Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay.

All right. Good afternoon. I'll start by reading in state. This your public hearing of the Louisville Metro Planning Commission to hear cases as advertised and documented for today's 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. Number one, please silence all cell phones. Number two, please be courteous and respectful of the Commission and your fellow citizens. Number three, for those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and are not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Number four, today's proceedings are being recorded anyone wishing to address the commission must do so from the podium are virtually there are time limits in effect for today's hearing the applicant or the representative will have no more than 15 minutes for their presentation other persons in favor of the application shall have no more than 3 minutes per person the opposition representative shall have a total of no more than 15 minutes for their presentation Other persons of opposed to the application shall have been total of no more than 3 minutes per person rebuttal by the applicant are the representative shall have no more than 5 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 forms will be allowed to speak. Procedures shall be as follows. Number one, staff will present a summary of the request. Number two, the applicant or the representative will make a statement. or presentation giving reasons for the request. Number three, other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. Number four, the opposition representative will be heard. Number five, those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. Number six, the applicant or the representative will have an opportunity for a rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No need testimony shall be given during rebuttal. Number seven, If there are further questions by the opposition after the rebuttal please fill out a form provided. Commission may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time. Pursuit 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 deliberations of the commission. I could have a roll call, please.

Lennon.

Present.

Lohan.

Here.

Cheek. Here. Born. Present. Steph.

Here.

Memes here. Sidner here. Benitez here.

Fisher here. Let's see. We have the staff rise and we'll swear everybody in. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes.

Okay. All right. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes for 9, 3, 20, 26. And that was the 1 o'clock meeting, I think, right? Commissioners, have you read the minutes and or would someone like to make a motion?

I make a motion we accept the minutes for 9, 3, 26 of the day session.

Second. Second. Probably a motion and second roll call, please.

Yes.

Yes.

Abstain.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

I did number 2 approval and it's 9, 3, 2026 special PC minutes that was the 5 o'clock session.

I like make a motion we accept the minutes of 9, 3, 26 of the night meeting special meeting second properly made motion and second roll call.

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

When it is saying facial here, yes. And number 3 is 9, 10, 20, 26, I guess that applies to the members that were there.

I'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes from 9, 10, 26 of the meeting.

Roll call please.

Yes, yes. Cheek.

Abstain.

Bond. Abstain. Staff.

Yes.

Mims.

Abstain.

Sidner.

Abstain.

Benitez.

Yes.

Fisher.

Abstain. All right. Moving into the business section 26 LBC 0001. And Joel. This is continuation from the last meeting in business section, right?

That's correct. So Joel doc level Metro's office of planning. Um, I'm just here to, um, present. The technical changes to the, um. A draft that was presented and heard in the public hearing on September 3rd, 2026. Jay, you can go to the next slide. A couple things were discussed and staff was specifically directed to consider some changes with respect to acknowledgement of deed restrictions related to subdivisions with the homeowners association. and then notification procedures. So on page 27 in the generally applicable development standards for neighborhood housing, item number 12 was added. This is the same language except for the last few words of what's included with our accessory dwelling units regulation. This simply reads to avoid any confusion since there's no other language to the contrary. The section does not override any deed restriction or HOA declarations related to the use of land or buildings. Next slide, please. Also, notification requirements were added for neighborhood housing in Section C, the review and approval procedures on page 46. So we had talked about the notification procedures that were getting added to some of the other changes that were being made in the text amendment with respect to administrative review and approval of development plans. um and for those 100 compliant uh projects that notification would be given of action including notice on what would formerly be category 2b type development plans so kind of a lesser and smaller development review so just kind of being consistent with that language and also looking at what level notice is sent and maybe when it would be appropriate to send notice. We settled on language for neighborhood housing when five or more dwelling units are being proposed. Notification to first tier adjoining owners and residents would be given 14 days prior to action. So the typical standard for notification would be once you do five dwellings in the other form districts that aren't neighborhood housing, you would receive notice. So this is just consistent with the other language that's being proposed. Next slide please. And then added notice requirements for the traditional mixed use building. So any development of a traditional mixed use building would require notice to first year owners and residents 14 days prior to action. I did slip you a revised copy of page 49. The staff report that was published was not the staff report that I had. There were two versions of the revised staff report. The wrong one just got sent your way. The only issue with that is just that it said Uh, 5 dwellings, it repeated the same language from the neighborhood housing. So just swap out the 5 or more dwellings for traditional mixed use building. So that page 49 is a clean version of what the notification requirements should be. Next slide please. And then also clarified, this wasn't necessarily discussed, but we noticed a conflict between what was being changed in chapter two and where neighborhood housing was going to be applicable and where chapter four made it applicable. And so we just clarified in chapter four, in addition to the TNCD, the PEC, PRO, some of the waterfront districts, The industrial districts, as well as the commercial manufacturing and special districts, that neighborhood housing also would be excluded from the R. R. R. E. R. 1 R. 2 and R. 3 zoning districts. These are R. R. exist in the Floyd's fork development review overlay district. That's where you find R. R. there's very small. But we also weren't changing the minimum lot size of these districts either. So like a neighborhood housing proposal in an RR would have to have a 40,000 square foot lot. So it just doesn't make sense for a context of how development would occur. And then excluding the W3, that was an omission from the previous version. Next slide. again same type of clarification with traditional mixed use building with um the clarification here you won't see rr and re because rr and re do not exist in the traditional form districts and the traditional mixed use building is only available in the traditional neighborhood form districts it's not available within the quarter mile buffer or as a form of new development so Again, just clarifying where it would and wouldn't apply. There is one section of R3 over near Tyler Park in the traditional neighborhood that has 20, 30,000 square foot lots, no sidewalk. So it just doesn't make sense to include this in that area. And then excluding the W3, R1 is mostly park land. So it's owned by Metro government. this typically wouldn't occur there but just you know adding that clarification all right next slide um with that the same action as uh was presented on september 3rd again all of these tax amendments advance the goals objectives and policies of plan 2040 and staff finds that the planning commission should recommend these changes to louisville metro council those legislative bodies having authority that these tax amendments be approved

happy to answer any questions and i know we're in business session so i think those questions should be technical in nature um yeah i've got one thank you for putting number 12 in there i can't remember even though we're in a business section i asked us was garages included in where they can change to housing

So the accessory dwelling units standards were added in 2021 that would allow for a garage or an accessory structure either new a second story conversion or a garage to become an accessory dwelling unit that has already passed and been adopted that's not part of this proposal okay and that and that language on deed restrictions comes directly from those adu standards all right thank you very much you're welcome

Is there any questions, Joel?

