Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

I'll start by reading the opening statement. This is the regular public hearing of the Louisville Metro Planning Commission 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 hearing. Please silence all cell phones. Please be courteous and respectful to the commission and your fellow citizens. For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send a message to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the commission must do so from the podium or virtually. There are time limits in effect for today's hearing. The applicant or their representative should have no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons in favor of the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person. The opposition representative should have a total of no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons opposed to the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person. Rebuttal by the applicant or their representatives shall be no more than five minutes. If you plan on speaking, please fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to the speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. Procedures will be as follow. Staff will present a summary of the request. The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation given reasons for the request. Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or the representative will then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. If there are further questions by opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The Commission may ask questions of the applicant, representative, or opposition at any time. Pursuant to KRS Chapter 61 and the Commission's bylaws, the Commission's deliberations and voting today will be held immediately following the public hearing for each case. No party will be allowed to speak during the deliberations of this Commission. Roll call, please.

Present cheek present Leonard. Here is it low hand. Here step here stuber. Yeah, Fisher struck here.

Um, as the staff to stand up, so I can swear you in. Thank you. Do you swear firm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth? Yes. Thank you. 1st item on our agenda is the approval of the June 18th, 2026 planning commission minutes commissioners. Have you had a chance to review it? And if so, are there any questions comments and or a motion.

I've reviewed the minutes. I'm ready to make a motion.

Sir.

Uh, I make a motion that we approve the, uh, 0, 6, 1826 planning commission minutes.

2nd, probably made motion the 2nd roll call please. Yes.

Okay. Yes. Yes. Bond abstain. Yes, low hand. Yes, Fisher. Yes, Steph. Yes, sister.

Yes, we're going to. Move the consent agenda down after item number 5 in the public hearing, which is case 26 zone. 0. 056. we'll hear the consent agenda at that time. So we'll move to item 4 on the agenda in business session, which is, which is a subdivision bond forfeiture. The project name is netherwood subdivision phases 1 and 2, and our case managers, Laura Ferguson, assistant county attorney.

Yeah, Laura Ferguson, assistant county attorney, 200 South 5th street suite 300 North 4 0202. there's a letter and some other materials in the file bonds were issued and as well as a savings account and connection with netherwood subdivision phases 1 and 2 public works has requested. A forfeiture of the above reference bonds and savings account, um, because there are deficiencies that were identified in the various punch lists. There have been notices of deficiency dating back to January 2021. none of the issues have been resolved and the subdivisions been largely built out. So the request is to have a motion declaring that the developers in default and that the bonds and the savings account should be forfeited.

Any questions commissioners 1 for Beth is there enough money to. Make the improvements or we get into a trap here?

No, but it's, you know, might as well get what we can instead of and it's I don't know if it was clear. It doesn't include section 3. it's just the 1st, 2 phases, right?

It's just sections 1 and 2. yeah.

I want that developer to panic.

Anyone else.

Okay. So our action is to approve the forfeiture bond?

Basically declare that they're in default and that the bonds and savings account should be forfeited.

So, Commissioners, we need a motion to declare that the bond is, that the deficiencies were there and then that we will approve or declare that the bond be forfeited.

Sure, I can do that. So in the case of In other words, subdivision phases 1 and 2, I make a motion that we acknowledge that the development is our developers and default and that we're initiating forfeiture of the bonds.

A 2nd, probably made motion and 2nd, roll call please.

Yes, Leonard.

Yes, yes.

Yes.

Stuber.

Yes.

Low hand.

Yes.

Fisher.

Yes.

Steph.

Yes.

Bond. Yes. Sister.

Yes. Moving into the public hearing, um, first case is, uh, 26 zone 0 0 5 6, which is a change in zoning from our 4 single family residential or office residential and PC planned employment center. To him to industrial with the revised detailed district development plan with binding elements and associated variances and waivers. The project name is forward expansion located at various addresses on Collins lane, various addresses on Winchester acres road, and various addresses on Chamberlain lane. Our case managers that Jones that I turn it over to you.

Thank you very much. Again, this is 26 on 0, 0, 5, 6, 4 expansion. I've just got the 1 address on calling lane for brevity, but the. And your staffer next slide. The change in zoning from R4 single family residential, OR office residential, and PEC planned employment center to M2 industrial. We have one variance and three waivers. The variance is to exceed building height. The max allowed is 50. They are proposing 80 for a variance of 30 feet. There's a waiver for a provision of the code that says that a six foot tall perimeter fence can't have barbed wire or razor wire, and they would like relief from that. Next slide. A waiver from the landscape section of the code to weigh 50% of the vehicle use area interior landscape area square footage. And then from 5.5 to a 1 and 5, 6, 1 B to wave the required non residential building location orientation and building facade treatment requirements for buildings within the suburban form. And then there is a revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. This is currently again zone that R4OR and PEC located in suburban workplace form. You may remember this came back before you in 2023 for a truck parking. About 75% of the site, they demolished the existing neighborhood that was around North Winchester Acres Road at that time. So none of those structures are still there. They're now including the remaining properties for the most part that are in the area bound by Collins Lane and Chamberlain Lane. They're proposing the whole of the site to M2 Industrial to develop a 1.6 million square foot industrial facility. I will note that M2 Industrial does allow M2 uses, so it is consistent with the other PEC zoning in the area. The subject site is roughly 70 acres. The facility will be adjacent to the existing Ford facility to the west of this property. Um, and then mermaid lane had a right of way closure. We'll see that on 1 of the pictures in just a moment, but that is a very thin 40 foot wide right of way that separates. This subject area and the existing Ford parking. That was approved unanimously by yesterday. That is 1 of those items on the consent agenda.

Next slide.

For the technical review, MSD and Public Works have preliminarily approved the proposal, and the applicants have agreed to continue to work with Metro Public Works and KYTC on any final improvements suggested from the traffic impact assessment. that is one of the binding elements for this revised detailed district development plan you can see the subject property all of that area in red is the pec area that was rezoned in 2023 and those remaining pieces as part of this the r4 or pieces next slide here you can see that area again all of these structures have been since demolished is to my understanding a cleared site at this point Next slide here's a view from Chamberlain lane. Looking yeah, that was down the former North Winchester acres. And again, these are from Google street view. So some of these pictures are a little out of date. It was the best we could do. Here's the subject property from Collins lane. Next slide and then here is the. Another picture of the subject property from Collins lane next slide. Here is a picture of the property along Collins Lane that is the adjacent property that you're looking towards the forward parking lot they own. Just outside of the picture to the left is that Mermaid Lane that was previously mentioned. Next slide. Here's an adjacent property across Collins Lane, so pretty much exactly across the road from what we were just looking at. You can see the U-Haul self-storage facility there across the road. Next slide. Here is looking towards the intersection of Collins Lane and Chamberlain Lane, looking towards Collins Lane itself.

Next slide.

Here is that property looking towards the part of the not subject area that is along Chamberlain Lane. Next slide. This is the adjacent property across Chamberlain Lane, so pretty much right across what we were looking at there. Next slide. This is the self-storage unit, extra space storage just west of the former North Winchester Acres Road. Next slide. This is across the road there. You can see the Gene Snyder is what you're looking at in the background.

And then this is the adjacent Ford facility to the west along Chamberlain Lane.

Here's the proposed plan. You'll note two buildings, again, they total 1.6 million square feet. Next slide. Here's the preliminary elevations next slide. And then here we have the staff finding and recommendation. Um, there is a change in zoning from our 4 to M2. it's compliant with plan 2040 MSD and public works have preliminary approved the proposal and it looks like that got cut off. Um. subject to the proposed binding element change. The revised detailed district development plan is compliant with plan 2040, except where the variances waivers are requested. So it would be compliant should you find those acceptable. The proposed variances and waivers meet standards described to grant each in KRS and LDC. And staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning, variance, waivers, and the revised detailed district development plan.

Next slide.

So you'll see here your three required actions to approve or deny that change in zoning, approve or deny the variance for building height, approve or deny the waiver for fence material type. Next slide. Approve or deny the waiver from ILA square footage, approve or deny the waiver from building location orientation facade treatments, and then approve or deny that revised detailed district development plan subject to those proposed binding elements. That's all I've got for the presentation, but I'm happy to take questions.

Any questions commissioners?

Yeah. Can we go back to the site plan please? Yep. 1, without all the drawings in it. Uh, 1 of the.

I mean, the aerial.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry there. There it is back.

Uh, so is that 1 residential hold out in the middle of all that? No, that is part of this. That's just what you're seeing. That dark line is just part of the boundary that comes from logic.

Where the hand was.

Yeah, exactly. So everything that's in that red line is part of the subject area.

They were the holdout on that when it was rezone for trip to PEC. Um, I handled that a couple of years ago. Originally that was included in that PEC rezoning and they ultimately. Backed out at that time, but Ford has since acquired that property.

In other words, this is just left over, right?

It's it's that piece is still zoned off for. Today, and then this zoning would change it.

Okay. All right. Good enough. Just 1 1. Thank you. Yep.

Uh, just 1 question on the traffic as I was going through that last night. Um, the only improvement that I saw was, um, a recommendation for improvement was a left turn lane off of Collins into I think they said gate 10 is that.

That's the only formal 1 at this time the left turn lane from Collins going into the site. I'll let commissioner speaker speak a little bit more to, um, the process that's ongoing with they finalize their review of the.

Yes. So we had several meetings, KYTC and the company that prepared the traffic study for Ford. There will be no question about the turn lanes going into the new expanded employee parking just north of this site. So we had that. Then there are some existing issues at LaGrange and Chamberlain, partly due to the railroad track, which is a limit. Metro traffic had asked for a little more data, which should not be an issue. And then the state was wanting some data and some help with the exit ramp of the Schneider onto LaGrange. So they're still working that out.

Okay, so when you say help, I guess they're still working that out, but is it going to be something that will be a condition or a binding element or do we know?

The binding element is relatively broad in terms of the applicants providing continued coordination with KYTC to give them whatever improvements they need.

I get it. And then I think I heard somewhere along the line about Old LaGrange Road. Is that being cut off from Chamberlain?

The traffic study indicated that would cause more congestion than it would help. So I think that ad has been abandoned.

All right. Okay. Thank you.

Is Collins a state or county road?

Metro. I believe Collins, yeah, that's a metro road.

Metro.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a question. Maybe this is for you or for you, Beth. So we're being asked to approve or make a recommendation on the rezoning without final approval from KYTC? I think you have final approval for...

See, they were just asking that Ford keep the door open to us. And it's my understanding Ford has agreed to provide the additional data for the traffic study. And I think the state will negotiate with them outside of this development plan, whether they would ask for assistance on the physical improvements.

And I should have mentioned, I provide you all a couple pages. Um, I was talking with earlier this morning and they said that they were pretty much fine with this. Um, again, just so long. As the condition kind of covers the necessary improvements and I think we both believe that they do.

Okay, so let me ask you again the necessary improvements in Collins lane and is this.

Collins lane, and if something else were to come out of the yet, unspecified project.

Yeah. Okay. I got it. Thank you.

Just for clarification, this building that they're going to build, the primary building is 1,300,000 square feet. 1.6 million, 1.6 million in a primary building. Okay. And that only requires.

We looked at originally going, hopefully I'm answering your question, PEC, but there are a lot coverage constraints in that zone. So that's why we pivoted to M2. To M2. To allow them to build this development, which staff supports it is a more efficient use of the site than it would be otherwise.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thanks, Zach.

Yep.

Cliff, if you could state your full name, address and zip code and I'll swear you in.

Good afternoon. It's Cliff Ashburn with Dinsmore and Shoal, 101 South 5th Street, Louisville, 40202.

