top middle, I don't know if you can zoom in on that top middle, but that kind of shows the proposed right of way of Floyd's Flats. And then the location of that sign. You could even maybe zoom like way in, yeah. Right there. So that shows the location, a minimum of 15 feet from the right of way. And then, of course, you've got another 10 or 15 feet or so from Floyd's Flats Trail and probably another at least 20 feet from Echo Trail.

So is it going to be lit, lighted?

No, it's not allowed to be internally illuminated. We're not proposing that. At most, we might have some low, dimly lit landscape lighting, which is allowed by the code.

Okay.

Any other questions for either Joe or Kent? Steve?

You stated that the regulations allow two signs, six feet by 25. So that's 300 square feet and the current sign is 200 is one. It'd be 224 square feet.

I'll believe your math.

Yes, that's the wall.

That's the wall. The wall is the wall is allowed to be 6 feet tall and for each side.

I'm including the wall. Yeah, it's part of the sign. I know the sign is much smaller. Yep. So that's 76 feet less than the maximum. If you had 2 signs. Thank you.

Yep. So 1 more question on the elevation of this from the road. Is it up? I feel when you pull in that road to the subdivision, are you going up? Are you going down?

We have to the road is sloping down to we'll have to we're trying to make it almost level with the road or slightly higher than the road, like a foot higher than the road. So it's pretty much level because we're falling. It's falling down into the site. So we have to raise it a little bit. Just so it's not in a whole.

So, the general topography is going to take you down the street, right?

Correct.

So, so you're going to try and raise it a little bit so that it's. That's part of your reason for the height, didn't it?

Yes, it is. Yes, sir. A little bit more visibility. Yeah, we're trying to be the road itself is going to be the entrance into the subdivision is to go going down, but we're trying to keep it almost level with echo trail itself.

Okay, yeah.

Assuming you explain the overlay district sign regulations to the owner, tell us again the motivation for erecting this sign. Why is this being requested?

Has it been requested? They've had similar signs in other subdivisions and they like the way the sound looks and presents itself for the subdivision. And so this is a slight variation of what. Uh, is going to be the developer of the of the subdivision or construction is building it for and is going to be building the houses in the subdivision and they've had this in other locations and in, like, the way it presents itself as the entrance sign and. And 1 of the reasons why we don't have 2 signs is because we push the road a little bit further South on that on that lot instead of movement in the middle, we push it a little further South, which really only allows us to have 1 sign. Because we can't, we don't have the room for the other side. I'm just saying. But by code, we're allowed to have more than what we're requesting as far as the number of signs and then, um. it really if we have one sign we have you know it's able to read on both sides of it and then they can um they're just going to do landscaping on one side i'm not going to say it's a less maintenance issue but they just like the way it looks and it has it presents itself on both sides instead of just having a sign that you can read from one direction on either coming in so they just their preference So, I don't know if that sells it enough for you, but I mean, it's, it looks good in other locations. We've done the same thing on other sections of, um, I think we've done 1 down on road for a subdivision down there with this header, a single sign for the entrance sign going into the development. So I'm not seeing this way. Everybody goes, but this in this sense is in this instance, 1 sign seem to be the best. Way to fit the, uh, to give them a little entrance sign as well as, um. Uh, give them, uh, something they're used to and have good success with in the past.

All right any other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Is there anyone that wants else wants to speak on this?

No, 1 online. All right.

Move into the deliberation and I'll kick it off and, uh. You know, I hate to go against the planning. Staff, I think, but I think this is a shade of gray, you know, they're using natural materials. I mean, I, I think deciding lends itself to a little bit more height. It falls underneath the gross square footage. Right. That would be permitted for this sign. So. I think this is 1 of those cases where we could say. The outcome is beneficial.

Oh, what do you all think? I tend to disagree. I agree with staff. I mean, you're taking a. A 6 foot height limit and you're, you're more than doubling it. I mean, you're going to 14 feet.

The column is that they're raising is a stone column. It's not like it's a. I mean, billboard yeah, 14 foot top.

Yeah, yeah.

I have to well, I, I, I agree with that. Yeah, I kind of agree with commissioner staff, but if we were talking 6 inches. Foot, but this is really obsessive over with the known. Rules and regulations were for it.

I don't have a lot of objections to the sign, but. Um, maybe the only person at the table that. Spent almost a year and a half. Uh, involved in the rewrite of the. And, uh, in our team, our planning team. You know, spent hours doing that. I don't know how many waivers we have, but all through that process in a pack in this packed auditorium, there were people saying. We don't trust that the planning commission is not going to get a bunch of waivers out from the. and we made a lot of assurances that we were not going to roll on every waiver request. I cannot support this because of that. I don't know that we've granted any waivers. I don't have a huge amount of objections to the sign, Kent, but just from the standpoint of, you know, granting a waiver to a fairly important, you know, overlay area, I just, I can't bring myself to vote in favor of this.

I kind of understand that feeling, that sentiment. Would it be possible, the obelisk that they're instructing, if it were reduced in height, would that make it more palatable?

I think at this point, is it a waiver or not a waverable situation? And so, I mean, if we're going to do a waiver, let's make it a good one. I mean, a big, but, you know, uh, to just, you know, start chipping away, uh, almost, uh, I don't know that we've had a waiver in the.

We have, but not for this provision.

Okay, so, um, you know, it's just something that, uh, we kind of made the commitment that we wouldn't just wave everything that came in the door.

Well, but we're not doing that, Jim. We're looking at this objectively, and I see your objection, and I understand. I sit in front of these people too, and they're mistrust. But in my mind, this sign doesn't represent ignoring the

Yeah, I've seen a lot worse. This is going to go to a hearing, so let's just take the vote and put it in a hearing. Sorry to cost you all more money, but...