I have a question concerning notification prior to action. So the action would be the approval by the planning director or his designee. Is that correct? Would that be kind of equivalent to what we do with short-term rentals? I mean, what kind of notification do we give the public when we approve a short term rental on a short term rental registration?

Yeah, we do not.

Okay. We don't we don't have any public notification on if it's a buy right approval.

If it's a conditional use permit, it would be pursued the same way any other conditional use permit is pursued. But if you're just operating a short term rental as host occupied. Um, there wouldn't be any notification to just have a tenant and, um, I don't know that I really highlighted this on the 1st, uh, go around. I think I maybe had a bullet point in there, but neighborhood housing, uh, the use of, um, uh, uh, development that is approved under neighborhood housing would be prohibited from operating short term rentals.

Okay, and then normal if somebody didn't like, uh, a decision, I mean.

any decision by um can be appealed right yeah absolutely okay good thank you okay any other questions for joel all right uh we are in a deliberation so

I would like to make a comment. I think you've done tremendous work you and your staff on this. I think these are important changes that will make a difference in the supply of housing stock, which is badly needed in our community. We see so many single family development plans where The applicants are requesting our five size lots. We have a need for more attached housing and I think to encourage that it's just very well done and I'm in support of this. I appreciate especially the clarification that finding elements for subdivisions that there's kind of a call out for that. and I'm prepared to make a motion unless other- I just need to do one housekeeping.

I meant to do it at the beginning. Commissioner Benitez was not at the last meeting on the 3rd. Did you get a chance to watch the video?

I did, yes.

Okay.

Just wanted to get that on the record. Unless there's further discussion, I'm prepared to make a motion.

I would like to comment. This commission spent an inordinate amount of time ensuring that the public would have the right to comment on data centers. It seems extremely inconsistent to take away the right of the public to comment on Walking courts, cottage courts and other developments that are supposedly by right. We should never ever take away the right of the public. These notices of 14 days are irrelevant because developers can listen. to the comments of the public and then ignore them. Second, a legislative body doesn't ever cede or give up its authority to an executive, in this case, a planning director. Every one of these zoning cases and changes should come before the Planning Commission where the public has the right to speak and where the commissioners have the right to vote as well as the Metro Council. In my short time on this commission, we have gone out of our way to protect our four single family neighborhoods. This specifically omits that zoning classification. we have a duty to protect those areas because those are the backbone of the city. New Albany recently had a moratorium on new apartments when they discovered only 49% of their population lived in single family dwellings and that 51% lived in rental units. There's certainly nothing wrong with rental units, but the backbone of the city is built on people living in single family dwellings and not necessarily people in transient housing. Some people choose to live in rental housing, some have to live in rental housing, but the single family neighborhoods, especially in the urban service district, as well as the suburbs, need to be protected.

So these

changes should fall into the zoning category of R7 by right. Any other category should be handled as a normal zoning procedure where there's notice, where the public can speak to the Commission and or the Metro Council, and where the Metro Council and the Commission can vote on these matters. Consequently, this text amendment as written should be denied.

Okay. Uh, any other remarks?

Well, I, I, um, somewhat agree with the commissioner Leonard's comments. Um, and then, uh, hence my, you know, question about, uh, the appeal now, I think we can debate is 14 days enough. And I guess, you know, we're just going to have to see, uh, You know, if Brian makes a rash of just, or his designee makes a rash of poor decisions and it ends up being a huge mess, and we have a lot of appeals that end up here anyway, then we'll have to go back and know take a mulligan and uh i hope that's not the case um because i think fundamentally i believe that commissioner cheek is right this is a this is probably the way we should be going i i do though have your con the same concern and whether 14 days is the right amount of time for notice or whether it should be 21 days or

you know something longer you know we could debate that but i do think you know this appeal process is is at least something i anyone else have remark i would like to add that i think the staff has done a tremendous tremendously good job on this addressing a huge um change uh i think it's a step in the right direction i think it's been missing in our zoning practices for a long time and i urge that the council adopts it and makes recommendation to metro council so if anyone else wants to remark if not um suzanne would you want to make a motion

I'm prepared to make a motion in regard to item 26 LDC 0001. I recommend approval. I recommend that we recommend approval to the Metro Council. I based that on the staff report and the testimony heard today and at previous meetings.

Do you also want to include recommendation to those legislative bodies having zoning authority?

Yes, as Laura cited.

And then do we need the one change on page 49 and include the change on page 49?

And there are proposed findings of fact in the staff report for the planning commission to adopt.

And the findings of fact of the staff report. Second. Does that motion suffice, Laura?

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

Mims? Yes.

Yes.

Then it is yes signal yes step bond yes cheek yes. Yes. No.

Yes.

Okay.

Item number 5 on our, um.

Doctor, today's 26 LDC 0005. Joel Duck, you're back up.