Do you swear firm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth? I do 15 minutes.

Thank you all very much. Um, this is, and I think an exciting opportunity for Louisville, uh, learned through this case a little bit about the history of. Ford in the community, and especially at Kentucky truck plant. So what we're talking about today is essentially in addition to an existing facility that's on Chamberlain Lane. If you'll go ahead and advance the slide. So this is the subject property that we are talking about all in green there. It does include some areas that were rezoned to PEC. In a previous application, it also includes five other lots that were either remaining as office or residential zoning. It will be accessed primarily internally for everybody's knowledge. If you'll go ahead and advance the slide. That's the aerial of the subject property prior to its clearing. That property has been cleared at this point. All the homes have been removed. If you'll go to the next slide. So, this is the overall area. You can see the main Kentucky truck plant. They're kind of in the center of the photo. You can see where the star is. That's the property we're proposing to rezone. You'll note, of course, as, as is the case that Ford has access from both road and rail in this area and has for now north of 50 years. She'll advance the slide. So this is just a history of plant expansions, working with Luckett and Farley, who's done a lot of the engineering work here. The areas in pink are the original facility that was built between 1967 and 1970. The areas that are in purple were added in the aughts and teens, so relatively recent expansions. Some of the green areas were added in the 90s. You can see the 1992 Super duty paint shop that was there as well. So, Ford has continued to make investments in this community at this facility and what we're providing to you today. What we're talking about today is an investment as well. That's that's fairly significant and an expansion of the facility. Go ahead and advance the slide. So, this is the main visitor entrance. It's kind of in the center of the campus, if you will. And then the, the facility kind of flanks out on either side. If you'll go to the next slide. This is the northern a northern portion of the plant. It's. The area that we're talking about rezoning today is nearly 70 acres. The total campus is over 400 acres. It's a little bit difficult on a map on an aerial to really deal with that scale. You can see here, this is a manufacturing facility. Manufacturing facilities are very purpose designed and these buildings are purpose designed. In addition, you can see here, you've got a row of tree buffer that is probably less than what will be provided at the new site. I'll show you on the site plan shortly. You can see the buildings behind it. The fencing is the fencing is the 6 foot fencing with. Barbed wire on top of it, unfortunately, that's that's necessary and that is something we want to continue around the new facility as well. Go ahead and advance the slide. So this is still on the northern portion down. 1 of the gates, you can see that the type of buildings again, these are very utilitarian. I know most of the industrial proposals that you all see are distribution facilities, or they are contractor shops that have office components. The buildings we're showing you today really, really don't have much of that. If you go to the next slide. This is kind of North central portion of the plant. You can go in advance. And this is the southern portion of the plant. I think that area on the right hand side is one of the relatively recent expansions. Go ahead and advance the slide. This is on Chamberlain Lane. You can see that is gate 10. Primary access for the facility that we're talking about today is through gate 10 for trucks that are coming. Employees will be parking off of gate 12, which is off Collins Lane, necessitating the turn lane that was discussed just a moment ago. Um, and you can see as well, the storage facility there on the left, if you go to the next slide. These are just some shots of businesses across Collins lane, just to give you an idea of kind of the area in which the proposal sits. This is a storage lot across Collins. There you'll go advance this line. This is Tony's record service and they work with semi trucks and and heavy equipment. If you go to the next slide. This is part of the U haul property. This is actually taken from the end of mermaid lane. So the turn lane that we discussed would be just a little bit north of of this location. On Collins turning into what's known generally as gate 12 into the property to go to the next slide. Please. This is the other part of the U-Haul. You can see, obviously, the utilities, the substation across the street as well. We go to the next slide. This is the overall overall Kentucky truck plant. As you can see, it does run from Westport almost all the way to LaGrange. So from Westport to Collins, you can see where the proposed site is located. Relative to the existing, it is 2 buildings, the elevations that we're sharing with you in the presentation today are the larger of the 2 buildings because those are the, that's the building that you're going to see if you're not. In the property to go ahead and advance. This is the proposed development plan as I mentioned before you can see the truck access is going to continue through gate 10. we do have pedestrian access that's going to cross. Mermaid lane, which obviously we have before you today as a proposal to close that and get up into an area that is already largely paved, but will be reconfigured to accommodate more passenger vehicles. Importantly around the site, you know, we are asking for some waivers. Those waivers do not impact the perimeter landscape buffering. I wanted to just point that out. So there will be a significant amount of plant material around the site and around the buildings in order to break them up a little bit more to go to the next slide. This is a perspective. Of course, you can see Collins is there kind of on the right Chamberlain on the left. You can see the planting material again. These are utilitarian buildings. They are designed to be a port a part of the facility that is already there. She'll go to the next slide. This is just another view of the area. You can see the buffering around the subject property. Um, an existing tree canopy that's going to be preserved on the north side. You go to the next slide. This is the proposed site plan. You can see where the access comes off again of gate 10. there's access internal to the overall site and the landscaping there. These are, as I mentioned before. Automobile manufacturing buildings and so that's that's how they're shaped and what they look like. You go to the next slide please. I recognize these are a little unusual just based on the length of the building compared to its height. The main building that these elevations are concerned with is only I think about 38 feet tall. The building in the back, so the interior building is the one that is a portion of that building would be potentially taller than the maximum, which is why we're asking for the variance. If you go to the next slide. So, you know, we've reviewed the staff report and reviewed the conditions. Obviously, we agree with the staff's analysis of the overall proposal. We would like to clarify binding element 5 when it comes to traffic improvements. And so if it's okay. I'd like to just read this into the record. A left turn lane on Collins Lane into gate 12 of the main plant property shall be installed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the facility. The applicant shall further coordinate with Louisville Metro Department of Public Works and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet on any other traffic improvements or study needed. Um, that is what we anticipated. I think that meets the kind of the spirit of binding element 5 as it's in the staff report. But we did want to correct the timing of the installation of that left turn lane. Obviously, that left turn lane is going to serve the employees coming to the facility. And so we think that timing it timing, the construction of the left turn lane with the construction of the facility itself. And making sure that the turn lane is in place prior to the facility, getting a certificate of occupancy. Acts to protect the public and kind of rationalize the construction schedule instead of building a turn lane before the facilities even before we could even pull permits to build the facility. So that's why we wanted to make that change. This is a suburban workplace form district. It is located directly. The site that we're talking about today is located directly adjacent to a automobile manufacturing facility that has been in place for 50. 5 years, I think at this point, 1956 years was when the initial stage was finished. The combination of the form district, the combination of the legacy use really. Indicates that this is an appropriate location for an expansion of the manufacturing facility to go to the next slide. Please. So, these are the waivers that we are requesting. We did ask for the waiver to allow the perimeter fence around this facility to match the perimeter fencing. That's around the rest of the facility also showed you a photo that it is closely matches fences across Collins lane. We are asking to wave 50% of the within the subject property that is largely based on. The need for the manufacturing space, the size of the building, and then, you know, the maneuvering area is typically provided in parking areas. It is unusual, I think, to see large in truck courts and truck maneuvering areas and a lot of the area around these buildings really fits that definition better than parking areas. The other waiver. or the next waiver is to waive the building design treatment. That really comes out of the fact that, as I showed you before, this is an extension of the existing Ford facility. These are very utilitarian buildings. There is an entrance on the northeast corner that is more of a pedestrian entrance, but again, that's going to be relatively small compared to the rest of the building. We are providing a lot more landscaping on this property, largely based on updates to the land development code. Um, then has been provided around the rest of the of the facility and then we are for that portion of the rear building asking that a portion of that building can be taller than the maximum building height. So, we agree with the staff's analysis. We have provided the traffic impact study. We've worked through everything that is really appropriately before you all under the land development code. We recognize, of course, that there are other permits that are needed. And so any of those other things that we need to address either that the state or the federal government enforces, we intend to comply with those regulations, of course, to the letter as well. I'm happy to take any questions. I have the team from Luckett and Farley here. We have Curtis Petty, Matt Golo, and Brooks Benton, who may be able to answer site design questions. And I have Tony Reinhart from Ford as well, if you have specific questions of him. So, thank you all very much.

Thank you. Any questions, commissioners?

Yes, sir tell the commission again the total square footage and both proposed buildings.

Building 1, I believe is 1.3. Yeah, so building 1, which is a larger of the 2 is about 1.3Million building 2 is about 350,000.

Thank you.

Yeah. I have a couple of questions. Cliff once is so pathetically minor, but I have to ask you just to come up with a justification for the waiver on the fence. Your image showed landscaping in front of the fence in which you're asking the waiver on the correct concertina wire. Is that what you're proposing to do? Is that?

Yeah, that's what's shown on the plan. Yeah. The fencing would be kind of at the curb. Sure.

But again, it seems like a mitigating factor in terms of, you know, that the fence. So, in the 2nd, because we spent an unbelievable amount of time talking about it when this property came in 2 years ago, I think Chris Crumpton was the engineer and that's the truck parking along Chamberlain. And that was a lot of the reason that we. I think we had 2 hearings on that a lot of the reason that we ended up approving it because of the, the truck parking was going to remove a lot of the trucks that were, you know, parking because of the requirements and so forth. How's that? How's that playing out with this new plan?

Well, as you can see, we don't have parking on the property for trucks. I know that that has been an issue. We've heard that from multiple people we heard in our community meeting. Ford is very clear and transparent with the suppliers who arrive at the site, and they give them a window in which they are to arrive at the gate. It is a fact I've seen the trucks out there myself that some people choose to park illegally. On this on the shoulder of Chamberlain lane, but Ford is very clear with them that their window to appear at gate 10 is X. And that they are to obey all traffic laws and all parking regulations prior to them getting to the site. You know, we would be happy to coordinate in some way with Louisville Metro police in order for them to enforce the parking rules that are I know in place. Um, but we can't really control all of the suppliers that come to the site.

I think it's more of what can we expect? I mean, and, and, uh, so, uh, instead of raising expectations and all the trucks are going to be off of chamber and lane, they're not, you know, so, uh, I understand. Thanks.

Related to commissioner men's question. Can we look at an overall plan of the facility that incorporates this edition? And can you clarify for me? Because I remember approving that and the discussion that related clarify for me. This site will largely have internal access, although there's some road improvements made. Where is the primary entrance for the truck traffic that we're talking about that relates to kind of trucks illegally parking? Can you show me on the plan where they will? Okay, so right there right beside it. All right.

Yeah, it is the truck entrance that's there now. So, the trucks will come in gate 10 gate 12, which is at the north side. It's across height creek. Okay. That'll be the primary employee parking area.

Thank you which building more incorporate the 80 foot tall.

Building 2, so the smaller building that's internal to the site is that going to be 80 foot.

The whole billing 80 foot.

No, no, there's a portion of it that's 80 feet, but not the entire building though.

Stacker. Is it going to be a stacker facility, a stacker facility called a stacker where they. Stack body truck bodies built storage.

I don't know that. That's fine. Yeah. Sorry.

Thank you.

Any other questions. All right here none.

Um, thanks Cliff. I have Scott Hager signed up. Scotty. Are you here in support or?

Well, I have a presentation to make, but I can't make it three.

Opposed?

Come to the podium.

All right, let's start over here.

okay all right so what is what is your your presentation forget the time for a minute are you opposed are you um three minutes if i say i'm in support are you opposed or support in support of this i just i can't answer that until you tell me whether i get my 15 minutes i would like to do the presentation that i brought and i'll be as brief as i can

I'm taking it you're in opposition to this.

Well, I'm not really, but I will say that if that's what it takes to get 15 minutes. No.