So we would make a motion.

Yeah, I'm checking with the applicants on what the best date would be. You guys can go ahead and make the motion, though.

So what it's motion going to say, we are, we are not approving this based on.

Well, I think it's going to be a split vote. I mean, I don't, I, we haven't done a poll of the DRC committee here, but it appears it's going to, if it's a split vote, it's going to end up going to planning commission anyway, whether it's approved or not approved.

Right. As long as it's a split vote, you'd only if it's a unanimous vote. Well, it's not going to be and it's not going to be unanimous. So so we know right now without just based on this discussion that it's going to end up going to planning commission.

All right. Let's make a motion. Yeah.

Yeah, that's another option you could do is to continue the case to the planning commission.

I think that that frankly might be cleanest because, um. If we end up in a situation, like we have in the past where you make a motion, but then the motion fails, you'll have to end up making another motion to send it to planning commission anyways. So it may just be cleaner if everybody agrees that they think it should be heard by the full planning commission to just make that motion to send it to the, I agree with that.

I think that's a good suggestion because, And then we get the, the, the whole group, many of whom served on that floor.

It's for, and then the question would be, do you set it for tomorrow or do you set it for the 30th? Yeah.

And so that's what I was discussing with the applicants. Um. Joe, I'll leave it up to you with the planning commission agenda tomorrow. They're there. The applicant. Is available tomorrow, but not for the 30th. So if you're comfortable, but it's a long agenda, so.

As up to you more than staff will be here no matter what, but. It is a lengthy agenda. We have quite a few items on there. I don't know. How long they'll take that might be short.

The applicant says that they can do the 30th if necessary.

Let's say we do it on the 30th then gives that gives everybody plenty notice.

Uh, it gives the other commissioners a chance to review the material.

That's right. Exactly. Okay. So do we need a motion on this?

Yeah, we would motion to continue it to the Planning Commission meeting on July 30th.

Sure, I'll do that then. Let's see. I apologize. Okay, so in the case of 26 waivers 0077, I make a motion that we continue this case to the July 30th meeting of the Planning Commission to be reviewed.

I'll second.

Properly made motion second roll call.

Leonard yes names. Yes step yes stuber yes for sure yes.

Item number eight. Twenty six ddp zero zero one six Sydney.

Sydney faucet office of planning staff for 4, 4, 4, South history, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2, 26 16.

There we go next slide.

The request today is a waiver of Middletown land development code section 10.2.4. point B to allow utility easement to encroach more than 50% into a property perimeter landscape buffer area and then as well as a detailed district development plan with binding elements. Uh, the subject site is about 13.4 acres on planned and payment center and the suburban workplace form. The applicant is proposing to construct a 159,000 square foot commercial and warehouse development with roughly 200 parking spaces. The district does require a 15 foot landscape buffer along the rear and side property lines. However, the required buffer is entirely within an existing easement. So, in order to provide that buffer and the required planning, they have to get a waiver.

Here we go, this is the zoning map again. This is an aerial of the subject property.

This is if you're looking at the subject site along data vault drive. This is some of the commercial activity just south of the subject property and this is some of the development right across data vault drive. This is the site plan, the dark gray is those proposed structures and then the light blue on the right hand side. That is the where the waiver is being requested where that overlap is. Transportation planning animus, they have provided preliminary approval. The applicant will be providing the required plantings within that buffer. The request of waiver is adequately justified for approval and the proposal does meet the guidelines of the comprehensive plan. And the aside from the requested waiver, your required actions today are to recommend that the city of Middletown approve or deny the waiver as well as recommend the city of Middletown approve or deny the district development plan. Any questions for staff.

Sydney, those 2 water tires.

Sorry, what was that?

Are those are those 2 water storage tanks?

Yes.

Okay.

Those will be remaining built.

So, just 1 other question. It looks like the, the waivers were the existing. There's a base in there right now or not. Yeah. Okay. So, just by the sheer fact that that basins connected to this property is what's prompting this waiver.

Yeah, it's just also this specific zoning district requires that buffer to be provided. Otherwise, they would not have any sort of property perimeter buffers just based off the adjoining zoning district. So it's also just a special requirement of that specific zoning district.

And they're planting in there.

Yes, they said that they would be able to provide the required plantings.

The right side, doesn't that abut the Snyder Freeway? Yes. Okay.

Yeah.

All right. All right. Thank you.

One more question. Does this have any effect on that exit road out of the shopping center?

Not that I'm aware. I don't know if the applicant can speak.

I'm looking at it here. This road goes through.

Yes, that's a private access easement that will be utilizing the site.

Not this site, but the access out of that shopping center.

Directly to the south of it?

Yeah, that goes out to Data Vault Drive out. That's how they get out of there.

Yeah, I mean, the applicant could probably speak more onto that.

But what exactly are you asking?

Yeah, Sophie, but there's a road to go through this property that's access out. For the shopping set, right? I just want to make sure it doesn't affect that road any since it's a private road.

All right, well. We'll find out, I think, Sophia, any questions. Yeah, no. All right.