All right. Thank you, Jay. Again, Joel Dock, Louisville Metro's Office of Planning. This is 26 LDC 0005. This is a text amendment for what is called inclusionary zoning within the city of Shively. Jay, you can go ahead and move forward two slides. So inclusionary zoning is a land use concept in which affordable housing is required to be constructed and provided alongside typical what would be maybe called market rate housing. So anytime a developer constructs a, we'll just say, 100 multifamily units, X percentage would be required to be set aside. for a certain period of time and meet certain affordability criteria. How this is done across the country varies greatly and is specific to the locality having jurisdiction and needs to be tailored in that way. I've got some examples later in the presentation where I can talk a little bit about how this varies across the country. This inclusionary zoning change is being driven by a text amendment given to us by the city of Shively. um resolution number one series 2026 this was adopted by the city of shively and delivered to us on march 16th of this year if this text amendment is recommended by the planning commission this text amendment will be effective within the boundaries of the city of shively only next slide please So the proposal is drafted to require that any development of 20 or more new homes, whether that be new construction or redevelopment of an existing structure for 20 new dwellings, would be required to reserve 20% of those new dwellings to households that are making no more than 60% of the area median income at a rent that is no higher than 50% of the HUD rent limit for the Louisville MSA. Again, the threshold at which this would apply is 20 dwellings. The set aside would be 20% of those new dwellings need to meet affordability criteria. uh the households are not allowed to earn at the time of initiating that contract more than 60 of the area median income rent is not allowed to exceed 50 of the hud rent limit for the msa there's a 15-year period of affordability annual reporting and compliance requirements next slide please Before I kind of lay out these income numbers, an affordable housing unit is generally considered a unit, and there's a definition in this text amendment where the occupant spends no more than 30% of their gross monthly rent in housing cost or rent. is the general guideline for what is considered an affordable unit. Just some household income numbers from the census. So this is not based on household size. These are just median incomes. So the absolute middle value of the metropolitan statistical area, which is the 13-county area that surrounds Jefferson, is $74,000. uh the louisville jefferson county balance is 67 000 and the median income in the city of shively is 50 000. the inclusionary zoning income limit that 60 household income limit threshold is established uh based on household size so the larger the household the larger the threshold in which you can qualify Um, inclusionary zoning rent limit is established by bedroom count. So a one bedroom is restricted at one number, a two bedroom, a three bedroom, a four bedroom. And I've got some examples. Next slide. So what this would require as far as the income and rent limitations. So thinking about a one person household at 60% of that area median income that I showed you, which is $74,000, the rent, the maximum will be 41,580 would be the upper threshold at which a single occupancy household would qualify. And the maximum rent that can be charged is $928. So at this upper threshold, you're looking at about 26% of rent to upper income threshold. The upper threshold for a three-person household is, you know, the larger the household, the higher your threshold to qualify for an affordable unit. Would be a three-person household is $53,000. A three-person household, we'll just say two parents, one child, two-bedroom apartment, the maximum rent would be about $1,100. Next slide, please. So to go along with these requirements, so this is a requirement for affordable housing that comes with no subsidy. There is no money being allocated by any governmental entity specifically as a result of this program or required by this program. That does not mean that subsidies can't be used. It just means that this is a requirement that comes without it. It is on the developer of the housing community, whether that be apartment, whatever it may be to provision these affordable housing units. So it does come with some exceptions and some incentives. So in exchange for providing affordable housing, you'll gain an additional story. So in exchange for affordable units, you'll in theory get more market rate units. You'll get a density bonus of up to 20%. have reduced landscape buffer areas although all of the planting and screening is will be required open space there are some open space reductions that are available that allow you to share open space between developments and then an expedited review process this doesn't apply to rezonings or conditional use permits but for 100 land development code compliant plans that also are in compliance with these inclusionary zoning standards it will be an administrative review approved by the planning director in cities with zoning authority often even a category 2b or a category 3 type development is forwarded to that city for review this would speed up the process significantly so again in exchange for affordable housing there are some development incentives next slide So just an example of where inclusionary zoning or housing policies exist, they exist all over the country. You can see a large share of them exist along the coastlines, but they exist everywhere. And they take a number of different forms. So Jay, if you can roll through the next slide, please. So one of the examples that I liked the most was Pittsburgh. And why I liked this example was it kind of reminds me of what Shively is asking for. It's a suburban city within a larger metropolitan area. And in this Pittsburgh example, it's again, it's triggered at 20 dwelling units. The set aside here is 10%. The rent limit is 50%. Sale limits are 80%. It's got a 30-year affordability period. There are some off-site options to not provision the housing on-site but do it somewhere else. In order to ensure mixed income communities of all types, it was important to make sure they all occurred within the same site. So there is no off-site allowance or fee-in-lieu option to get out of provisioning affordable housing in the proposal. This program also came with height bonuses. It had a lot of reduced compatibility and design standards. It reduced setback or step back requirements. It did have that fee and lieu that's not in this one. So it started in a smaller area and it's grown to other areas as it's been successful. Next slide. Iowa City, Iowa, they have a density bonus, so not a mandatory program. So you can either do a mandatory or a voluntary, or you can do a combination of both. The proposal before the Planning Commission is a mandatory requirement with bonuses. So it kind of has a combination of both versions. So this one has density bonuses, building type standard reductions, height bonuses in certain areas. This one comes with a tax exemption. This proposal comes with no directed funds.

Next slide, please.

Minneapolis triggered at 20 units. Affordability is at 80%. Affordability period is 20 years with a deed restriction. So there's a number of ways to further ensure that as, you know, property is being sold that, you know, whoever purchases it can find something like that in their chain of title and there's no pointing fingers at each other that I didn't know that I had an affordability requirement. Next slide, please. Just some more examples, Park City, Utah, Tallahassee, Loudoun County. It's across the country, and it really just varies. It's really specific to what the intent and purpose of why the inclusionary zoning is being requested. The number of units that trigger it vary from 5 to 25 to 100. Park City, Utah has an in-perpetuity affordability period. Loudoun's 15 years, 10 years in Tallahassee. um and then the ami varies varies greatly so i just wanted to show you an example of kind of how this is applied across the country next slide please so this inclusionary zoning text amendment does advance the goals objectives and policies of plan 2040. plan 2040 encourages the provision of fair and affordable housing to ensure that individuals and families live in quality variably priced housing in locations of their choice It calls for the implementation of innovative practices. This is an innovative practice to ensure housing affordability. So as housing markets change, as economic conditions change, a policy like this will ensure a certain level of stability for our most vulnerable populations as markets change and they look for housing. It promotes housing options and environments that support aging in place, adequate supply of affordable and physically accessible housing, and inclusive communities. Next slide, please. So again, I kind of touched on that, but the text amendment balances the need for housing our vulnerable populations, retaining families. So looking at the demographic information that I outlined a few of these things within the staff report, Within the city of Shively, their average age is higher than Louisville Metro as a whole. There is a large portion of households being headed by individuals 60 years or older, and it would appear that households with families with children are decreasing. So you've got older residents in need of housing and remaining, and younger families and people with children may be looking for housing elsewhere. and finding that housing outside of the city of Shively. So this approach uses this housing, this innovative housing policy to make sure that everybody has a choice within the city of Shively as things shift. Again, it intends to provide that stability in a manner that, in staff's opinion, doesn't unreasonably burden a developer with unknown circumstances of affordability. And what I mean by that is when, for example, the low income housing tax credit funding would require that the household qualify at 60 or whatever the ami is and then their rent is adjusted based on their specific income to 30 so that means you know the lower their income the more the developer is going to have to adjust but that comes with a subsidy This comes with no funding stream, no directed subsidy. So to provide a little more certainty and what the actual rent that can be charged and what that upper threshold is, I went with a specific cap instead of a constant adjustment of it has to be 30% or no more. And again, this combination of both providing affordable housing as well as the flexibility encourages the production of fair and affordable housing.