Yeah, yeah, if you're in opposition, you get 15 minutes, but I'm gonna tell you now, if your presentation is not in opposition, I'm gonna stop you. Right. And we're gonna, we're, we're done. So, because I'm already frustrated with this playing coy, right? Either you are, you ain't let the rules are the rules. So, I'm gonna tell you, if you're in opposition. Then I'll give you 15 minutes because the opposition representative.

Okay. Okay, that's fine.

Are you saying you're in opposition?

I guess so.

Okay.

I will leave out the 1st, part of my presence.

So, state your full name and address owner of Hagan properties.

12911 rumors road Louisville, Kentucky.

40245. you raise your right hand for me. Do you swear affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth?

Yes.

All right. Thank you proceed.

I'm Scott Hagan, I own Hagan Properties. We own the self-storage site, which is wrapped by, will be wrapped by this development. And so I can't say that or that. I'd like to go to this slide. Slide one, this is a property we bought next to Southeast Christian in 22. During our due diligence and rezoning process, we had to address how to handle the three intermittent streams that dissected the property. One of which needs to be piped in order to create a prime out parcel on the corner. In order to get the first ever issued MSD floodplain variants, we had to protect the mainstream that's in red 25-foot buffers around it. Had to to create a conservation easement of 2.8 acres off site. We had to do a stream restoration for for be 110,000 dollars and we'll have to pay the core 225,000 dollars for piping the little stream that that we are. Piping this process with the floodplain floodplain variance board took almost a year. This is the process developers are required to go through with and the Army Corps of engineers when streams. And or ponds are on property to be developed. Next slide please. In July of 2018, Hagen Properties filed its development plan for our five-acre site, which is on the left front of that right there. Thank you. Our intent was to build 150,000 square foot storage facility. As we took the property through the approvals process, we created final plans for its development. These plans were signed off on by all applicable agencies except for MSD. MSD told us that our plans did meet all MSD requirements. However, we couldn't get MSD to stamp our plans so that we could proceed to construction because Ford opposed our development. Ford, through its attorneys, said any development of the contiguous property would exacerbate existing flooding at Ford's existing factory, citing examples of flooding of factory floors, manhole covers, popping off, etc. Even though we met all MSD requirements, we had to sue MSD to force it to stamp our plans. This process cost us a year and a half and over a million and a half dollars in attorney fees, interest accrual, and lost cash flow. Our lawsuit was successful. MSD stamped our plans. We built our facility, next slide, 150,000 feet, and it is 88% leased today. So can you imagine an agency whose job is to treat all corporate and private citizens equally would side with one corporation against another? For me, that's pretty hard to believe, but it happened to us on that site.

Next slide, please.

After we got our zoning on Winchester, what we call Winchester Acres, two things occurred. In October of 2019, we notified MSD that someone was clearing trees where you see in the colored green, red, yellow, blue on numerous properties that were to our, I guess it's east. And we notified MSD of that. MSD had not issued a clearing and grading permit to allow this site work. MSD, whose obligation it is to enforce the regulations regarding such violations, said it was not aware of this activity and posted a stop work order. The work ceased for a period, then the stop work sign was removed and tree clearing resumed. To the best of our knowledge, MSD never issued a clearing and grading permit, a notice of violation, or assessed a fine, nor was a wetlands determination made or an Indiana bat slash endangered species survey done as private developers would have to do. If a private developer acted in this way, it would be fined and a stop work order would be enforced.

Next slide. Height Creek is in blue there.

It goes from the property in question today all the way to under Westport Road, where you see the yellow. It's a perennial stream, which means that it holds water 100% time of the year. It flows through Ford's property. A portion of Height Creek on the Westport Road side in yellow at the end of Ford's property was completely denuded in 2024. Next slide, please.

So that's where the tree removal was. Next slide, please.

So Ford completely removed all trees around a perennial stream, which for a private developer would have had to have a 100-foot buffer on both sides and that stream remain untouched. Once again, no notice of violation was issued, no fine assessed, and no requirement to restore the stream was imposed. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, no penalties have been assessed. If a private developer had acted in this way, it would have been fined and required to completely restore the stream pursuant to a plan approved by MSD. That never happened. Next slide, please. This is an aerial of our site that is under construction off of Cedar Creek Road right now for 408 apartments. In 42 years of my developing properties in Louisville, I've never had a stop work order issued by any agency on any property. Yet two weeks ago, MSD issued a stop work order for this area on the right bottom side of the property, the real thin area. which had been stabilized and a silt fence had been put up. MSD notified us that although the area had been strawed, it had not been seeded. The stop work order was valid because MSD had appropriately notified us and we did not force the subcontractor to get this work done in a timely manner. This is how the system is supposed to work. but somehow Ford can completely clear a 70-acre site and suffer no consequences whatsoever and can completely denude a stream with no penalties whatsoever, yet Hagen Properties gets a stop work order issued for not getting seed down quickly enough. How is that possible? How is that uniform enforcement of regulations? Ford's development plan. You've got buildings and roads that cover virtually the entire site. Looks like it needs to. 85% will be covered by impervious surfaces. 85% of 70 acres is whatever it is, 60 acres. It's pretty interesting, given that Ford opposed our little five-acre development because of flooding on their site.

Next slide.

Roughly 40% of Ford's detention basin behind those buildings is in the floodplain, and they proposed to dig down 11 feet into that floodplain. When we discussed with our civil engineer whether Hagen Properties would be allowed to do this, his response in relation to a private developer getting a permit for such work was it would be a nightmare. A staff report in relation to Community Form Goal 3 Policy 12 says that the subject site is minimally located in a regulatory floodplain and should be, quote, considered appropriately, close quote, in any potential development in accordance with MSD regulations. Well, I wish Hagen Properties could get such favorable wording. Community Forum Number 3A says the detention basin is in an area of, quote, local jurisdictional floodplain. But, quote, the proposal generally proposes sensitive design related to environmental features. Again, wow, how can digging 11 feet into a floodplain be deemed sensitive design?

Next slide.

The process for handling properties like the one I showed you at first that we just bought years ago next to Southeast Christian is when you're first analyzing a property for acquisition, developers usually look up the site on logic to see if there are any streams and ponds.

On this site, you can easily see there's a stream and a pond. Next slide.

In addition to be able to see the stream and the pond, you can see the silvery area at the bottom is the pond and the stream originates to the left of it and goes out the right to High Creek. In addition to being able to see the stream in the pond, you can also see that as of June of this year, this is June of this year, the site had been completely cleared without even installing silt fence. One of the very first things MSD requires before any portion of a site can be cleared. In our communities, developers need to engage an environmental engineer if streams and ponds or ponds exist. The environmental engineer prepares a report. This report analyzes whether ponds are wetlands and whether streams are perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral, each requiring different protections and setbacks. The Environmental Engineers report will suggest whether the streams and ponds are jurisdictional. The Environmental Engineer then submits the report to the Army Corps of Engineers. None of this was done on this site. The Army Corps of Engineers then makes final determination whether the streams and ponds are indeed jurisdictional. If they are jurisdictional, then the Corps of Engineers requires the developer to get a permit before disturbing the areas. The developer must also have an Indiana bat slash endangered species survey performed. The records don't show that Ford did any of this. The developer will have to get MSD's floodplain variance board to issue a variance to pipe streams, fill in ponds, et cetera. The records don't show that Ford did any of this. Construction plans must then be submitted to the Corps and impact fees must be paid. Next slide.

Well, that's the entire site, no self fencing, no nothing. Um, next slide.

Construction plans will be submitted to the core and the impact fees must be paid to the core for streams. 518 in Kentucky, 518 dollars per linear foot of pipe stream must be paid. Ford stream is 573 feet, which would result in the 296,000 dollar. The impact fee. If Ford had followed the regulations, it would have had to get a permit from the core to impact the stream and pond, which were denuded. Get a permit before they did it if there are endangered species on the site, which are definitely which they're definitely probably were the mitigation fees must be paid as shown on this slide from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Next slide. Ford's site likely had six endangered species on it, up to six. In Ford's case, they have removed almost 30 acres of trees and no Indiana bat or endangered species survey was done. The mitigation fee for this would be $274,000. It's going to be interesting to see whether Ford pays both of these fees that a private developer definitely would have to pay. A review of numerous applicable online sites shows that Ford followed none of these processes and regulations. MSD should never have issued a clearing and grading permit until all of these items were done, especially since even a cursory review of logic shows a stream and a pond, which easily could be jurisdictional.

Next slide, please. And the next one. And the next one.

Okay, so this, uh, Mr Mims brought this up a while ago. Metro's, uh, agency review comments section 6 and 11 state quote truck stacking has been reported as a problem along Chamberlain lane. If this is not addressed with a. Traffic study, additional improvements may be required. These slides show this stacking notice how trucks park in front of our facility sometimes 8 to 10 at a time. I don't see any provision for 4 to correct this. My tax dollars should not be used to provide parking on public streets for forge trucks waiting to access the plant. In closing, it's unacceptable for our laws and regulations not to be applied and enforced uniformly. They apply to everyone. There aren't exceptions for Fortune 500 companies. Ford has failed to follow virtually all of the regulations and procedures that private developers must comply with, and no notices of violation have been issued and no penalties assessed. All government agencies are supposed to enforce our laws and regulations uniformly and treat all corporate and private companies evenly. MSD and the Corps of Engineers need to go to work to remedy these malfeasances and to impose on Ford the same fees and funds that we private developers must pay, including imposing punitive funds for recklessly disregarding our laws and regulations.

Thank you. It's time commissioners. Any questions of the opposition.

Well, not so much of a question to Scott. And by the way, I was an employee at Hagen. He was a client of mine for 40 years and owned them that long. So, but I, and we didn't, we didn't obviously, you know, connect on this, but I guess the response is that, you know, every developer, every site is different. And And, you know, probably in all fairness to MSD, I mean, this stuff may be in the works. I mean, you know, projects run at a different pace. This is obviously a big project, and it's a big, you know, economic development project. And I don't want to say that MSD just missed it or overlooking stuff. I probably want to hear from Tony and say, okay, you know, is this true, and what's the basis for it? I mean, it really kind of gets into the credibility of the whole process. We've had this discussion a lot of times on projects, you know, is the process consistent? And I'm, I'm assuming that is probably somewhere in the midst of sorting through a lot of these things that Scott brought up.

So, well, a couple of things, uh, Mr. Um. We watch this unfold over the years for it's a huge company. They're important to our community. Actually, we do support this development. but we do not think that it is appropriate for our laws and regulations to be un-uniformly applied. Now, you said maybe these things are in the works. They can't go undo the tree removal so that they can do the endangered species work. They can't go unstrip the stream and the pond that would allow for an appropriate evaluation by an environmental engineer. They've already done it. with no permits and no enforcement by the people who are supposed to be enforcing.

So, Mr. Mims, actually, you both got great points because I 100% want to hear from Tony on where all this is at. I see a bunch of head nods. But Mr. Hagan is also correct. Wherever we're at, it seems like things have been done that probably should not have been done yet. And then I'll save the rest of it until deliberation. But I'm concerned about this truck parking that I was promised was solved with the last project.

So, with that being said, I would like to make a comment 1st, I'd like to go on the record that prior to being on the planning commission as a commercial real estate agent, I represented Mr Hagan in the acquisition of the 5 acres that they did the development for the self storage facility. Mr Hagen brings up good points related to the previous applicant who assembled this site and then we resound it for the truck parking. I'd be curious and maybe it's not a question for you, Scott. Maybe it's a question for the applicant. When did the tree clearing take place? Was it prior to for taking title? Is the perhaps the prior owner? But I think you bring up some questions that need answers.