Sophia, Sophia, 108 Daventry lane, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223. I do have a presentation, but while the questions fresh on everybody's mind, I will answer it. So there will be a minor plot associated with this project. If this plan gets approved. And our lot will be subdivided off of the global water companies property. There is an existing private access easement with a very long crossover access agreement and maintenance agreement that would include this property and the water company property and the retail center that is remained to stay in place. And everybody will still be able to use that access point. So it doesn't affect the access drive other than we are building an access onto it. Okay, thank you Sydney for the presentation. I'm sure I'm going to repeat a little bit of what she said, but I'll try to be quick here. So, if you go to the next slide. Um, like, we know this is off of data vault drive. You can see North English station road to the West and then Jean Snyder to the East. There's a small portion of this property that does join the right of way of Jean Snyder. But there's also a triangular piece of property that's between us and that interstate and then to the South is Shelbyville road. If you'll remember, I was here maybe two or three years ago with Louisville Water Company to rezone this lot to PEC. It was R4. We went through with a general development plan because the water company's intent was to rezone this and sell the excess land. They kind of had a lot of that around Louisville. So the PEC's own fit with what was in the area and also set this up to be, what the city of Middletown also would like to see from the property as well. Next slide please. Here is our development plan. So the two water towers on the left, one of them has actually been taken down recently, and the second one is proposed to still remain. Again, that's still Louisville Water Company's property. Not sure exactly what their plans are for the rest of it, but For now, at least 1 of the water towers will remain and then we have the private access drive, which is also to remain and then what we're proposing here today, which is 2 buildings with parking aligning data vault drive and the private access drive. And then in between those 2 buildings is our proposed loading area, which kind of screens itself from the road because of the buildings, but also joins the loading area of the retail center to the South. the waiver itself we kind of knew this was going to be a problem whenever we came through the first time essentially that detention basin serves a lot of property in the area they built it while it was zoned r4 so they didn't have the same waiver requirements that we do there is a flat spot along that eastern property line you can kind of see it's a little white there that is enough space to one keep the trees that are already there But if there's additional plantings that are required, they can plant trees there as well. This outside there is enough space, I think, to cluster those trees on either side of the basin to meet that waiver requirement. And you'll go to the next slide. And this is just a large aerial overview of the site. You'll see the industrial development to the north. That's gradually been developed over the years and will still be continued to develop. And then the retail center to the south. Um, like I said, we joined their loading area to the back and then the water company to the West. Next slide please. Here is a closer view of our site. You'll see those dash lines on the building. That's where the proposed retail component of these will be. I do have building elevations that will kind of show you how this might all work together. But the retail, of course, is focused towards the higher traffic areas of the site and then the industrial warehouse portion towards the back. This is standing on the private access drive, looking towards the gene Snyder. Our site will be on the West or on the East side there. Next slide please. This is looking at the entrance to where most of the truck traffic will go in the middle of the site, and we're looking towards English Station Road, and you can see those water towers up in the distance. And then back again, we're on the private access drive. This is the front corner of the building. This is what you'll see whenever you turn down Data Vault. If you turn to, I guess, the right in this image, that would be heading towards the retail center, and then the left side is towards the industrial part, which is the rear of the site. Um, next slide this is looking at that retail corner from the actual retail property. So there will be a retail presence there. This is standing at the truck court looking at again some more retail, but the warehouse portion and the next slide. That is the rear building, which also has some retail and then warehouse in the back. And I think I got it all. I hope I answered your question adequately, but I would be happy to answer any other questions that you guys may have.

Any questions, Sophia? Steve?

Ms. Casey, could you put the survey or the building plan back up?

Or the truck docs located in between the 2 proposed buildings along those walls right there.

So, they're going to drive between the 2 sections. Yes. And then have a common truck court area.

That's correct.

How many docs?

Will there be it's a good question and it's going to be a combination of drive indoors and docs specifically.

six on each side so twelve total thank you i have a couple questions um sophia uh so that truck court uh how wide is that uh 210 feet okay So, I mean, you could have trucks on both sides and still sort of manage. I mean, I think if it was lined up on 1 side, it would take a pretty. Good driver to back in a yeah.

The doors. The South side of that, and they won't have trucks. Parked in front of those necessarily like a loading dock would and then we also met independently with the fire department to talk about this truck court. And if they need to get back there, how that would work and they were okay with the plan and gave us approval.

Glad you did that. And then data vaults of public road, right?

That's correct. Yes.

All right. I remember something that may have been when I was. And when I actually work for a living, uh, that there was some kind of, uh, uh. Center meeting that kind of change things up, you know, in terms of was that removed? Um, because I was more truck traffic. Um, it was constantly being run over a truck for having to swing wide and get into opposing travel lanes. Uh, have you have you looked at that?

Sophia to be honest? No, I think the median is still there. Is that right? Beth?

Yeah, that's my understanding was put in by the city of Middletown.

Yeah.

So Metro can't really remove it. Okay.

So that's a match. So it's a Middletown street. All right. So if they want to. You know, if it's messed up, it's their problem, right?

That's correct. And also the applicant did preemptively meet with the city of Middletown, explain what they wanted to do here and has worked actively with them to put this plan together. And they have not mentioned anything about wanting that median removed. They have mentioned data vault drive improvements, which the applicant has agreed to and will agree to at the city council meeting. If you recommend this for approval.

But, I mean, if the city of Middletown wanted it removed, you would have no objection to doing that, right?

No, I'm sure the applicant would love better access to the road. So good. Yeah, they also own property across the street on date of all 1 of the newer developments. So, yeah, they have a vested interest in this area for sure.

Was there any discussion about the extension of industrial Boulevard to try to connect it to this?

Sure is, and they have agreed to, um, within the next 10 years, um, they've come up with a number with a contractor that they will agree to pay for a portion of the extension across the front of this property if it comes to fruition. Okay, good.

Thank you. Any other questions? Sophia. Thank you very much.

Thank you guys.

Um, we don't have anybody else signed up here.