Next slide.

Staff did conduct public outreach. We were on a tight timeframe with the city of Shively. So they requested that we come back in May and present some preliminary research. So some of the findings about how it's applied across the country, as well as some demographic analysis, some zoning analysis of their existing code was presented to the city of Shively back in May. Two community conversations were held, the first at the end of June, just to provide some education on what inclusionary zoning was and what it meant. And then a second to actually present a draft of what the inclusionary zoning regulations might look like. We also had some specific conversations with Age Friendly Louisville, the building industry, an organization called Gathering Strength, which is really focused on accessible and universal design, and then the Office of Social Services. Next slide.

Jill, what came out of the community conversations?

So the first was just to provide education on inclusionary zoning. The second was to present our initial draft Again, that sparked a lot of question about what this meant, what the city of Shively needed. It led to other conversations about tree canopy and sidewalks. So, as we go out and engage on 1 topic, we often find a lot of things out. that aren't necessarily related. So, I mean, there is work to be done in the city of Shively and across Louisville Metro unrelated to inclusionary zoning. A lot of folks had concerns about kind of what this meant for their neighbors, what this meant for how development might occur and where this development might occur. A lot of conversations around... a specific religious institution within the city of Shively, and as our schools and private institutions, the parishes leave, they become vacant. What happens to those buildings? Do those buildings get redeveloped for housing or something else? And if they get redeveloped for housing, how do we ensure that affordability is provided in those homes? And the city of Shively was very concerned that if Housing does occur within the city of Shively. They want to make sure that there are options for everybody, that there are affordable options as things change and as things shift within the community. Thank you. uh so notice was given in accordance with krs 100 gov delivery was sent to all registered users across louisville metro on this tax amendment and then notice was also provided to the city of shively for distribution in their own list server gov delivery version of uh notification next slide So this text amendment does advance the goals, objectives, and policies of Plan 2040. The staff does find that the Planning Commission should recommend to the City of Shively that this text amendment be approved. Again, this is a recommendation to the City of Shively only, and if adopted, will only be effective within the City of Shively. Are there any questions?

Joel, I do have a question. I am thinking about land area in Shiley. There must be, and I'm sure there are, areas where you could put 20 homes on a tract of land, but those are probably limited and many of them might already be zoned industrial and housing not allowed. How would this work if a developer who is active in Shiley would be doing kind of gap tooth development, like a vacant lot and then another vacant lot. It's one thing to assess attractive land and you can count and understand, and we've done that with MRDI. Explain to me how this works if someone, say over five years, is doing five houses a year, well, or four years. Explain to me how that works if these are not contiguous properties. How is that tracked.

It would not apply. It would not apply. So this applies on a development site basis. So on the development site, whether that development site is one parcel or a collection of parcels, it would apply in that case. But if somebody has an infill lot here and an infill lot down the street that they're developing, the proposal is not set up to apply.

Okay. I misunderstood then. All right. So it is for a development tract. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other question for Joel?

I have a couple. Go ahead. First of all, is the measure of affordability both rent and utilities or just rent?

In this case, just rent.

Okay, the 2nd question, um, who drafted this? Was it our team or was it the city of drive? The office of planning drafted the text amendment because when I was totally, I've been apparently asleep at the switch on this, but I didn't. Um, when I, I was more focused on the resolution thinking, okay, did we have the.

the um people power to draft all this but apparently you got it done yeah we are the planning staff and the planning commission for jefferson county so yeah the city of shively asked us to to do work we are their staff and we are their commission okay um

So, then you mentioned, and I haven't as such, I have not read thoroughly through this. Uh, you mentioned that, uh, you know, certain and I mean, this is mandated if I, if I had to go back to commissioner cheeks. Uh, an inquiry, I mean, if I'm a developer, and I'm wanting to develop. 20 or more units, single family or apartment units in Shively, then I have to have a 20% set aside for affordable units. That's not that's not optional. That's mandated.

That is mandated. That's right.

So. But you also indicated there were some enhancements, such as reductions in landscaping and what have you. But you also mentioned some tax breaks. Can you explain that to me?

So, in other jurisdictions, they may offer tax incentives. through an affordable housing development program. Columbus does this. Other cities will essentially freeze your taxes at the current value for a certain period of time for the provisioning of affordable housing. Because this was a focus on the zoning regulations themselves, that is where we focused our attention on the development regulations. Should the city of Shively want to provide such incentive um they could do so um but this was a focus on the zoning regulations themselves can they do that does state statutes allow that

Laura Ferguson, Assistant County Attorney. So there's a thing where if you rehabilitate a house over 50 years old, you can get a five-year freeze on abatement. But other than that, there really isn't anything that covers housing under state law or Constitution. Other jurisdictions do, but Kentucky does not have that.

Okay. So there really isn't. I mean, as a really small-time developer, Um, if you could get a break on real estate taxes, that's a big deal. The concern that I would have with a mandated. Um, provision like this, and I'm, I'm, I'm all about affordable housing. I really am. But the concern I have is the unintended consequences and. I commend Shively for being very forward-thinking and progressive. I hope that this works out. But I do have some concerns that, gosh, everybody's not, I mean, people are going to say, I can't develop in Shively because of this requirement. I hope that's not the case.

Absolutely. That's a conversation that we had. The appearance of a mandate from the development side of things is very unfriendly. So the city of Shively wanted a mandate. So how is a mandate delivered? with some other tools that can make it more desirable. So in exchange for those 20% of affordable units, you're gonna get more units that you could either build on a fourth story or your density is increased. So to offset some of that cost that the developer is going to have to accommodate for, to provide some other tools to incentivize the provision of affordable housing.

Well, again, I commend them for leading the charge on it. I hope it works out, and it may be something we learn from. And so we'll see. Thank you for your effort on this, Joel.

Joel, does Shavley have a max height?