Any other? Yes, sir. Scott, what would you like to see happen at this point?

I would like for MSD to grow a backbone and start enforcing things. We, this community needs this development. Everybody wants the development, but for them to just run a rough shot over all of the processes and procedures when private developers like pagan properties get stuck with complying with every little thing. And then, like I said, in 42 years, we've never had a stop work order until two weeks ago. We should have had that. It was the MSD provided They did exactly what they were supposed to. They notified us that there was an issue. We didn't get it corrected soon enough. And the issue to stop or quarter, where is that kind of supervision on this site? It doesn't exist. It's like, it's for make it go away. We don't want to fool with it.

Any other questions commissioners right? Thank you. Thank you. Um, as I was going to ask this, Tony, Tony, I was looking to see if he was here is Tony on online.

He's not. Okay, let's hear from Cliff and then we can talk about MSD.

Cliff has five minutes.

Well, I heard and I happen to agree that the rules ought to apply to everybody evenly. Um, and I think that that is, you know, that's a real concern of every developer in every case, but to commissioner men's point, every case is a little bit different. And I think just because Mr Hagen doesn't have knowledge of a permit doesn't mean that the permit doesn't exist. So, for instance, I was just talking with Brooks at Lockett and Farley, the clearing and grading permit. We have a copy of it. I'm happy to provide that to Zach. It was issued in February. So that that is that has already occurred. I can tell you, I was at the site yesterday myself. I didn't think that I needed photos of silt fence, but there was silt fence up on the property. Uh, Mr Hagan even acknowledge that there have been no citations no notices of violation with regard to conduct of the construction work that's occurred so far, which has basically been clearing the property. Um, and much of what he is talking about is, in fact, in the works, we have hired 3rd rock consulting. They are working on delineations and interfacing with the core in order to determine what those fees are going to be for for impacting intermittent stream calculation that we have is actually a little north of of what Mr Hagan stated. So, those, those items are in the works. They're not necessarily. Out in the public, because that's not how you handle that kind of permit relationship. You work through your consultants, you work with the relevant agencies. I don't think I heard anything in his comments. However, while I did, like I said, I do agree that the rules ought to be applied evenly. I did not hear anything in his comments that impacted this. Proposals compliance with the comprehensive plan. And this proposal's validity as a, as a development. In fact, the only statement that he made about the development itself is that Louisville needs this development and that he supports it. So. It's unfortunate he had to speak in opposition because I think there's actually a fair amount of agreement among the parties and an exchange of information before today may have may have resolved this issue completely. But Ford has been acting within the permits that are required to be issued and working with all the relevant agencies on any of the work that's occurred so far. So, with that, I would ask that you approve the relevant waivers and variances approve the preliminary development plan and take action affirmative action on the zone change.

Thank you all any other questions commissioners.

Okay. So I do want to go back to this truck parking and I know it seems as if, well, let me put it like this. When the truck parking came, I remember asking a very specific question of if Ford is signed up for this truck parking and are they guaranteeing that these trucks will now go over there? And in a roundabout way, I was told yes, but no formal agreement had been Inked right between the 2, because they don't do that before the development was, but the bottom line is that truck parking was supposed to create a safer Chamberlain lane. So now we get into the comprehensive plan now that we're not doing the truck parking. And we're have no plans to take those. Which is forged responsibility to take those trucks off of Chamberlain lane. Yes, their vendors is their responsibility. So, with that being said. Safety-wise, what is going to be done about that? Because now you're even going to be in front of this new building, right? So tell me, what's the plan?

The plan that is in place currently, and I may ask Mr. Reinhart if he's got any comments on this, is to direct... vendors contractors who come to the property when they are to arrive and and to admonish them that they are to obey traffic laws parking laws etc before they get on ford's property all of the trucks that are out there are not ford trucks they are people who are selling to ford who are picking up things from ford um but i don't know that we can bind them any more than the existing laws can bind them. As I said before, Ford is happy to cooperate with Louisville Metro Police in order to have the police come out and start ticketing and getting people to move the trucks because I think that's what's going to work. As it is, they have advised everybody who arrives, your window at the gate is this specific time. Be here at that specific time. And then it is up to that independent contractor to make a decision about when they leave their facility, where they park along the way, where they rest along the way in order to comply with OSHA.

Okay.

Okay. I have a question for you.

I haven't been out there for a while. Is there, are there signs, no parking signs up and down Chamberlain? There are quite a few. Okay. I just haven't been out there in a while. Thanks. Okay.

Well, just one thought, some of this may be a, uh, Item number 10 on the agenda, I mean, there's, there's, there's more and more of these truck parking facilities that are being proposed. Probably just for the reason that you've indicated commissioner says says trunk is that, you know, some some way we've got to get the trucks off the roadway. And again, this hours of service thing based on the US federal carrier requirements is. It's, it's rigid and these drivers and trucking companies, it's a, it's a, it's a major, it's a major problem.

Anyone else as far as the truck parking, it just kind of occurred to me that. Been working with another situation with the private road, but I've got to meet the folks at LMPD that do the enforcement of semi parking. And so it'd be a good thing to reach out to them because if it is posted and it is Metro road, then they really have to be the ones that actually do the enforcing. I don't think since it's a public right of way that Ford could hire like someone, a towing company or anything, I think it's done through Metro. So I will reach out to those contacts at LMPD.

But haven't we put binding elements in place for other developments that said trucks can't turn here on public roads? Trucks can't turn down this street. Trucks can't come in this way.

We have, but it's very, very difficult to enforce. You're mainly relying on the honesty of the driver. where you put up a sign like that.

And this is Laura Ferguson. I think the binding elements have been more worded that they're going to have a policy that they provide. And then we look to see if they have the policy because it's hard to make them sort of the ultimate guarantor of what the vendor does, but we can have them have a policy that they provide to those vendors.

does cliff do you know if um ford has any penalty clauses for their drivers and or their suppliers if they are out there earlier i do not okay all right any any other questions it's kind of like yes four down on the trucks they're independent drivers so four really doesn't have any control until they come on the property Yeah, but you can put a penalty clause in their side of the contract.

These semis are coming in off the road. They're getting in. I'm not taking up for the drivers, but they come in off the road and they get here early.

So they have to have some place to put. I hear you, but it creates a dangerous. We'll talk about it. It's not really for this, but it just creates a dangerous situation. I'm telling you, I've been down the road quite a bit. But anyway, any other questions for Cliff?

If we need to, we can provide Zach a copy of the of the policy that indicates when people are supposed to happen.

Yeah, that's but I think to the point, I mean, Ford's a huge company, and I'm pretty sure they have other penalty clauses in their contracts with their suppliers, arrival and parking. Can be enforced through Ford's penalty clauses. I mean, I just I know that. But anyway, I'm not writing contracts. So, yeah. So any other thing for Cliff?

No.

All right. Well, that will close the. Thank you. We'll close this portion of the public hearing and we will go into deliberation. And with that, commissioners. Just remember our responsibility is to recommend to Louisville Metro Council approval or denial of the zoning change. And then our final actions are approval or denial of the variances and the waivers, which we have to take the variances separate. There's one, and then we can take the waivers together.

And then approval denial of the detailed district development plan with that, and on the development plan, there was a request by the applicant for a change to finding out number 5 is read by the applicant into the record.

Which makes sense. So, okay. Um, any comments or questions they might want to.

Yeah, just 1 and I'm for this project in and. Having said that, I do, I mean, I guess I can understand Hagen's being present here today and every project is different. Every developer is different. They all have separate needs and, you know, separate timing and so forth. And I, but but from our perspective, it is about having a legible fair process and and, you know, the public is maybe dialed in today saying, okay, is the process fair for everybody? And knowing the colleagues at this table, I sincerely believe it is. Uh, and I do think that we, as a group, uh, you know, try to keep it as fair and even killed as possible. Uh, other agencies I can't speak to. Uh, you can answer Mr Hagan's concerns if they want to, but it doesn't enter into this decision. And to Chris to Cliff's credibility. We're here to see if this to determine if this project is compliant with the comp plan. It is in my mind.

Commissioner Stuber, if Collins Lane is a metropolitan Louisville road, does the applicant have to get approval from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as noted in Binding Element 5 or should that be deleted?

Collins Lane is Metro Road. KYTC does not have any jurisdiction. I think where KYTC is involved is because a lot of this traffic will spill out onto the road. So they do have a concern about the function of the New LaGrange Road that's their road. I don't know. I don't think we should strike it. Maybe it could be wordsmithed a little if the

Do you want to reread that? Do we have that binding element?

I think it's in this email.

Which one?

I know. One of the ones that Zach handed out.

I thought, yeah, so if I see it, it's on page 1 of the email that Zach handed out that said a left turn on Collins lane into the facility. Specified by the traffic impact study will be required prior to the issuance of permits as well as any improvements otherwise required by and coordinated with public works in the Kentucky transportation cabinet. Now, that said, I thought that what the applicant read was something about a gate. 12, there was some additional language beyond what's in this email. Take it close. Okay.

Thank you. I was actually typing it out in an email to Brian. So the language, and I can copy you on that too, Laura. The language is a left turn lane on Collins Lane into gate 12 of the main plant property shall be installed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the facility. The applicant shall further coordinate with the Louisville Metro Department of Public Works and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet on any other traffic study or improvements needed.

I'm one person here, but I think that reads pretty well. Okay. So, Brian and Laura both have that in an email. Thank you. Anyone else have anything.

All right, I guess so before we take a motion, and just if somebody could be thinking about that motion, I 90. Agreed that this complies with the comp plan, but I go back to my safety. Right? And there's always some give and take with the comp plan. So I never, I never. 100% going to say we're going to hit it all the time. But with that being said, this is a development once again, as I said, I agree with Mr. Hagan 100%. It's great development for the city, but I do have my concerns with the traffic and I just want to go on record and just ask for it to do. If you're doing 100%, step it up to 200%, because when those trucks pull out, sometimes they don't even see each other. So if you could just step that up for safety purposes, I'd appreciate it.

I would like to make a comment that I concur with exactly what you said, but I really wish MSD had a representative here today. I think Mr. Hagan brought up some very valid points.

Agreed. We ready? Yes, sir. Okay. In the case of twenty six zoning zero zero five six, I make a motion that we recommend to local Metro Council approval of the zoning change from our four single family and our office residential and plan employment center to M2 industrial. I make the motion based on our very competent staff's report today and the testimony that we've heard.

2nd, probably my most in the 2nd, roll call please.

Yes. Fisher yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Okay, on the variance twenty six variance zero zero five nine, I make a motion that we approve the variance based on the staff report on some of the mitigating circumstances noted relative to the variance in our testimony her today.

I'll second probably made motion and second roll call please.

Yes.

Yes.

Leonard yes, cheek yes, bond. Yes, step.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

We have we have 3 waivers, um, 26 waivers, 0, 0, 5, 9, relative to the fence and we've talked about the mitigating measures to the fence and the height of the fence and the wire, uh, waiver, 26, uh, waiver, 0, 0, 6, 0. On the landscape interior landscape requirements and why that is a problem extraordinary to this particular case. And 26 waivers, 0, 0, 6, 1, related to the building location and orientation of the facades and the applicant very much explained the reasoning behind that. So make a motion that we approve those waivers. Uh, based on the staff report and the testimony that we've heard.

I'll 2nd, probably my most in the 2nd, roll call, please.

Fisher yes, Steph yes, Leonard. Yes, bond.

Yes.

Cheek. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Before we get on this next one, Laura mentioned this binding element five. Are we leaving it in or taking it out? Revising it.