I know it's online commissioners opinions and or motions yeah I like the plan you know and there's a few little things that I think need to be worked out you know with the city of Middletown but I like it

Commissioner Mims, they say there's 210 feet for the maneuvering area. It's recommended that the minimum be 120 feet, which in this case should be 240. So when they get 12 tractor trailers in there at one time, it's going to be tight. Now that's their issue and some would say this building is already functionally obsolete before it's built, but That's their decision. It's their property, their building. But it's doable, but it's going to be very interesting to get them in and out with that tight of a truck cord. Yeah, don't disagree.

And all we can do is throw that out and say, look, that seems like a mistake in the making. You're a competent engineer in either – you know, it works or it doesn't work. And so we have to kind of leave it into your professional judgment.

Any other remarks? Anyone want to make a motion?

Sure, I'll do it. So, in the case of 26 DDP-0016, I make a motion that we recommend to the City of Middletown. The Approval of the waiver from the land development code 10.2.4 point be to allow utilities meant to encroach 50% into a property perimeter landscape buffer area. And, uh, I'm. I also make a motion that we, uh. Recommend to the city of Middletown we take them separate. So that's the 1st motion.

2nd, probably make motion and 2nd roll call.

Leonard yes still there yes means yes step yes for sure yes and second motion make a motion that we recommend to the sediment the city of Middletown approval of the detailed district development plan and binding elements make that motion based on our staff report and testimony here today.

So I can properly made motion second roll call.

Yes still work yes means yes step yes we should yes.

And that completes case number 8 case number 926 ddp 0, 0, 1, 8. Zach.

Zach schwager office of planning.

Um, this is a revised detailed district development plan with revision to binding elements. It's approximately 2 and a half acres on the north side of river road, west of Zorn Avenue zone, commercial manufacturing, and it's in the suburban workplace form district. Yeah, it's proposing to expand an existing activity center, fronting river road, river, green circle and drive in the river green business park. The applicants were present to construct a 2 story, nearly 50,000 square foot office warehouse with associated parking. And then the waterfront review overlay district has reviewed and approved this project. This is the previously approved plan. The green is. As you can tell, this is a while ago, so there has been a subdivision, but the green is the subject property next slide. This is the proposed site plan river road is there at the bottom and then you have drive at the top and river green circle over to the West. This is the zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties. And this is an aerial photo there. And then this is this is the subject property got the river just over there to the north. And then staff findings, uh, it is compatible with the existing land uses in the area. It wouldn't negatively impact any, uh, properties or residents in the area. Uh, and the requirements, uh, or land development code requirements and plan 2040 required actions are to approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan with revision to binding elements.

Are there any questions questions?

Anybody.

Is, um, but a key a driver, whatever circle, whatever it is, is that a public street?

I don't believe so, but the applicant can probably go into more detail there. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Andrew, thank you. Zach. Andrew Watson.

John Campbell actually with Heritage Engineering. I'd signed up online, so I didn't fill out a form. If you need one, I can. Good afternoon committee members. Again, John Campbell with Heritage Engineering, 642 South 4th Street, Suite 100, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. The developer, Stuart Flowers with River Green Development, Um, it's not able to be here today. He may be online. He was going to try and join, but he did send his construction representative Andy Watson with Jim construction group. I did submit a PowerPoint presentation. I'll go ahead and answer your question on the drive. That is not a city street or a public roadway. It is a private access through that those various developments.

You could go the next slide please.

So, this is our site there that you see in the middle with the existing parking lot on it to the West Southwest to the left of the image is river green circle to the South or bottom. Right? There is river green or river road and river road is separated from our site by some existing buildings. That was part of this project. And then you do see the drive there, which is more of a kind of transitions into more of a heavy industrial use roadway in that area that serves those much more intense uses to the north there that have direct access to the Ohio river, which you can just see a little bit to the top there just to give you a point of reference. Next slide please. The property is commercial manufacturing, and we are located in a suburban workplace district. We are also in a waterfront overlay district, and we have already submitted and obtained approval from the waterfront development core board for the plans and present basically what I'm going to show you today. It is for a 48,500 plus square foot warehouse with 92 parking spaces. Next slide. And then this is our development plan. Our site is right there in the center as noted. We're replacing that parking lot. Um, interestingly enough, the original general development plan for when this was developed had shown the majority of the buildings in this area as built. And this building being built now will kind of complete part of that original general plan. There was an interim plan that was done several years ago for that temporary parking lot. And that was at the time to serve Galen college and they have since left this area. So it's really just remained an unutilized parcel. Um, we are gaining access to the site, um, through those existing drives and then a new access drive. They're running parallel to drive. We are eliminating all connections to that access drive again, just by the general nature of that being a much more heavy industrial use access point. Next slide. We did submit building elevations. Those were reviewed and as noted approved by the Waterfront Development Corp. The project in general will have offices located on the corners typical of most office warehouse buildings with a kind of the truck access located to the center there and that truck access will be shared with the adjacent building as well.

Next slide.

And then this is a view of the building itself. And I will just offer a point of clarification or correction. It is a 1 story office warehouse building, but the windows you see at the top are really just transom windows for lighting. So, but that does show the corner office entrance there with the office windows and the architectural enhancements there at the corner. With that said, I will be happy to answer any questions we do ask based on the staff report. We do request your approval and also with me as Andy and maybe Stuart online and we'll, we'll answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, Andrew Watson is. Did you want to speak?

I'm here to answer any questions you have. I have nothing else to add.

All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here that is interested in speaking for or against this? And do we have anyone online?

There's several people online, but nobody's indicated they want to speak to this case, so we can move.