Yeah, so maximum height, just like across Louisville Metro, is driven by the form district. So like in a neighborhood form district, it's going to be 35 feet or three stories. So this would allow an additional story to be added. Along the marketplace corridors, if the height is 45 or 50 feet, this would allow an additional story to be added to the maximum height that that form district is restricted in.

So, I'm saying somebody goes for this zoning next to, say, a development of single-family homes, they'll be able to build a four-story?

The way that the proposal is drafted, yes. If the maximum height is 35 feet or three stories, they would be entitled to a development exception that would allow them to add another story.

Another story roughly 12 feet.

12 feet, Florida to ceiling?

Yeah.

okay thank you and on top of that excuse me on top of that the those extra units what have you in that free story are not included in any of the 20 calculations

No, it's based on the total. So whatever your total number is, your percent of affordability is calculated from that. So if you're getting six more units in that additional story, those six more units are going to get counted.

They will get counted. Yes. So really the only incentive of that is you get a taller building if you need it or if you want it.

Yeah, you're going to get four units.

Right.

Taller building.

And all the affordable housing units will be... mandated to be on the first floor.

So what is interesting about some of the demographics we looked at with the older population, with the percentage of households with individuals 60 years or older, and a lot of the conversations we've been having for some years around universal and accessible design, as we considered accessory dwelling units, as we've continued to work with organizations like AARP, And there was recently a paper put out by this gathering strength organization on the inaccessibility of housing units. And so in considering all that and considering that individuals that are often in need of the most affordable housing often find themselves in need of accessible housing as well, you know, larger doors, more space. In addition to utilizing these height bonuses, so if you add an extra story, if you take advantage of the density bonuses, in taking advantage of those two, now half of those affordable units also need to be accessible units as required by this regulation. Building code already requires a certain amount of accessible units based on the number of units. But this would mandate that those accessible units and those affordable units coincide. Because by building code, the accessible unit does not have to be your affordable unit. And we often hear that there's a conflict between individuals looking for an accessible unit and not being able to afford that unit.

And these units have to run, they have to keep them for 15 years?

15-year period of affordability.

Does it continue on if the property is sold? Yes.

There are compliance standards on transfers. There's a requirement to record a legal instrument. It could be a land use restriction. It could be a deed restriction to make sure that as property is transferred, it remains in that chain of title.

Okay. Thank you, Joel.

Any other questions for Joel? Joel, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh, I have 1 person signed up.

Um, to speak Tony Curtis.

Uh, Tony, I'm going to swear you in 1st, and then you'll proceed with your name and your address.

Very good.

Do you saw him? The testimony your bet.

Yes, sir.

Your name and your address, sir.

I'm Tony Curtis, the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Housing Coalition, 810 East Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky, 40204. Thank you. I saw 15 minutes up there. 1st, I thought I was gonna have go gangbusters here, but I'm here to speak to this and have been involved with conversations. I presented this Shively City Council at an invitation, the community meetings, and in conversation with various interested parties in the city of Shively. As is well known, I think by this body and all will billions, there is a lack of affordable housing in our community, all 26 Metro Council districts, all independent cities and all independent cities with zoning authority. This creates housing opportunity. It promotes equitable, equitable housing in our community and equitable growth. It pushes the vision set out by the Comprehensive Plan 2040, and it meets the need of the residents not only of the City of Louisville, but specifically of the City of Shively. I think this is very important to note and something that we haven't seen here in the city, let alone in many places across the United States, is we have an independent city with zoning authority stepping up to say, hey, affordability is important. This started in Shively. It was not pushed down onto Shively. It recognizes community need, it recognizes community need for housing, it acknowledges the need specifically for affordable housing in Shively, and it provides a vision and leadership for housing within its city and its zoning limits. MHC does the state of metropolitan housing report on an annual basis. I would refer you to the 2019 state of metropolitan housing report where we did a little bit of a deeper dive on the city of Shively itself as far as housing goes. I think what sums this up for me is that this is exciting. This is exciting because it is an independent city putting this forth. It is a productive conversation on inclusionary housing in our community. It is targeted by development size for incomes and incentivizes developers to include affordable housing. it is what is needed to create housing opportunity in our community and i think it is a model that all let me repeat that all other independent cities with zoning authority should pursue and approve and i think it would be a model too to look at for the entire city of louisville we've been involved in the conversation on inclusionary zoning for years around inclusionary housing and it's finally good to be standing up somewhere where there is some productive conversation with clear-cut objectives that can actually benefit people in our community. I'm sure we will hear naysayers at some point who are trying to say this is not needed. I think there are more people out there, everybody I've talked to, even people who would not be the person stepping up for affordable housing normally, saying that this is an important step forward for our community. So thank you very much, and I hope you approve this. We support this proposal wholeheartedly.

Any Commissioner's questions of Tony?

Just a thought, Tony. This is a good project for MHC to look at in terms of their next annual report, in terms of seeing how it works out. I hope that this is a step in a positive direction. Like you, It's a, it's a great move, but it needs to come with some data and what better organization than yours to provide that data. Thank you.

Yeah, it'll be a little bit too late and too early for this year. But as always, we'd love to follow up on important issues and the report and we'll do so with this as well. Good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

Is there we don't have any other set of sheets, sir, anyone else here wanted to speak for instance. Joel is there no one online will move into business session. What do you think commissioners and or do I hear a motion.

I think it's a good plan. I just have a problem with the height. Especially put in 4 stories next to single one story. family dwellings also when you go four stories in apartment buildings you start running in the safety factor of fire of course you know but um other than that regardless besides the height i have no problem with this

I'll make a comment. It appears that the city of Shively has done some thought about this. They've asked for support. They've asked for direction from the staff on this. And I concur with Commissioner Mims. I would like very much to get a follow up in a year or two and find out kind of the results of this action and what this has generated. I'd be very interested in that. so i'm prepared to make a motion please do all right in regards to uh the text amendment to the city of shively land development code um i recommend uh that we should the planning commission should recommend to the city of shively the text amended amendment be adopted i based that on staff report and the testimony heard today and do i need to include findings of fact Yeah, there are findings in the findings of fact with the staff report.

The 2nd, probably made motion in 2nd, roll call please.

Yes, yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. No. Fisher?

Yes.