You're leaving it in, but we're revising it as read into the record by the applicant.

Okay, good enough.

Okay, so with that introduction, uh, David, uh, make a motion that we, uh, uh, that we recommend to Metro. We approve. Okay. I make a motion that we approve the revised district development plan and binding elements, including number 5, which was written as a record by the applicant. And I make the motion based on our staff report and testimony today.

2nd, probably made most of the 2nd roll call please.

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

Yes. Thank you. It's all been approved and the zoning has been recommended approval to Metro Council. Thank you. Cliff. Yes. We're going to go back to our consent agenda. We have 2 items on our consent consent agenda, 26 street closure 0, 0, 1, 0, and 26 street closure 0, 0, 1, 7 commissioners. Have you had a chance to review these items on the consent agenda? And if so, I will if there's no questions or conversation, I will accept the motion to approve or deny the consent agenda.

I make a motion. We. Approve the consent agenda a second.

Probably my motion and second roll call please for sure.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right, next item going back to the public hearing. Um, we're on agenda item number 6, which is zone 0 and 25001616, which is a pill of a binding element located at 4826 Preston highway. And our case managers, Laura Ferguson, assistant county attorney attorney over you.

Yeah. Laura Ferguson, assistant county attorney. Uh. 200 South street, sweet, 300 North 4 0202. um, This 1 was previously heard by the planning commission on June 4th, and it was continued to today and where we last left. It was the app. The property owner was planning on filing a revised development plan. Which, if approved and complied with, would bring them into compliance. So the status update is on June 8th, the revised development plan was filed. Numerous agency comments were provided to the property owner on June 24th. A revised plan reflecting addressing those comments has not yet been filed, but on the other hand, I don't know that I would expect it to be turned around super quick. I don't know if the property owners here my recommendation honestly would either be to continue it to the 1st meeting in August or the 1st meeting in September and sort of see how that development plan progresses. So, if the property owners here, we could talk to them about which date might. Be more realistic, but if they're not here, then I think we just pick 1 of the 2.

Any questions of Laura? Well, just, I guess a comment. We always get this business of a engineer or somebody filing a new plan. Could we, would it be appropriate? I know we can only ask to have the engineer here.

Yeah, I can, I'd be happy to send a letter or an email to that person because the continued date.

Yeah. I mean, it's kind of like the rope of dope. I mean, we don't know what's going on.

Yeah.

Okay. That would, that would be my, you know, I don't have any problem with continuing it, but I think I would, with the, understanding that the applicants represented or the engineer would be here.

Okay. And you said they're, they are making steps.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Perfect.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they file, it was, the plan was accepted four days after we had the last meeting. So that to me looks like they're angry.

Any other questions?

Do we have anyone online to speak?

No, okay.

Does it make a difference to staff whether we continue it to the first meeting, the first August meeting or the first September meeting? I don't know what the agenda looks like.

And while they have that conversation, is the owner of 4826 Preston Highway here?

Yes.

Yes, perfect.

If you could just come up to the podium, give me your name, address, and zip code. And then then I'll swear you in and then afterwards, if you could spill out, fill out a speaker's card for us, give us your name, address and zip code.

Yeah, my name is for 1. The address is 307 cable with circle. This is Kentucky 40245 raise your right hand for me.

Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth? Yes. All right. Thank you. So, um, the conversation we're having, because you're, you are making progress, but we want to make sure that progress is continued to be made is to continue this out to, um, does it make a difference where there's June?

I mean, I'm sorry, I think August 6, August 6, I think is the 1st, August meeting. I don't know what the September date is.

So we got August 6, August 20, or September 3. Those are the next few.

Yeah, I was looking at either August 6 or September 3.

What's the agenda on either one of those? Does it not make a difference?

6 has got a few rezonings on it. I think beyond that, I doubt we have anything scheduled that far out on the rest of them.

Does it make a difference to you which one of the two dates would work better, August 6 or September 3?

I guess that's 1 August 20th.

You say August is better. Okay.

Okay. 2 weeks show any progress.

Yeah, there's 2 weeks.

Yeah, so I, I just want to, you know, last time you guys said, you know, like, how, like, architect. To work with the architect, you know, like, for the redesigning. So, I'm already working with the architect. So, for a new development plan, so we already, we submitted so they accept it. But it is pending the approval and so it met with the conditions. So the architect, he responds to all the conditions. So, we not do like anything until the final approval. Yeah, so right now. Um, so they, they have at the Metro global Metro. But it is like, they accepted, but not approve it.

Like, right. They've sent comments back to the architect. Okay. Architect needs to make some changes. It might be more realistic to set it.

For September, I go with September, 820, we were setting aside for a conversation on a larger item.

Yeah. Yeah. So, with September 3rd work, that's right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. All right, thank you commissioners. With that being said, and we'll close the public portion, the recommendation is to continue this to September 3rd planning commission meeting. So no 1 has any objection or further comment. If we can get a motion.

I get a motion. Enforcement zone 25, 0, 0, 1, 6, 1, 6 that we continuous.

To September 3rd, 2nd, property, main motion and 2nd, roll call please.

Yes, bond.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

steph yes benitez yes lohan yes fisher yes sistrom yes

All right, thank you. We're continuing this to September 3rd. Thank you. So I'm good to go. Yes. Next case is 20, 0, 0, 1, 5, 1, 1, which is another pill of a binding element citation located at 80, 20 national turnpike. And I'll turn it back over to you for our 1st assistant county attorney.

I think we have a PowerPoint. On this 1. While they're getting this pulled up, this is a binding element citation that was issued back on April 6th and was appealed by the property owner. The issue is this property has been before you before once with this owner and then a few times with the prior owner. The citation in question is for that there are more than five direct cars in violation of binding element number one, as well as wrecked cars in the rear. It's not. I have a PowerPoint here.

I got some other documents, but I don't see a PowerPoint.

I think we can work without the PowerPoint. Mike Wilcher had sent it to me. I could probably forward it to you, but I don't know that we necessarily need it. The site was zoned C2 to permit auto sales and detailing, but this case has repeatedly been before us on sort of the same theme, which is that more wrecked cars, essentially enough cars to really be a salvage yard for purposes of land development code, are on the property. And either it needs to be rezoned to something that would allow the salvage yard or the cars need to be removed and stay removed. But the property owner is here. They filed out a speaker's card. I talked to them. They said they're making progress on getting the site into compliance. I think we'd be interested in hearing what that consists of.

Any questions commissioners? Okay, we'll hear from the applicant, Hassan Salman.

Zip code for me, then I'll swear again.

A song Salman address a 0 to 0 national turnpike Louisville, Kentucky for 0 to 1 for raise your right hand for me.

These were affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth. Yes, you can proceed.

All right, um, so with the progress that we've made for this property, it's more sort of like, with the scrap that was on the property. Moved off we did have, um. Uh, sort of, um, like a, how would you say it? a container put on the lot so we can remove all, you know, sort of, you know, scrap parts, anything that does with cars off the, you know, site, not in a visual appearance. We also, we spoke with the officer and I'm pretty sure developing plan where we can't list cars over here in this site. It doesn't go with the compliance of the property. And we've made some progress since, again, those cars off of that site and so where it should be listed for the cars that are for sale. We'd also like to revise the plan for the property to be able to be in compliance and to be able to have more than five cores because the tenant, the way he works is he buys salvage vehicles and then he repairs them, relist them for sale. But to his, to his statement, they're not enough. And, you know, he wants to live, he wants to make a living and, you know, just being able to buy five cars and selling them wouldn't be enough, especially with how the market is. But I mean, I can give you guys these photos that we do have of the progress we have made. If that does help, you guys would like to review them.

You can bring them up. Let me ask you this. When you get back to the podium, don't answer yet. But when you said that you're going to do a new development plan, has that process already started?

We're in the talks of making it happen.

Yeah, I had checked in a cell and I didn't see anything filed as of this morning.

Okay. Um, commissioners any questions of the, um.

And I forgot to note Mike Wiltshire is also here if you had any questions of.

Mike bit me just so you're you're making progress, but right now they're still vehicles on the site. Is that correct?

Yes, but there isn't as of right now, there isn't more than 5 vehicles fewer than 5. yeah.

Fewer than 5 now, less than 5.

Right now, yes, I'm sorry. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

So, I have a question more so, I guess, for Laura is. Putting a container out there to is that. Quote unquote good enough to from a salvage kind of perspective to say, hey, it's night.

That might be a question for Mike.

Okay. We can have him come up.

Yeah, I think I'd like to hear from Mike as to what his code enforcement officers are finding.

Yeah, he's going to come to the you just sit in that chair right now.

He said, yes.

Oh, you weren't here earlier. Yeah. Okay. Um.

Full name and Mike wheelchair for 4 for South history.

These were affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is true. I do. All right.

Okay, I'm sorry, the question was? Well, the question from my perspective, Mike, your team obviously has been working on this case for a long time and I know conditions have been changing. What is the last visit your team went out there? What did they find?

The last bit found the same thing they found this business that there was evidence of auto salvage operations occurring on the property junk more than 4 wrecked junk vehicles on the property and the building is in danger of collapsing is partially collapsed now. So. And the landscaping still hasn't been installed and they did plant some, but it did not meet code requirements. It's insufficient.

So I'm thinking in this case, since I've been on the planning commission, it's been around for maybe three years, four years or longer.

Yes.

Yeah. I sent Jay the PowerPoint, but I mean, now the current owner hasn't been involved this whole time, but.

I think it was his dad that was owned it before.

Yeah, I think. But I think the more recent ones, but I think we had something going back to like 20 or 21 on the first time it came through. But more recently, there was one in 24, but by that point it had changed hands. So we started over in 24, and then there was one in 25, a couple in 25. So it's been a bit. So this current thing has probably been about two years. Sure.

Okay, so, and I'm remembering Mike and tell me if I'm remembering correctly. There's a, I mean, there's a family that has a single family home that's to the left of this property and they've kind of had to endure all this.

Yes.

I mean, it's still single family residential.

Yes. And he contacts me regularly to report that activity is still going on and complaining about the fact that it's still in the violation all this time. Sure.

He's been here a couple of times.

Yes, he has spoken at some of the previous meetings and Mike, I think this was a question that was asked and I have the same question putting the storage container on site and putting items in there. Is that compliant?

Not with the approved plan that we need to be shown on the plan. The last time.

Sorry, the last time that you were out there was when.

Well, the last week was when the inspector was out there. Last week.

Yeah, July 8th was when the inspector was out. Thank you.

So I guess I'm explaining. First of all, I'm not satisfied with this at all. And I'm not going to go on a rant here, but I just.

Yeah, and there's the photos from July 8th. Oh, good. I sent that to Jay, so he's now got up.

So, but I mean, it seems to me our, you know, our credibility again to kind of use the term of the week is sort of on the line here. Are we going to be able to, you know, do something to make some headway with this? And it's been going on for long enough. What are our options here relative to enforcement of this case?

So one option is to continue to cite and fine. The other option is ultimately to take it to circuit court. We've done that on two other properties where we've gone and gotten an injunction and compelled payment of any unpaid fines at the same time. So that would be another option. And we can discuss that within code enforcement about whether this is a good candidate or not.

Okay.

And that would probably be the probably most consequential decision would be to say, okay, we're done with the administrative code enforcement process and we're now taking it into a judicial process.

I'm sort of there.

But I mean, for actions today, you can move to uphold the citation and the fine you could. And in this case, the fine is four thousand dollars. Um, you could move to uphold the citation and some of these we've continued so that there's progress on compliance. Um, again, this one's been in front of us several times though.

Okay, any any thoughts from anybody.