All right. We'll move into deliberation.

I do have a question maybe for Zach or John. Uh, before we go into deliberation, so, um, does the review do these businesses here or that are in the do they have to have a connection to a river like a river connection that they, that they have, uh. You know, I access to the river.

Well, access to the river, but they're there.

Yeah, I guess that's the point is that I'm under the impression that the does require some type of, you know, river connection in terms of commerce aware of that.

But that's.

This is this is just in the waterfront, uh, development review overlay. Uh, and whenever we receive those, we just forward those on to.

Waterfront for review, so I wonder if that's more the W3 zone. It could be the W zoning the water. This got rezoned. It looks like it's not. It's not. Yeah. In 1989, it was changed from W3 zoning to CM commercials. Okay. That makes sense. Yeah.

No, I think I know what you're talking about.

Okay.

Thank you then 1 other thing, um, when I was the elevations that were shown that were on led to star. We're different than yeah, that's my mistake. John and I talked about that. That building was our grand sin. I mean, so much better proposition here. Thank you.

I've got a couple, uh. On elevations, the building. Prefab concrete walls. Like, the normal warehouses that being built now.

Yeah, and Mr. Mims, thank you for that comment. We did that submittal as a placeholder while they continue to develop these architectural renderings and it certainly has gone leaps and bounds from where we started. So I'm sure we can appreciate that. And I'm sure the client will as well, because because he's committed to make more investment in the building. To answer your question specifically, it is a TILTA concrete building. It will have some architectural elements to it, some of the kind of metal components to it, metal paneling and whatnot.

And these parking places you're going to lose when you build this will not affect the other buildings?

No, so that parking was installed specifically for the Galen college. Uh, they've since moved out to old Henry area and those spaces are no longer needed or used and haven't been used. So.

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions all right. Hearing no, and speaking up, uh, moved to deliberation. Mr. Yeah.

No.

Does anyone have any reason why we don't have a motion?

I'm ready for a motion. Let's move on.

Um, I recommend that we approve the, um, detailed district development plan. 2060 D. P. 018 based on the staff report and the testimony we've heard today and including the binding elements and including and including the binding elements.

Second. Probably make motion and second roll call.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes.

All right item number 10 on the agenda 26 DDP 0, 0, 2, 1. Catherine Rachel.

Hello, Rachel Casey presenting on Kathy's behalf.

I'm always enthused 26 DDP 21. this is for Wesley manner, senior, independent living at 5400 East road. The request is for a revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. Subject sites is zoned are 5, a multi family residential and in the neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing for. 3 story multi family buildings with 68 total units of 5,000 square foot amenity building and 30,000 or 37,000 square feet of recreation area on an existing nursing home campus, or that will be connected to an existing nursing home campus. There's 17 shared parking spaces and 85 interior garage spaces. It has an existing 1 story community center serving the nursing home right now that will be demolished to build these buildings. Uh, this is the zoning district you can see backs up to the Snyder to the South and along East man's like road. It's all residentially zoned. This is our 5 a, as well as the adjacent properties. here is an aerial of the site you can see the nursing home campus to the west and then there's an existing community center on the site today that will be demolished to make way for the proposed multi-family units this is the subject property from manslic road

Uh, this is the adjacent Wesley manner retirement homes. To the West, and this is residential property to the East along East man's like. And this is the additional residential property across the street.

This is the site plan can see that there's 4, 3 story buildings with the amenity area in the middle and the recreation area at the rear at the South of the site.

These are the proposed preliminary elevations.

Transportation and MSD have given preliminary approval. The proposal meets the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and the requirements of the land development code. It is compatible with the existing retirement community and residential area and represents an expansion of the Wesley Manor retirement community. And your required action is to approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan subject to binding elements.

Any questions.

Questions commissioners, so does this review re, require I guess it's not at the level where it requires sidewalks.

Yes, this this would have required sidewalks.

Okay. So it does. So there'd be sidewalks on man.

I didn't I didn't review this plan since I'm presenting for Kathy, but we either would have required sidewalks or possibly there was a sidewalk fee and Lou granted. But if we go back to the site plan, we can see if sidewalks are provided. And also probably the applicant can answer that. Yeah, it does look like sidewalks are to be provided.

And so this is all 1 campuses Wesley manner with the nursing facility. Uh, what in essence is apartments.

Yes, that's my understanding again. I can let the applicant clarify, but that is my understanding is that it's all part of 1 larger.

Senior living community that sidewalk should be provided on this segment only. Right? Okay.

yes if they're not sidewalks on the other segments there may be uh internal pedestrian connections as well okay well we'll look forward to hearing what ashley has to say yeah okay thank you any other questions steve why was binding element 4e stating that the proposed structure had the same building content or as the the elevations the noise the currents not elevation but building material most likely just because

We, we generally feel a staff if there's anything related to building material or elevations, we're going to recommend that that be removed because it causes us issues later down the road related to building permits where if someone submits a building permit. With elevations and materials that meet the intent of the code, but they may be different from what was presented at the public hearing. Then they have to come back and change that binding element, even though what they are presenting meets the land development code.

It says the rendering is depicted in the rendering presented at the August 15, 2019 planning commission public hearing. I'm just curious as to why that has been deleted.

Yeah, that was my reasoning that I just stated was that we've gotten staff has gotten in the practice of deleting binding elements related to elevations. So that when it comes time to the building permit stage. That if the applicant submits elevations that meet the land development code, but may not be exactly what was presented at the public hearing that prevents them from having to come back for a binding element amendment. And they can just move forward with construction plans as long as it meets the land development code.

This dealt with building material, not elevation.