All right. Move on to the next one. Item number six on our agenda, 25 zone 0099, Stewart. No, it's Stewart Benson. Oh, Mark, you're up.

I'd like to interject. Commissioner Fisher, I'm going to recuse myself on this case. I am the land agent for the applicant.

I understand. We'll come with you, Mark.

Yes, good afternoon. Everyone mark Pinto office of planning staff for for for. South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. this is for a previous case that was heard back in February and a night hearing for Taylor's little road and Sweeney lane under 25 zone 99. This is a request that the Planning Commission waive the two-year wait requirement after a zoning change was denied. And I do want to just remind everyone that I did receive two different public comments after the agenda was published. Those were printed off and handed to each of the commissioners before the public hearing started. So next slide, please, Jay. Again, this is a waiver of Planning Commission bylaws and policy section 11323 to allow the applicant to come back and resubmit a new change in zoning application after being denied within two years. So the previous zoning change request was for our 4 or was to change the zoning from our 4 single family residential to see 1 commercial and that was under 25 zone 99 if you all recall it. Included a detailed plan and a general plan. The detailed portion of the plan was a grocery store development as the anchor and the remaining several lots were proposed as general C1 to come back later as detailed plans. Uh, the planning commission during that night hearing recommended to Metro Council, uh, to approve the change in zoning. That was February eighteenth of this year and, um, little Metro Council overturned that decision and deny the change in zoning on April twenty third. Here is the previous plan. Um, again, we're at the intersection of Taylor's Taylor to run and sweetie lane right before that light at intersection to the left of the plan. You see that grocery store anchor development and the blank lot where the general plan portion all proposed to see 1 zoning. And here is just the zoning map of the overall area portion of the subject site is already see 1. it came through as a detailed district development plan and change in zoning a couple years back. But that plan was never, it never came to be. So they were proposing to incorporate that section into this new plan. Next slide. And here is just an aerial of the existing site conditions. And Jay, we can quickly flip through these. These are just some photos of the subject property, given the size of the development and the frontage length along Taylor's row. There are several sections along Taylorsville and then here is at Sweeney Lane. And then some adjacent property, this is an entrance to a new major subdivision of Sweeney lane. That would be behind the development known as a dove point estates. And then here is just some adjacent property across Sweeney lane and Taylor's full road. And here is just some more additional adjacent property, which is across the street along Taylorsville Road, looking at some single family homes zoned R4. So, regarding the technical review and the section of the planning commission bylaws and policies, the rule states that no application for a change in zoning can be accepted by our office. Um. on the same tract of land or the same site within two years after a denial unless that the Planning Commission finds one of the following. So either a substantial land use, economic or social change affecting the property has occurred in between it being denied and now, or that the new application differs significantly from the original application. and this written out policy is also in the staff report in the technical review if you want to read it in full. So your required actions today is that the Planning Commission shall determine whether the new application differs significantly from the original application or there has been a substantial change for the property between the denial and now. So You may approve or deny the waiver from the Planning Commission bylaws and policy section 113. Are there any questions for staff?

It doesn't look like it.

No, I do have a question.

Okay.

So we approved this case February 18th, 2026. Recommended approval to Metro Council. And then it was denied at Metro Council. These are the Planning Commission's policies. Yes. And I guess I'm trying to get clarification as to how does this apply to us now? And does it? I mean, the Metro Council, the legislative body denied this rezoning request. and and now we're being asked to uh to reconsider it when when the when the i guess i'm just trying to figure it out you know a lot of times it comes back to us as remanding it back to the planning commission for reconsideration and what so this isn't necessarily to or sorry laura yeah i'll jump in go ahead so

So the discussion today is whether or not what's being presented by the applicant fits within that, differs significantly, and you'll have a whole lot of conversation about that. For example, we had Kurzweil that was a night hearing and Metro Council denied it. and then they came back asking for a waiver the two-year rule and there were changes to the plan and the commission decided there were enough changes to the plan that they granted the two-year waiver and as part of it because there had been a night hearing involved before they required that whenever it came back again it would be a night hearing so here because the the plan is proposed was denied by metro council they can't just come right back to planning commission they need to get a waiver of this two-year role and that's where it comes in all you're deciding today is Is some of this criteria met to justify waiving the two-year rule, or is it not? It's not an opinion on if you say, yes, this is different enough, then they have to go through an application, and then they'd be back here again as a night hearing for whether or not on the should. This is just whether they can even move forward before the two years expires.

Sorry, Jim, you can go ahead.

Well, I guess I'm waiting to hear what's a change.

Right. There is a letter from the applicant that came with this request to hear the two-year waiver, and that letter provided some details that their reasoning for denial at Metro Council was allegedly because of KYTC roadway improvements. They were entirely sure what KYTC would require. And the applicant claims that they now know exactly what KYTC is going to require of this proposal. But I'll let the applicant give their presentation and of course elaborate in much more detail. But just to add what County Attorney Laura Ferguson said, They would have to start over from day one. So all this waiver would let them do is resubmit a new Pre application. They had to have another neighborhood meeting potentially another 1 if they waited more than 90 days between Pre application and formal application and go through the entire process over again.

Okay, so really we're just hearing today what's changed and is it enough to justify waiving the two-year. And so, good, cool. Yeah, we need to hear from the applicant.

Whether we waive it or not, they have to start over, right? Yes.

It comes down to a question of when. So if you didn't find enough of a change, then they would wait the two years and they could start the whole process over again.

And if we say, yeah, it's... Then they could start the whole process over again now. Okay.

Okay. Is it a two-year process from the time of denial or the time they originally filed?

Time of denial.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. I guess we need to hear from Nick.

Yes. Nick Pregliasco, Bartlett Pregliasco, 1000 North Hurstburn Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223.

You solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

I do. And I'll explain and kind of answer the question with what has changed. And it was a very significant change, and it has to do with the road improvements. But as mentioned, this was a case where the Planning Commission did recommend approval. At the time, what we did not know was the scope of the roadway improvements, the full scope of what would be required by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. And when this case went to Metro Council, Metro Council overturned the favorable recommendation. So again, it was favorable and the Metro Council overturned it solely on the basis of the road improvements. And what has changed with that is we now know The KTC is going to require very substantial additional improvements and that is additional cost of almost 2Million dollars beyond what was proposed before. And more than doubling the amount of road improvements, which I'll show, but that is really the reason for this request today. If you go to the next slide, it'll be the same 1 that was just mentioned. We are requesting that. The scope, which I'll show of these road improvements is a significant change just because of the dollar amount and the sheer volume of improvements to be made with this. If you go to the next slide, I'll show this, it's the same as we just looked at a minute ago with the staff presentation, but this is a grocery anchored center on Tailsville Road, right by Sweeney Lane. And if you go to the next slide, I'll kind of explain the why. So this question that you're probably asking yourself is how do we find out after, the public hearing that KTC was gonna require an additional $2 million of road improvements. And it really is an issue that we need to, as a development community, figure out. But at the time, well, in order to get to the hearing, KTC said, and this was their comment, they're okay with the concept on the plan. And they, they note, this is just a preliminary. Okay. And they will review again when construction plans are submitted. And the reserve the right to qualify or change, you know, what is being required. So all they do at the initial part is give a preliminary or conceptual. Okay. Once we then, after the public hearing, we're able to. have the construction plans prepared. And those do take months to prepare and cost tens of thousands of dollars. We did have those prepared, we did submit those, and that's where we were able to determine that this is a far greater scope of work that we are proposing. But it really, in sum, there were two roadway issues that were discussed at that hearing, and there were two roadway issues that were the basis for Metro Council's concern and their reason. Those two reasons were, those issues were, one just the scope of the roadway improvements and then two there was concerns regarding access to the residents on the north side of talesville road and i'll show both of those and how they're really changed with these additional improvements if you go to the next slide So, we did have a traffic study done last time and on the basis of that traffic study, you know, it did provide that the requirements that were needed for this development were right hand lanes, right hand turn lanes and the traffic signal. So, we had committed to doing that and to do what was being required at the time. And if you go to the next slide, I'll show then. We took the traffic study and proposed roadway improvements to the road. The top shows what it is today. The bottom shows those additional turn lanes and the traffic signal. And that was what we were proposing at the time. At the time, it was a two-slash-three lane because it varied. Some of it two lanes, some of it three lanes. And it was a cost of with the signal and all the improvements was roughly a 1Million dollars. It's a total. You know, cost, so this really goes to that 1st issue, which is the scope of the roadway improvements. We also the 2nd issue and I'll show as well the next slide. There's also a lot of discussion at that hearing. If you recall about the north side of the. Road, and that was the residents that live on the other side of tails for road. We had met with myself as well. Sophia who's here as well. We had met with KTC and said, well, what would you require to address this? What would you suggest? Their suggestion at the time was to have a frontage row, which is what we had shown at the time. We didn't propose that. That was kind of what they had said, but they also said, when you come in with your final plans, we'll tell you exactly what has to be done. So this is the second issue that North side access. So this is how we proceeded at the hearing. If I go to the next slide, I'll show then. At the time we had binding elements that committed to, I think this is also important, we had committed to the traffic signal would be approved before any permits were issued and that all road improvements would be completed before any CO. So we had to do all of our road improvements prior to any certificate of occupancy. What we didn't know at the time was really what is the scope of those, how much would be required. If you go to the next slide, then I'll show the change. So again, we were at that hearing. It was a favorable recommendation, a recommendation to approve the zone change. And if you go to the next slide, But then when we went to Metro Council, this case went to Metro Council, it was denied. The recommendation of approval was overturned. There were nine findings. So there were nine specific items in our comp plan that were found by Metro Council as being issues with this. That was the basis for not following the planning commission, but to overturn that recommendation or to go the other direction. all nine that's really the important thing is every reason cited was for those two issues the scope of the roadway improvements and the north side access there was no find there was no finding in the ordinance related to compatibility to whether it should be retail whether anything you else may think of it all related to the road improvements and that was the basis for overturning the the favorable recommendation if we go to the next slide then So, these just put on here in case you're curious, these are those 9 policies that the. The findings addressed and all of them again dealt with solely with the road concerns. If you go to the next slide, then I'll show. So then once we did submit, have those, you know, spend the 2 months to have the construction plans prepared and submit them. We did determine from KTC what they would require and they would require us. applying a 55 mile an hour road speed limit and the reason that's important is that's what that is what kind of changed and made it more extensive but at the time we were at the planning commission hearing we were showing in yellow there that's we were planning improvements from sweeney left past our entrance to before you get to uh to carrington green once we did determine the scope it would be a three to four lane section And the cost would be between two and a half to three million dollars. So we would go that entire length of Taylor's Road from Sweeney all the way to Old Teddy Road. This was information that we didn't have at the time because we had to go through the construction plan review process with that. After we did determine this, we had reached out and met with C. Porter, who's here today, represented the applicants and explained to them we knew what was being proposed, what would be required at the time. And that was an early May. And at the same time, we also then met with the Metro Councilman Benson, who is his district as well as Councilman Kramer was a county attorney also their president. This was after the case was already decided and done. But we talked to them about it. They said, well, this changes a lot of our reason for denying it was the basis of road improvements. Now we're talking about. between two and three times the amount of road improvements. We would like to have this idea, have it back to be able to consider it again, have it looked at with the road improvements that are being required by the transportation cabinet. So if you go to the next slide I'll show, then these are just kind of the little bit more of the detail. This is the western portion of the road improvements. Again, our improvements before had stopped before the Carrington Green entrance. Now they will go all the way to Old Hedy Road. And just to be clear, that means that this entire section from Sweeney to Old Hedy on Tails Road, the entire section will now have a three lane or a center turn lane. There will be a center turn lane through that whole portion. This shows those improvements that are really the added ones. These are areas that were not proposed to be approved before. And then if you go to the next slide, this would show then the eastern side of it, which would be the additional improvements where this is where you have that real four-lane section in there as well. Again, the asphalt was more than doubled and the amount of road improvements more than doubled with this determination. We go to the next slide. then we so we had filed an appeal to appeal the decision that is still pending then we have worked with the county attorney's office and if you go to the next slide we did provide a agreed order saying that they don't have to file an answer all we want to do is have our case heard on the basis of the facts the real facts and that is what is really being required and we want to be heard on with this additional two million dollars of required improvements Um, so that is out there to still sitting and pending, uh, and to your point at the time we had, there is a provision in the bylaws, the planning commission bylaws and say. Planning commission will rehear a case for reconsideration. It says a Metro council or any legislative body can. ask a planning commission to reconsider a case we had talked about that and worked with staff ultimately staff said that yeah that is then there it does technically say that they can that is available but their recommendation was to file the request to weigh the two-year rule because that would We would start over, we would go back to square one. So that's why we're here today as well as in working with staff. This is the preferred route to do. So, if you go to the next side, so on the KTC review, we did right after that hearing submit our application for the signal and really in March thirtieth. So that was about a month. uh five or six weeks after our hearing that's when we really confirmed for the first time from ktc after our submittals what they require with that so we have been since then uh i say we but sophia has been submitted our detailed construction plans those are plans that are normally not done and completed until after approvals done but we did have done all that And we've had comments back as recently as September 3rd, and we've essentially addressed all their comments. There's only two small items left. So we are now in the final stages of all that as well. So the point is, is that since the public hearing, we have now really determined those required improvements. If you go to the next slide, I included this, it's extent that there can you have questions about these so we can go through them fairly quickly. I just wanted to make sure to point these out just because, you know, this really goes to the. I guess the. how this expanded scope will improve the situation for these residents. Mr. Wenzel, who's here today, I'm sure he'll be speaking. For example, before, currently, there is no turn lane in front of his property. Proposed before, we had a proposed no turn lane. now with this proposal we will have a between a 14 and 17 foot uh two-way left turn lane in front of it so it's a turn lane center turn lane but it will also be one that's larger than normal if you go to the next slide i'll show the same thing with carrington green at the carrington green at the time we have proposed no improvement in front of carrington green because it was not suggested by the traffic study but now we will propose and we will have a requirement for a 17 foot That's 2 way left turn lane, so it will substantially improve the condition from what is today and what was proposed before. But to provide that. That 17 foot center turn line to go the next slide. This is just another is individual there. This 1 would have a center turn lane between 20 and 23 feet. The reason this is important is it also addresses the other issue that was discussed at the hearing. People said they were concerned about turning into a turn lane in the safety of it, you know, and that cars whizzing by and if it's only 11 feet or 13 feet wide. Yeah, but these will be proposed turn lanes that are really almost twice. What is traditional with if you go the next 1, it'll just provide, I guess the next property down this again just shows this 1 would have both a, a left turn lane and a 2 left turn lane and the 13th. Just, um, This is the most and this 1 would have again a proposed to a left turn lane and this is plus. So this would have both a left turn lane and a 2 way left turn lane as well. In short. This is what transportation kind of said. This is how you address this issue. Originally they proposed the concept of this frontage road. But that was a solution that they were willing to sign off on. This is what they have said would be required. And this is what they will sign off on. And that's why we're. Here requesting this to be considered if you go to the next slide that I think I. And it's just another 1 as well. This would have a 24 foot or a larger 1. and again, just to be clear, we are not requesting in any way for you to make a determination on this addresses our impact mitigation. What we're only requesting is that you. consider that this additional $2 million of road improvements to be a significant change and that we do believe that this is a very significant change. Quite frankly, I don't know many of our clients that could absorb an additional $2 million of unanticipated infrastructure costs that would be done. And these are all improvements that are above and beyond what our traffic study said was required. So these are truly public improvements that are being proposed. And we're just asking to have this case heard on the basis of what we now know will be the scope of those uh roadway improvements and with that i can uh i'll stop here uh sophia mazako with milestones here she can answer technical questions on some of the uh back and forth with the transportation cabinet as well as the proposal of the expanded improvements we can take any questions you may have any questions for nick yeah uh nick first