I got a question for the applicant, please step up to. You're the property owner correct? And you lease the property, right? Did I hear your testimony correctly that you said your tenant can't. Make us business go. With only 5 cars, right?

Correct.

Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Any more questions any other questions commissioners. We have an on the phone.

This is Ramsey Ramser. And if you're ready to provide your comments, your microphone should work.

Looks like you're back on mute.

Okay, it says unmute. Can you hear me now?

We can. Give us your full name, address, and zip code, then tell me that your hand is raised.

Okay. Yes, it is. Um, but it's the left hand because my right hand is holding down the space bar. Sorry. And Rams are, uh, PO box 1, 4, 2, 4, 3, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 2, 1, 4.

Do you swear from the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth?

Yes, it is.

Yes, I do. You continue.

Okay, I'm just saying it's time to take action the failure of this planning commission to take action previously. has enabled other property owners to do the same thing. It's growing. We have problems with this type of activity on National Turnpike. And when you don't take action, other property owners see this and they do the same thing. National Turnpike is turning into one junkyard after another. We need to nip this in the bud and take the most serious action that can be taken today. National Turnpike residents and people that drive that road on a regular basis like myself deserve better. That's all I had to say. If you have any questions, I'm available. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Ramzer? None?

Okay.

Okay. With that, Commissioners, we'll close the public portion of this particular case. Our options are to uphold the fine, which is how much again?

$4,000. Yeah. Uphold the citation is always the first step. If you uphold the citation, then you make a decision on the fine, whether you want to uphold the fine, continue it to a later date. In this particular circumstance, I think my recommendation would be to just go ahead and uphold the fine. rather than continue.

Yeah, and I think it's like one of the cases we had where we upheld the fine and continued to inspect. So I think that's what we want to, I would recommend that we do.

So the aspect of not directing, but asking the county attorney's office to take this into court, does that roll into the same motion?

I think you can recommend and then we'll go talk to enforcement about initiating that.

I think that's what I'd like to recommend.

I wouldn't.

Okay, so, in the case of, uh, enforcement, uh, zone twenty zero zero one five one one, I make a motion that we uphold the, uh, fine, um, and that, uh, that this matter be referred to the county attorney to work with code enforcement to take this matter to circuit court. Right. And I make the motion based on our testimony today.

2nd.

Probably made motion the 2nd roll call please.

Yes, Fisher yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. So the fines been upheld of 4000 dollars and. There's a recommendation for further court action.

Okay.

Thank you. No problem. Thank you. Next item on our agenda, number 8 is 25 Street Closure 0012, which is a closure of a public right-of-way project named Trinity High School Street Closure located at Northern Sheeran Avenue. Our case manager is Tyler Podinsky. Tyler, turn it over to you.

Good afternoon for for South history for 202 off planning here to talk about 25 street closure 12. The request is the closure public right away. Uh, the request in the closure about a little over 1200 linear feed of the right away North Sharon Avenue. The request to closure is intended to enhance student safety by limiting vehicle access during the school year. It was reviewed by in June. 17th, the committee elected to schedule the application for public hearing due to concerns regarding potential impact of closure and connectivity with the surrounding area. Here's the zoning map. Is the aerial. This is from Shelbyville road looking down to North share.

And this is from Westport road. Here is the plat of the proposed closure.

Staff findings of the request is justified based on staff analysis and center review. There is alternative routes that remain available for vehicle circulation. The proposal is consistent with the connected chase principle and plan 2040 and all agencies have been addressed. When approvals received from relevant utilities. Right actions is to recommend to the city of St Matthews approve or deny the request for the closure of the public right away. Any questions?

Any questions commissioners?

I hear none. Thank you Tyler. We have Ted Bernstein. Ted, if you can give me your full name, address and zip code.

Yes, Ted Bernstein, 503 Washburn Avenue, 40222.

Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're giving to this commission is the truth? I do. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm here on behalf of Trinity High School with the application to close North Sharon Avenue. We went through DRC and we were asked to come back for in front of your committee. Next slide. So this is the site. I think everybody at one point or another is probably seeing this road or written down this road. I think the difference at this point in time is that Trinity has ultimately acquired all the properties on either side of this road. For a very long time, there were talks between St. Matthew's officials and Trinity High School about actually doing this very thing. But of course, as other properties were owned by private entities, it was not something that could happen at that point in time. So, we're now at a point of time where Trinity owns every property on either side of North Sharon Avenue. And I think it's important to point out that North Sharon Avenue does not terminate into South Sharon Avenue. So this is not technically a cross street while it does connect to Westport road to Shelbyville road. There is no cross street. South Sharon does not exist directly across from North Sharon. And I think that's important because it isn't necessarily a street that travels through St. Matthews. It literally connects two major roads. I would agree with that. But it is not necessarily a thoroughfare that would get you from one part of the city to another necessarily. Next slide. So during DRC, there was some question about was this application for the land that they would acquire by closing this property? And what I would tell you is absolutely not. There's two points that we are pursuing this road closure for. One is we want to control the traffic during school hours. Um, as you can see, there's currently 4 crosswalks. Trinity is currently redoing their stem building, which would be at the Northeast corner of the 2 properties. The 2 sides of North Sharon. And number two is to protect the students, faculty and staff. So, during school days, Monday through Friday, you have approximately 120 to 150 students, faculty and staff crossing Sharon Avenue. All the buildings now to the east side of North Sharon have been revitalized. They've been turned into classrooms. They've been turned into the stem building is 1. and so when you actually start doing the math, we're having 600 pedestrian crossings going on. Every day during school week in less than a quarter of a mile. That is a lot of people crossing the street and we're talking about students. Or we're not, let's be honest, you know, these are these are fine young man, but you know, how young men are. And so it presents a situation where there is a safety concern. Absolutely. A safety concern for the students, the safety concern for people driving down the street. I've put some kind of quick national statistics about this. Speeding being 60% of all school zone accidents, distracted driving leading to 25%. The fact that we now drive larger vehicles, we drive trucks, we drive SUVs, they've become much more prevalent now than they were. Well, when one of these larger vehicles has an accident with a pedestrian, it causes more damage. I think that's a safe. It's a fair thing to say budget shortfalls is. We talk a lot about things that we can do speed humps. More police, but the fact is, is that we don't always have the resources financially to do those things. So this is leading to why we believe that the better option here is to close North Sharon Avenue. Next slide. This is the road closure plat and the reason why I put it actually on there is I want you to realize that there are portions of North Sharon that are 30 feet wide. So we're not talking about a 50 or 60 foot right away. That's being closed. We're talking about in areas where it's 30 feet. It's 15 feet on 1 side, 15 feet to the other side. there is a larger portion that's 45 feet. But when all said and done, and when you do the math as to the areas that they would actually be given back to Trinity High School, it's less than an acre. It's very close, but it's less than an acre. And I point that out simply because you have to realize that this isn't property that can ever be built on. So, If the idea was that we're closing this, so we can put up. 5 more buildings that can't happen. There's utilities that run down North Sharon that we have to grant easements to, and they will exist there forever. They're not going anywhere. We're not asking for that. We're asking to control access to North Sharon Avenue. Next slide. So as you can see, North Sharon is basically the spine of all the parking lots, all the buildings, all the pedestrian movement, vehicular movement that happens pretty much within Trinity High School. You can see there's parallel parking on the one side, there's multiple parking lots on the other. And there is, once again, there's four crosswalks now, there will be five. Next slide. Um, once again, just showing you the current conditions next slide. And this is the entry coming from Chevrolet road and that is the main entry to Trinity high school. There's parking on the right. That would be for visitors and guests and those kind of things. Next slide. These are the points, and I'll just kind of briefly sum them up. We have approvals and recommendations for approval from almost every agency that you would ask me about. And I know that Jim had asked me to check with Kenan, and I provided an email to staff and had it put in a record where he says he would recommend the approval of the closure of the road. Um, I do have a letter from the fire department stating basically the same thing. I'd be happy to provide that to you. Um, so all the utility companies have easements. We're not, we're going to grant those easements. They'll have the right to come in and service any of their assets. It won't cause any issues with any of their assets. The road closure, it allowed Trinity to control the traffic flow through North Sharon. I think the case at Ford was a perfect example as far as I was concerned. You can control a lot of things. You can put up speed humps. You can put signage. but you can't control the driver. So you all were talking about you can't stop the truck driver from pulling off the side of the road and stopping. You know, we can do all these things, but if somebody decides to speed or look at their phone coming down Sharon Avenue in the middle of the afternoon, we can't control that. But what we can control by approval of this proposal is the traffic actually coming down the road. And that's very important when we're talking about students. I can't think of one place in Louisville, I try really hard to think about somewhere in Louisville that would have this much cross traffic, kind of within a quarter of a mile. It's somewhat hard to compare, I think, to anything else if you've ever been out there during a school day. It's busy. I mean, it's really busy. Next slide. So with that, I'll take any questions. Obviously, if approved, if St. Matthews, if you give a recommendation to approve and St. Matthews approves it, Trinity will take over all maintenance of that road. And I would also say that we have no current plans to close North Sharon. I want to say that again. We have no plans currently to fully close Sharon Avenue. We may control it between 7 or 8 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon, but we do not have any plans to fully close the street currently. With that, I would answer any questions that you might have.

Well, you kind of answered my question Ted, but I'm I have been on my offices near here. I was through there this week. Um. It makes complete sense to me, but, um. surely you will reconfigure this property in some manner that i mean if if you control it why wouldn't you close it although it's the entrance to the campus it's the only way to get to the parking lot i'm looking at logic i can't get there from the east or the west Right. Would you would you envision it stubbing? How surely you will make changes to this.

Do you have any idea of what those might be at this point in time? The changes we are proposing are we are in. well, we're in the planning stage of designing, would be speed humps, better crosswalk signage, and obviously signage that this is no longer a public road.

So some mechanisms to discourage through traffic.

Correct. And what we would like to do is, you know, we would like to kind of teach the people that use this road that this is no longer a public road, hence the speed humps. We want to slow traffic down, but we are not, certainly not trying to be bad neighbors and all of a sudden we're going to put up a fence and say we're closed here.

Well, thinking about that, you can't put up a fence because that's how you get to your parking lot. So we'll have to take some thought.

Right. Absolutely. And once again, because of basically the entire right-of-way that is being closed is in an easement. We're certainly not going to construct buildings on this. You can't do it. The cost to relocate some of these utilities that are underground would be astronomical. So, at this point in time, there are no plans to do anything like that. And I don't foresee that ever happening. Honestly, I think what more Sharon would turn into is a drive lane in a parking lot. Essentially, that's what we're really talking about with Trinity, having the ability to close it when it's most busy when it's most dangerous for students.

So they could close it then, aside from students starting there, they could then close a portion of it during school hours. You've got to leave a way to get out. Somebody has to leave or a parent has to pick up. So in theory, no intention to not have it a drive lane, but there could be closures at certain times of the day. Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

All right. I'm just looking at it, wondering next steps. Thank you.

You answered one of my questions saying you'll do the main... My other question may be far fetched, but. Will ownership still be with St Matthews or will go to Trinity?

No, it will go to Trinity.

Okay.

That's what I'm wondering. It will be divided because Trinity now owns both sides of the street, all the properties, the road gets divided in half and there's 3 entities that actually own all those properties. The archdiocese, Trinity, high school and the Trinity. So. technically we will divide those properties in half although obviously outside of the archdiocese the trinity and the trinity foundation um yeah it'll no longer be the same math correct it's correct okay all right thank you ted i i've thought of another question and i'm going to not say it print there's a stub road that erode oleshi Oxley.