It's the same if it was building material or proposed elevations. Anything that's on the exterior that has to do with design.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm under the impression that this may be a broader discussion. So, I mean, this notion of piling on more requirements at the Planning Commission level is maybe kind of counter to them. Housing for the 21st century proposal. I don't know that. And I'm under the impression the state legislature had or the general assembly and. Made some. Regulations relative to what all planning commissions can do relative to that. My thinking wrong.

We didn't we didn't alter it because of that. We just. In all transparency, we, in our office, until maybe the last five years, were not reviewing building permits as they came through. That was solely in the hands of construction review. Now our office, the Office of Planning, reviews every single building permit that comes through for compliance with the land development code. So now we just have a better handle on those elevations and materials and their compliance with the code when they come in. So we don't feel that... there needs to be, as you said, this extra layer of having to return to a public hearing when our staff is reviewing every single permit that comes through for compliance.

Okay, again, thanks.

Any other questions? Okay. Uh, Andrew Walden. Um, are you speaking? Okay, Ashley.

Good afternoon Ashley Bartley with QK49920 Corporate Campus Drive Suite 1200-40223. And I've got a whole crew with me today. I've got Andrew Alden with AG Architecture, Mark Stephens who's the CFO of Wesleyan Manor. Is Greg here? Yeah, there he is. I haven't seen him yet. Greg Erhard with Sites and Harbison. And we've also got the developers out of Texas with Greystone Communities. They're online if we need them as well. Let's see, I guess I'll just get into it. I did want to add 1 more thing about your binding element question. That was actually from the previous, the original reason in 2019. so the buildings are totally different now as is the site plan. So that might have been another reason why that was struck in because it's an old 1. that's not applicable anymore as well.

So.

All right, we'll get into it. So here's a aerial. Oh, can we go back 1 more? Just I kind of want to give some context here. So here's an aerial photo. Uh, the, the turquoise outline in blue is the subject site. Uh, the center area is a little bit newer development. I think it was early, early to mid 2000s that those are more like condo independent living. Um, and then the West side is actually the nursing home skilled nursing, but it's all under Wesley manner ownership 3 separate parcels. Um, the subject parcel was rezone in 2019 with a similar plan. Ours is different, um, different team working on it as far as consultants go currently is a community center. It's, I think, essentially an old, smaller house built in the late seventies that sometimes used by residents. Next slide and we've already seen where it is. We're out back up to the gene Snyder off of East man slick road. Next slide. We've already seen this. We're good. Let's move on. It's kind of just more of an overhead aerial. Um, so this, the star is where, um, Wesley manner exists. This is just a quick Google search that I did for, um, independent living senior living. So you can see there's a lot up in the Northeast part of the county, but there's hardly any. So, um, probably housing type that we really need, especially in this part of town. So, Wesley manner, um, we're only looking at this site today, but. If you're on the planning commission, you're in for a treat here at a few. Well, maybe hopefully next month, they're also developing some independent living units on their West parcel. So they're making some big improvements on their campus much needed for the community. Next slide. And here's just the zoning map. So that was that was an R4 parcel that was rezone to R5A back in 2019. Next slide. And here is a site plan, um, Jim to answer your question. Yes, we will be building sidewalks along the frontage of this property. There's also a pretty substantial sidewalk network throughout the site. There are 4 buildings. You can see those 4 kind of long rectangular buildings in the very center. That will be the community facility and some outdoor recreational space. Um, this is where and if you guys have questions about the building, Andrew will be better to talk about it, but we call these hybrid units because all the parking is actually at the bottom level. Um, there's 1 space per each unit, I believe. Um, yes, so there's each unit has 1 space inside and then the, the units are on the 2nd and 3rd floor. Um, there is a little bit of additional surface parking kind of in the middle on the left side. Um. And then you can see, we've kind of created a loop in from the East side of the parcel running along the East side, and then looping into the existing infrastructure where the condo development and the center is. Next slide. Here are the building elevations we are requesting a variance that will go to Boza for, but I think it's just a few feet, 3 feet or so, maybe 4, still a 3 story building. So meets the intent of the code. But again, we'll go to Boza for that. Next slide.

Oh, here's some more elevations. Next slide. That might be it. Yeah.

And if you guys are familiar, um, the team and Graystone worked on Masonic homes of Louisville, um, on Frankfurt Avenue, which we were also a part of. So, been doing work in the community, um, over the years and. Produced a really nice product there, so expect the same here.

Anyone have questions for Ashley.

So, actually is the 1st floor is basically going to be a parking garage.

We'll just let Andrew get up and speak.

I'm sorry. I didn't.

Hello, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Andrew Alden with AG Architecture out of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53213. So the term hybrid home is terminology we use to talk about the benefits of a large apartment building, which typically has an elevator and indoor parking and a small apartment building, which is typically smaller. So you're walking by less your neighbors to get to your your unit. So hybrid has indoor parking on the 1st floor. It has an elevator, and it has a short corridor, so you're only walking by one or two doors to get to your unit. And the way it's set up is first floor, we typically have two units in parking. Second floor is all units. Third floor is all units. And I think we have two 18s and one and two 16s in here. So the 16s may have all parking on the first floor, but some common and social spaces in back house areas. So it is indoor parking on the first floor. That was a long answer to your question.

Oh, no, no. And it'll totally look like a. The facade outside will totally look like it's a building.

Yes. So one of the things I'd like to comment on architectural facades is we believe that there is no back of a building. There's an east elevation, there's a west, a north, and a south elevation. And we treat all of them equal and we pay attention to them with materials and details. So it will look like the exterior of a building, residential in nature.

And also will there be cross-traffic areas to the

Other site next door, I think we have a connection to. Yeah, if you go back to the site plan, I think there's a connection down on the South that you go through to the other side. Yep. Right down there near the bottom on the left. So there is a connection and with that middle part of the campus. And as part of our due diligence process in the design, we will be speaking to local fire authorities and conversing with them and such.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Sounds like a good plan.

Okay, Greg hard. Okay, and Bill wills.

Bill, are you speaking for or against this project?

I'd like to say both.

All right, well, you can say that. I live there, and I think... Give us your address, full name and address.

My name's Bill Wells. I live at 9120 Coventry Lane on the property.

Okay.

I've lived there about a year, and I'd like to speak to you in part Opposing this, but also think it can be better. There's no reason why this facility cannot surpass what is being developed in the east part of Louisville's real estate. But to try to be brief, it's not something one can be brief about it in my opinion. But to have read this and beforehand, I even made a phone call to the planner. She's working from home, but I never heard back. and to realize interaction through computer or virtual. It's not that I wouldn't like to do that, but to be in front of you, it's totally different. So when I was looking at the case summary, In trying to think about this, my questions begin to be around how do you define variance if law is shaping the overall property boundaries and we begin to think law is the end all. But when we think in terms of design with nature as I was schooled in planning, then how do you begin to understand energy conservation? I used to live in public housing and when I moved to this, I sort of made history as I'm becoming history, but I took the city transit. It stopped two miles before you got there and so to walk along on the street and then to realize finding of facts where there's not the integration of what is community and design and conservation. But how do you improve dramatically the operation design of this facility? Where I'd worship in church when I invited people to use the community center out there, the building. The individual replied, well, I don't want to be out there with walkers. rollers and so they wouldn't do that and so you get to experience as we age the beginning of separation the maltreatment mistreatment of elderly when the evolution of medical care there isn't a space in this community that isn't could be healthier but does a horse command more attention than a human being And so when I look at this and think of variance, is it a special cause or a common cause that's tied back to the prevailing plan? And if you begin to think, how do you improve a city where you're attracting interest, better design, better interaction. So when I'm looking down the staff findings,

Bill, we did not inform you that these are timed, so I'm going to grant you an additional minute to wrap this up.

Is that possible for you? Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, I would have asked for it, but there wasn't that notice either. But the substance of it is I disagree with the staff findings. It's not correct like I would like to see it, but there's the wording you can get involved with. But to go out and visit this site and having lived there and watch people walk in the pavement, not on the sidewalk as much, but the traffic isn't as much. But to understand really, how do you create a space that's empowering for people as we retire? and to live out with joy and find meaning and create the meaning when the minds are still there. It's just how you can be treated. And to have come down here, I wanted to come and speak to you all. So I appreciate the extra minute, and I hope this would maybe raise some flags.

There are things I could submit, but... Well, we all are striving for those objectives. to make things better for all people, especially seniors and those that are in need of housing. I think everyone would agree with that. I appreciate you bringing it up.

There's one thing that says you want more housing, but you got to ask, is it better? Are the quality showing up in that building where stuff comes from and who has the gift to understand design? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for or against this? Do we have anyone online? Uh, yes, I have a couple of questions probably for Ashley and really kind of following up on actually, let's let you have a response to the opposition 1st, and then we'll allow Jim to proceed with this question. Is that right? Jim?

Okay. I think the main thing I would like to say is that this type of housing in this part of the. County is not as much as it should be. So they're trying to bring additional senior housing, independent living into this part of the community as I missed his name. The gentleman that just spoke actually lives the next parcel over. Yes.

So, um.

You know, we're trying to expand on that, provide more housing. Types for people in this part of the community. Um, I think that the team that Wesley manners put together is a great 1 or award winning architects. Um, they do a very nice product. I don't think there's any corners being cut here. So I, I believe that this is a high level of housing and 1 that is much needed in the community.

Okay, Jim.

Uh, yes, and, um, I'm familiar with Wesley man and my business partner, Jim Birch was involved in Wesley manner heavily and spoke very highly of the organization and I trust Jim's opinion. But I think Mr. Wells does bring up some, I guess a reasonable question as it kind of pertains to what we're doing here. You know, we talked about the sidewalks in front of this property. Will they be interconnected with the, with the pedestrian systems in the, in the other parts of the community?

So, they certainly will with with this parcel and there's a, if you look at the site plan, which I'm sure you have, there are a lot of sidewalks and there's connections to every entrance into every building. I mean, some, most of them have. They have 3 to 4 access points. It looks like in most cases that sidewalk network also loops around to the South part of the property where we are planning to preserve a good amount of mature woodland area and have some recreational space down there. Now, as far as going West, I don't believe that there are sidewalks on the frontage of the. The condominium, the existing condominium development, but there are sidewalks within that. and we are coming right adjacent to that. So certainly within this, but then to the east, there's no sidewalks at all. There's hardly any sidewalks within the right of way.

And again, just sticking with what Mr. Wells had said, I mean, you do have some recreational trails and so forth on this campus. And I don't want to play designer here. But, you know, it seems like to me that they all ought to be interconnected as 1 campus. So, I don't know that I can make that specific requirement, but I can offer that suggestion.

Yeah, you can certainly, I mean, I think probably. We could provide a small I'm just looking at the site plan right now where that new road loops around the South and ties into Coventry lane. There are sidewalks along Coventry lane. I walked all over the campus. It is very walkable, which is nice. So I think with a simple small stub and a crosswalk, we have. Effectively tied this entire parcel. And I think that we'd be happy to do that.