Okay. I knew I'd get it wrong. All right. I say that a bunch of times.

That's difficult.

Oxley. Well, that still, that stubs into the parking lot. Is there a gate there?

Yeah, that does not actually connect.

It doesn't, it does not connect.

No. Okay. Not from a driving standpoint.

Okay. Thank you.

How many cars use that stretch every day, do you know?

I do not know the answer to that.

Where do you think they would go when it's closed?

So I considered that quite a bit, and what I figured out was within .4 miles of Sharon Avenue, there is... 5 different streets that cut from 1 cuts directly from Westport to Shelbyville road. That would be St Matthews Avenue. A Ridgeway Avenue also does, but then if you take, there's a little V there, I'm sure you're somewhat familiar with it. You go to the road tracks on Westport. Most people go right towards St Matthews. If you take a left. which is Linden Way, you have Brown Avenue, Sears Avenue, and Thierman Lane, which all would connect, some with lights, to Shelbyville Road.

I guess, picking up on, um, I was at, I was probably 1 of the people at that suggested that we have this hearing and some, a lot of it was based on some of the questions that commissioner cheek was asking and really wants that commissioner Leonard brought up at the meeting. And certainly my thinking is that this traffic will continue to exist on Sharon, you know, unless you do something. Unless you do something, and so, you know, you're really not changing anything Ted. Let's be honest. And and you're coming in here with, you know, no plans at all. The only but what you have delivered and the reason I'm, you know, in a sort of reluctant sort of way, going to move this along to St Matthews is that, you know, the least the city has looked at it. Fire districts have looked at it and in moving forward St Matthews problem. And it's a Trinity problem, and, you know, we're just kind of moving it along. And, um, again, I'm.

Pretty disappointed that Trinity did not come through with a plan, but just just out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking what kind of plan would you.

Okay, so you've made the argument that you want to close for the safety of the faculty and students using it, but you're not telling me how you're doing it because you're not you're not you said you're not closing the roadway. It's still going to be open for traffic.

So what I could see are traffic cones initially. I think that that would be my guess is you would have some kind of cones, some kind of device after 7 o'clock. um or after students get there let's say it's 8 15 whatever that time is but what i don't see is just walking away from this meeting and nothing happening right i i certainly think that uh your point is well taken and i certainly understand it um I think we certainly will act with some kind of device. Well, my point to you to this committee was, we're not proposing a gate at this point in time that that's really what I was trying to convey to you. And if I didn't do that, I apologize.

No, I think we're far enough along that it will just move it on to St Matthews and and let them kind of deal with it at this point. Yes, sir. Good. Thank you.

Any other questions. Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up to speak online?

No.

All right. Um, with that, we'll close the public portion of the hearing commissioners. Um, once again, our responsibility is to recommend the city Metro city of St Matthews to, um. Approve or deny the street closure. With that any comment questions.

I'd like to make a comment. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Steve. Go ahead. Well, I'm very familiar with this cut through. And that's really the problem with this road is it's a cut through. You got people going 40 miles an hour down through. They're just going through. Now that Trinity owns all of the property on both sides, I think, you know, they're eventually going to segment it where if you come in off Shelbyville Road, you're in a parking lot and you're going to leave by Shelbyville Road. If they have a game or something, they need to control that. Access to that road, they could have a theater production and a game at the same time. And maybe the theater has access to the front parking lots in the back, but it, it, they've been a good. Asset for St Matthews, and they've been a good citizen. And I agree with Jim, you know, the, if there's an argument here, it goes to St Matthews. I think it's definitely needed, and it is safety. So I think we should pass it on to St. Matthews. Yes, sir.

This area has been congested since six major American bison paths converged at the Gilman's Point, the historic name for St. Matthews. this area is the most congested traffic area in metropolitan louisville if this road is closed much of the cut through traffic will use ridgeway avenue which is very narrow and where neighbors park on the street making passages one car width wide the idea of closing a road between a Commonwealth of Kentucky Highway, Westport Road, and United States Highway, Shelbyville Road is a bad idea. People use this road to avoid the traffic signal at Chenoweth Lane and at St. Matthews Avenue. I recommended in the Development Review Committee that stop signs be installed in both directions at each crosswalk, four to five speed bumps be installed on this road and the speed limit be reduced from 25 miles an hour to 15 miles an hour. This would discourage irresponsible drivers, but would allow responsible drivers the ability to use this road when traffic is congested in this area, which it is much of the time. Consequently, this proposal should be rejected.

Anyone else? All right, I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion is that I make a motion let's see that in case number 25 street closure 0, 0, 1, 2 that we approve we recommend to Saint Matthews that that this closure be appropriate.

I'll say based on.

Uh, based on the testimony heard today and the staff report. Okay. Okay.

I'll 2nd, probably my emotion and 2nd, roll call, please. No.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

Yes.

Before, I just want to double check. If I'm saying yes, then it's ultimately St. Matthew's decision to make yes or no.

It's ultimately St. Matthew's decision to say yes or no, regardless of what the recommendation is.

If we say yes or no.

Right.

Okay. Then yes.

So strong.

No. What was that number again? 64 motion passes. All right, so move this to the St Matthews. Next case on the agenda is 26 DDP 0005, which is a revised detailed district development plan with bind it with amendments to the binding element located at 88803, 8805 and 8807 Old Bardstown Road. Our case managers, City Faucet, Cindy, I turn it over to you.

Thank you Sydney faucet office of planning staff or for South 5th street. 4 0202. this is 26. D. D. P. 5. The request today is a revised detailed district development plan with amendment to binding elements. The subject size little over 7 acres owned commercial and office residential in the neighborhood form. The applicant is proposing to construct 315,000 square foot office and retail buildings due to the current binding element. Number 12, any significant changes in the development plan has to be reviewed by the commission with final action determined by Metro Council. This is zoning of the property again, split zoning or 1 and C1. This is an aerial of the subject site. This is a view of the subject property at the intersection of old bars town road and fair mount road. This is some of the development across old bars town road. And then again, just north of the subject property along old bars town road. This is the development plan again, 3 separate buildings each on their own lot. And these are just some elevations of the proposed structures. Staff finds that the proposal does meet the requirements of the land development code and guidelines of Plan 2040. MSD and transportation planning have provided preliminary approval. Staff finds that the proposal is adequately justified for approval based on the analysis contained in the standard of review. And then again, your required action today is to recommend that the Louisville Metro Council approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan with amendments to binding elements. Any questions for staff questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

You want to state your full name address and zip code and I'll swear you in John Talbot.

My address is 1000 North 1st, foreign Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky 40223.

Raise your right hand for me. These were affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth. I do.

Yes, sir. Thank you all very much. It's been an interesting day listening to all the cases. This is a pretty cut and dry vanilla case. We brought this case for rezoning a couple years ago in 2024. Goodwill was the party that had bought the property and they had split off part of C1 for their development. But then there was some excess property they were selling off. And at that time, they were I can't remember if they were actually working on the contract or actually had it under contract, but there were discussions with the doctor of selling it. So there were some unknowns in terms of their actual building being a conceptual plan and also with the other property, more importantly, being conceptual and they weren't exactly sure what the potential buyer was going to do. So as we come back here for you all today, it's simply that we've got more definition to our plan. So it is a revision, but nothing really terribly substantial or surprising and I'd like to take you all through that. Before I get started, I just want to introduce our team. We do have several other folks with us. We have Anna Norrie. She's with the engineering and architectural company for the doctor for the office property. She's with AL Post. We also have Dr. he's the 1 that is doing the office buildings. He is online. He's not in the city right now. And then we also have a couple of representatives for goodwill. We have John in the back of the room and I believe it was Cheyenne Rogers, the engineer for goodwill. So we'd have a full team if you'll have any of them, but hopefully we will not need them. Go to the next slide. This just gives you an area. I think you'll know this area. It's basically that island of property between old Bardstown Road and Bardstown Road going to well south of 264, getting closer to the Bullitt County line. There's been a lot of development of this area over the years with the expansion of Bardstown Road many, many moons ago. And so this island of area is finally getting more developed as time goes on. This property was a piece of that you can see on this slide in the dark corners. That is our property in the green. You see the 1 and then below you see the C1 the C1 is where you'll have the goodwill building. And then the is where you'll have Dr hot stuff building next slide. Please. This just gives you a general idea of some of the businesses and some of the developments in the area staff. So their pictures frankly showed better than than this did. You've got a lot of multifamily. You have a lot of single family subdivisions in the area, and you also have a lot of services coming in. And so that's kind of how the place has been shaping up. We're probably 20 years ago was much, much more rural than it is today, but it's starting to mature and develop at this point. Next slide please. That gives you a close up of the area. Next slide. And here is our original development plan. It's pretty vanilla. The Goodwill building is effectively the same. You'll see in a couple slides with the more defined plans, it's actually reducing its square footage by roughly 1,000 square feet. And then you had the office buildings, which on this is what we were planning. We thought there would be three. Now that Dr. Hotz-Dettler has gotten a little bit more involved in the property, he's defined his plans a little bit more. And so that's the main change that we're here for today. Next slide, please. Oh, and there you can see the 3 office buildings that's the, and then the born on the right the goodwill. That's the next line. Here's our current development plan. That's the same 1 that staff just showed you next slide. Please. And again, you've got we've gone from 3 office buildings to 2, and then goodwill buildings. In fact, will be the same. I'll be at a little bit smaller next slide. Please. This shows our 2 plans side by side. So you can see them in context a little bit more clearly. We still are protecting, making sure we've got a lot of tree canopy and some buffers along the edges of our property, particularly on barstown road. We have 2 entrances on old old barstown road and then 1 entrance to our South next slide. Please. And then those 4 bullet points are our main changes. The Goodwill's reduced its footprint by about 1000 square feet. The Goodwill height, they've got a parapet that's a little bit higher than they thought. So it's actually not 25, it's 27 feet. The office buildings from 3 to 2, and the square footage of the office buildings on the 3, it was about 22,000 square feet. Now it's about 30,000 square feet. And for a property of this size and to be for office space and right next to commercial, really not a terribly significant increase. Next slide please. And this is some of the proposed elevations of the office space. Next slide please. Next line and next slide. And that shows the 22 buildings from all sorts of different angles and then here's the goodwill and this is the same slide that we had a couple of years ago. Again, the dimensions a little bit diminished, but the building and what the way it's going to look is effectively the same. So that's it. We, we believe this meets the demands of the comprehensive plan. What's in compliance. We also also think that it's in compliance with what we brought forward a couple of years ago and just a little bit more definition that we had at the time. So, thank you all very much for your attention and.

look forward to your all's questions any questions commissioners uh so this has come up i think before uh john and i don't know if it's a grading problem but uh typically i mean you're showing sidewalks but typically like those sidewalks kind of you know uh on the front side of the stop bar uh and the entrance uh on the far northerly building it's kind of way up in the drive lane there which is you know it's a minor deal but um i'm just wondering is there any way of getting that sidewalk position where uh i'm gonna yeah thank you for that question i'm gonna ask anna perhaps to come up to see if she can

It's just on the North side of the development. You're gonna have to come up.

Yeah, you have to come up and I have to swear you in too. So, if you could state your full name address and zip code, and then I'll swear you in.

My name is Anna. The. Addresses 1119 roster for circle and the zip code is 40205 raise your right hand for me.

Do you do you swear affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission? It's true. I can go ahead and answer.

So, the North sidewalk that means goodwill sidewalk.

Uh, no, it'd be the, uh, the plan I'm looking at it would be the 10,000 square foot building. That's the whole plan.

Okay, so we know that's how that is. Okay.

That's the new one. So, maybe, um, maybe it just goes right in the front.