Yeah, that would be our suggestion. Um, and 1 other thing I, uh. Um, not our issue at all, um, because East man's like, as a state maintain roadway. But, you know, you have 4 entrances there and I'm, um, has the state agreed to yet another or you will have 4 entrances. Uh, have they agreed to a new access point?

Well, we're, we're, there's an access point already. We're just moving it. So, we're not actually effectively, we're maintaining the same access. There's 1 kind of in the center of the partial right now.

So we're just shifting it East and they have an asset to be aligned with Cherryville road or anything like that. Can that serve division?

Yeah, I don't think that they commented on anything like that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, Steve, what type of materials will be used on the facades of these buildings?

I'll let Andrew answer that.

We are still at the beginning stages of the design process, but we typically do a mix of, say, 60% for brick or stone and 40% of a siding material, probably a fiber cement or a fiber cement panel. So high quality durable materials.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Actually, were you through all right? Um. Nobody else come online or anything like that? No. All right. Commissioners, what do we think? Remarks and or motions?

I think we're ready to make a motion.

Are you ready for a motion? Please proceed. Okay. So, in the case of 26, DDP0021, I make a motion to approve the Uh, detailed district development plan and binding elements and make the motion based on our staff report and testimony here today.

2nd, properly made motion in 2nd, roll call please.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. All right and case number 11, the last case of the day. Uh, revised detailed district development plan with revision to binding elements. Zach.

Yes, this is another revised detailed district development plan with revision to binding elements.

Next slide please.

Yeah, the request again, revised detail district development plan with revision to binding elements, the properties almost 4 acres. It's on the South side of Fern Creek road, not river road between Shepherdsville road and popular level road zone plan employment center and it's in the suburban workplace form district. The proposed development would expand existing industrial use fronting Fern Valley road and the proposal is to build a 32 foot tall, 10,000 square foot work workspace and it's. Basically, just a copy of what's already there, which we'll see here in a 2nd next slide please. So this was the previously approved plan. The green square is what was approved here and also what's. they're currently the yellow is what's being proposed so as you can see they're basically the same thing next slide this is the proposed site plan again the yellow is the proposed edition next slide this is the object area in subject property and then next we have an aerial photo with the dot the purple dot there is on the existing structure and then the proposed structure will be going behind that next slide this is the front of the subject property that's the building that is there which they're going to be copying Next slide staff findings, it's compatible with the existing uses in the area will not negatively negatively impact surrounding properties or residents and the revised distilled district development plan meets land development code requirements and plan twenty forty.

Are there any questions.

Any questions commissioners. Jack, thank you.

Thank you.

We're good. Uh, Nathan grams.

Nathan Grimes, 1012 South 4th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40201 with Renaissance Design Build. Here, we're the engineers for the project, and it's pretty simple. We approve of what the staff said. They need more space for the work that's going on there, so that's all they're doing. I don't know if you have any questions or not.

Questions? Anybody?

Thank you. Looks like it's well covered. Thank you.

I don't have another speaker sheet. Were you intending to speak, sir?

Chair, we have an online speaker.

Okay.

Hello? Hello, are you there I am here I'm Casey tell the Pharaoh.

I need your can you turn on your camera. Can you turn on your camera there?

Is that better?

Yeah, that's better. I want you to state your full name and address, full address.

James Carr, Tally Farrell Jr., Tally Farrell Properties. Physical address is 6309 Fern Valley Pass, Louisville, Kentucky, 40228. Our address is in the building directly across Fern Valley from the existing flat that we're looking at here. I just have one simple question. The drawings are a little too fast for me. This new proposed building is going to be exactly behind the existing building, not overlapping on either side. Is that correct?

That is correct. You can't hear you. Somebody will have to answer that from the microphone.

That is correct. Yeah, they're both 10,000 square feet.

Okay, so the existing truck traffic that comes in off Fern Valley Road and goes down along what I'm seeing is the right side of the existing building. That will just continue on past the new building as well into your lower area. Is that correct?

Are you talking about trucks? Someone else may need to speak to this. So you're asking if trucks would just be taking the same route to the rear of the property?

Yes.

Okay, yes, I believe so, but yeah, we can have someone else who we have can speak to that.

Nathan Nathan state your name again, Nathan grams Renaissance design build a 1012 South. 4th street little Kentucky yes to the, there are no change in traffic patterns at all on the site at all.

Okay, so the new building and the old building will be completely adjacent. Is that correct?

Yeah, the new building will be joining the old building and it is, you will not even see it from the road because it's behind it.

Sounds good so far. Do you anticipate any additional. Traffic with the additional workspace. I'm concerned specifically about the traffic from that building. Up Fern Valley past the popular level. I'm sure, you know, that's a dangerous intersection.

Yeah, I can't speak for sure if there'll be any more traffic, but it'll be, it'll be the same pattern anyway.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much for your remarks. Uh, any questions that Mr teller teller for you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Uh, anyone else wants to speak for against this. All right commissioners our thoughts.

I agree with Zach's staff assessment and Nathan's, um. You know, plan, so I think this is a. Legitimate expansion of a apparently a successful business.

All right. Ready for a motion?

Sure. I'm ready to make it.

Go ahead.

So in the case of 26 DDP 0024, I make a motion that we approve this revised detailed district development plan and binding elements. I make the motion based on our staff report and testimony today.

Second probably made motion second roll call, please.

Roll call no.

Roll call.

All right for roll call roll call properly made motion in 2nd. Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Mims?

Yes.

Steph? Yes. Fisher?

Yes. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Motion granted.

That was quick.

See you tomorrow.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you. Joe, Joe, got you.