Okay. So, yeah, same same problem.

No, we move the sidewalk to the middle of the building that you see on page left. you know, that's the place with the less grading change. So it's ADA.

And I guess what I'm referencing is the public sidewalk that is along Bardstown Road.

I'm Cheyenne Cordy, 1136 South Park Drive, Bowling Green, Kentucky, 42101.

Can you raise your right hand for me? You swear from the testimony that you're going to give to this commission. It's true.

I do.

I go ahead.

You're referring to the sidewalk on that entrance on the right hand side, right?

Yeah, far left.

Right left side on that property right there. The middle property you can see there. I don't know if you can see on this plan specifically, but there are some utility poles. They're utility poles. And I've already been in discussion this came up with the original development plan as well with public works about that crosswalk and sidewalk. We had to route around those utility poles.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Yep.

Any other questions commissioners.

Why the 2 foot change in heights.

At the time, they did not have all their final engineering, well, not engineering, but architectural plans for the building. And so if you look, I don't know if you can go back a slide and look at their building. It's just the parapet on the top. It's just higher than they originally, I think we knew at the time. But we're still well below what's allowed for C1 and well, well below any of that. I think 25 is probably below what you can have for R4 in this area.

Yeah, I understand. It's just the flack you'll get from the neighbors that originally it was 25 foot. Now it's, it's taller, which 2 foot doesn't make that much difference, but. I just want a little clarification.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other questions commissioners. Okay, do we have anyone signed up to speak online? No, all right with that then don't need a. A rebuttal, so we will close the public portion of the public hearing. And once again, commissioners, our responsibility is to recommend to Louisville Metro Council approval denial of the revised detailed district development, development plan with amendments to binding elements commissioners.

I'm ready to make a motion. In regards to this case, I'm turning the page. I recommend approval of the revised detailed district development plan with amendment to the binding elements. I base that on the staff report and the testimony heard today.

you got to state that you recommend approval to Louisville Metro.

Okay, thank you. I recommend approval to the Louisville Metro Council to approve the revised detailed district development plan with amendments to the binding elements based on the testimony and staff report heard today.

Second. Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Fisher?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Nance?

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. We recommend approval. We have to take 1 more, um. before we can take a break, we're gonna move case 13 up. So 26 LDC 0008, which is a text amendment to the Jefferson Town Land Development Code, Town Center and Neighborhood Forum Districts. Our case manager, Steve Rusi. Steve, I'll turn it over to you. Okay, can everybody hear me? Yes.

Yes. Okay. Steve, did I swear you in? Were you here earlier? Yeah, I was there at the beginning and rose my hand and swore at the beginning of the meeting.

Okay. Yeah, if you could just state your name and address, that would be good, just for the record.

Yeah, I'm Steve Roussey, city of Jefferson Town. I'm the planning manager. 10416 Watterson Trail, Jefferson Town, Kentucky, 40299. Let me... get this PowerPoint there. So this is a request to update the Jefferson Town Land Development Code for the town center. This is a map of the existing Jefferson Town Center.

I don't want to interrupt you, but we're not seeing your presentation, so I have to hit share and then choose it from WebEx. I thought I had.

Now, can you see it?

Yes. Okay. Let me Okay, this is the, uh, a map of the city of Jefferson town, the town center form district, um, uh, around, uh, waterson trail and taylorsville road is the, uh, the center point. Um, so for the town center, um. Out of plan 2040 for town center, uh, traditional and preferred form, um, forms a focal point of activity and town center has the identifiable core. Again, with the intersection of Taylorsville Road and Waterston Trail. Out of the comprehensive plan, town centers are easily disrupted by new forms of development. Therefore, the harmony and compatibility of infill and redevelopment in town centers should receive special attention. Going on, the comp plan also states that envisions the preservation and enhancement of those town centers that already exist. In the comp plan, the photograph that they have for town centers is actually of the Jefferson Town town center. This is along Waterson Trail right at Taylorsville Road. Our town center has the tallest building in the town center is three stories. Town center form district currently permits up to 120 feet in height and 120 foot tall building right now would most likely disrupt our existing town center. It would be incompatible. So we're requesting to amend our land development code from 125, 20 feet down to 45 feet with the understanding that, um, If somebody comes in with a project that needs additional height, they can request a variance from the Jefferson Town Board of Adjustments. So this would provide that additional level of review to ensure compatibility with the existing town center. And along with that, in Jefferson Town, residential uses go by the neighborhood form district. I know Metro's version has traditional neighborhood, but we're also requesting to amend the neighborhood form district to 45 feet as well. Right now you can, in the R7, through C2 for residential development. It's allowed to 45 feet, but you can go higher by having additional setbacks. But that does not necessarily address the compatibility issue. We'd request to remove the allowance of stepping back five feet with the building to allow 10 feet of additional building height. Again, if someone has a project that is higher than the 45 feet, they can still do that with a variance through our Board of Adjustments. But again, this helps to ensure compatibility with the existing town center. That's pretty much my presentation. Any questions?

Any questions, commissioners?

No.

I guess I do have a question. Does this impact cases that have already been approved or when would this take place and impact future development?

Any case that's filed after this gets approved by ordinance would be held to these standards. Any case that's filed currently would be allowed to use the existing. You can't change the bar mid development. From the date that a case is filed, they would be held to the standards when the case was filed.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions, commissioners?

Probably for Travis. This is required to motions for the Planning Commission to approve each one separately.

Um, because it came to J town as a single, uh, text amendment and it's returning to J town for final action. I think you'd be fine to take it all at once.

Okay. And we approve it because we have to approve it. I mean, and then it goes to Jefferson town. It's not, it's not a recommendation to Jefferson town.

I thought it was a recommendation.

I guess that's a question because I think the city of Jackson town can't take action on this until we approve it.

Hey, Brian, is this a, this is a recommendation to the city of J town to approve or deny this? Correct? Correct. Okay. Okay. Right.

So it does require a code amendment, whether it's metro or another city that has their own development code does require a hearing and a recommendation. So, okay.

All right. Any other questions. And with that, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And once again, our responsibility is to recommend to the city of approval or denial of the text amendment to the land development code.

Sure. So, in the case of 26, 0, 0, 0, 8, I make a motion that we recommend to the city of Jefferson town approval of 2 text amendments related to the height requirements in both the town center form district. And as it relates to the, um. uh, transition zones in the, uh, in the, uh, other, um, uh, parts of the, their code. And I make a recommendation based on the presentation by Steve, the planning manager for the city of Jefferson town.

I'll probably make motion the 2nd roll call please.

Sure.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Bond. Yes.

Yes.

Cheek. Yes. Sister.

Yes. We'll take a recess and come back at 340. Thank you. All right, well, um, we're back from recess. Um, our next case is twenty six zone zero zero two eight, which is a change in zoning from our four residential to plan employment center with the revised detailed district development plan with binding elements and associated waivers. Um, the location is one, three, one, one, two, old Henry road. Our case managers, Jude man and lead you to turn over to you.

I automatically office planning staff 444 South 5th street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 and yes, before you is a change zoning from our 4 to PC. If you could go to the next slide, please some additional requests. So, the request of change and zoning from our 4 to PC, there's 2 waiver requests both concerning. Landscape buffer areas, the 1st, of which is to emit a section of the land development code that requires a 15 foot vehicular use area landscape upper area along a private access easement. And then a, another waiver of a different part of that same section of the land development code that requires a 15 foot property perimeter landscape buffer area. Along and adjacent into property line, and there's a revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. If you could go to the next slide please. So, the case summary just has listed in the staff report. This project encompasses a few properties, including 1311213118. 13200 Rear and 13206 Old Henry Road. The area of the change in zoning is about 6.85 acres. And again, that's R4 presently. They are requesting PEC. The other remaining 9.89 acres of the subject area have actually already previously been rezoned. It was R4 and M2 and it was rezoned to PEC. Under planning case number 22 zone 0141. so again, our total subject areas about 16.75 acres. It falls within a suburban workplace form district. There was no form district change proposed. The existing structures that exist on the site are to be removed as part of this request and there's no new construction associated. So, if you go to the next slide. And then the final thing about the cases, there is a change to a previously approved binding element and I provided this image to try to illustrate what we're looking at. So the red is currently zone PC and is subject to that former change change zoning case. And the yellow is the area that's being requested to be habit zoning changed as part of this request. Next slide please. So, technical review comprehensive plan, just like all the other cases, there is something called the old Henry sub area plan that affects this. It was adopted in the year 2000. there's no, like, specific recommendation for these properties, but kind of this ambiguous vague. Suggestion that this area should be planned as a gateway. Uh, and then land development code obviously applies and then, uh, both the Department of transportation and have provided preliminary approval to the plan to go the next slide. Please. Here's our site plan. I know it's difficult to see the next slide is only a modestly zoomed in version of it. Um, so if you flip to next couple slides, like I said, I know it's hard to see in this context, but and then if you go to the next slide, I've just got the site information, like, the project information that's on the plan. So this is the 1 that we sent out for preliminary approval. If you go to the next slide, please. Here's the zoning context. And the black line didn't come out as well as I thought it might. But you can see the split zoning here, pink representing PEC and yellow representing R4. And you can see context across the street. There's PEC zoning to the south, industrial zoning. And then just one or two remaining R4 sections in the immediate area. Go to the next slide. You'll just see an aerial of the subject site. And the next slide, this is our waiver exhibit. So both of the waivers affect the same area. It's in that previously rezoned area. They're moving the private access road and there's. Buffers that trigger against it so if you go to the next slide, please. This is, according to Google, the subject or the photo of 13112 Old Henry Road. And the next slide is actually just kind of a terrain photo. You know, according to Google, it's hard to get photos of this site. Everything's so far set back and everything. I think the applicant actually has some internal photos or their representative has some internal photos in their presentation. So if you go to the next slide. Again, site context, I mean, this is pretty much what this whole stretch of old Henry road looks like the PC that's across the street is also set back pretty far. So you can see, it's just this green corridor kind of and if you go to the next slide. Uh, I just wanted to include this because, uh, this is a request that's happened a couple of times. Uh, obviously we have our section of this, uh, prop or this request that has already been through the rezoning a property to the East went through this change in zoning. And then, uh, earlier, you know, 1999 and 1989 changes zoning to across the street. If you go to the next slide, please so staff findings, you know, this proposal conforms to the land use and development policies and guidelines of the comprehensive plan zoning and land uses are compatible with surrounding area. It's compliant with the land development code, except for where the waivers are requested. And if you go to the next slide. Uh, we've got our required actions. Uh, there's gonna be 4 total. The 1st, of which would be to recommend to the Louisville Metro Council to approve or deny the change in zoning from our 4 to P. E. C. again, as outlined in our staff report staff finds that the request is in keeping with plan 2040 and would recommend that the planning commission recommend approval approver denied 26 waivers 0, 0, 7, 9 of the land development code. Section 10.2.10 to omit the required 15 foot vehicular use landscape buffer area along a private access easement. Staff finds that the justification for this request is adequate and would recommend that the Planning Commission approve this waiver. And if you go to the next slide, our final two required actions approve or deny 26 Waiver 0080. of the land development code section 10.2.4.B.A to omit the required 15 foot property perimeter landscape buffer area along an adjacent M2 property line. Staff found that this was also justified and would recommend that the Planning Commission approve it. And then approve or deny the revised Detailed District Development Plan and proposed binding elements. Staff finds the justification for the request was adequate, recommends that the Planning Commission approve the revised Detailed District Development Plan and the proposed binding elements that are listed on the final page. And I'm here if you have any questions for me. Questions, Commissioners?