What was the name you said again? Barnwop or Talbot? Yes, Pregliosco.

So it's really interesting is that John and I had acquired the firm over five years, almost six years ago, and I just never cared to change the name. So Mr. Roberts decided he was retiring, so then said, well, might as well change. It's funny because now everybody keeps congratulating me.

Congratulations, that's the first time I've heard it. I had to throw that in there. But secondly... I would be more apt to vote for this if I had a letter from the KYTC stating they approved this.

Well, so this, to be clear, what we had always required, what was required in the binding element was we have to do exactly what KTC requires. So we will have to build the improvements to their requirements, their standards. What we didn't know at the time was the scope of those. So we still have that same proposed binding element, so we will have to do that. Now, the last... round of comments that we had received from them we only have two very small comments that ktc had to our full construction plans and those were have already even been addressed so we now have a point that this is all completed but this is also we're just requesting to be able to come back not to have it signed off and by then we will even have a you know have a final approval presumably by that you said that the two small comments have been addressed Yes, and I can let Sophia maybe talk to that, but they would put on when you submit to me 1st back up. I don't know of any cases we've had where we submit construction plans before we have our final approval. The reason is, because it takes 2 to 3 months to prepare and it costs tens of thousands of dollars to do. So we always get the approval then start the process of the construction plans in this case. um because it was such a big deal we started that early and once we we did determine through submitting those detailed construction plans that the you know that these road improvements would be substantially increased as far as the cost so then once we do submit them it's just like any agency review they then provide comments they say change this or tweak this or move this back etc the only two very minor comments related to the length of the two-way left turn lane and another one but These are things that this is not an issue as far as the approval. And no matter what, we have to get that approval.

I think we, any other questions? I think we need to move this along a little bit. I mean, the question here is whether or not this constitutes a significant change. We're not approving or disapproving of anything, right? So you'd have to start over again after this would just allow you to go move forward.

it's really an unfortunate situation i say unfortunate because if we knew at the time the public hearing what was going to be required we could have just shown that and yeah i got it all right any questions well i do and i think it's relevant to the uh are these substantial changes uh uh one do you are you having to acquire right away yeah

So, just to answer that question 1, we will not be acquiring right away and 2, I didn't mention it, but all the improvements will be on the south side of the southern side of the road. I mean, there may be drainage, but no, the road. The asphalt road on the north side will not change and that was another another major issue, but there you have to relocate utilities. That way I can let maybe Sophia talk to make sure I know.

I mean, that would be relocating utilities would be in the easement.

Yeah, so they, they're working with LGD currently, so they will, but again, I just, I want to understand the credibility of this change and then, uh. And then are you consolidating an access on the northern side? Because that was, quite frankly, I voted against, I believe I did, this case because I didn't believe you. And... So if this is just the same case, I need to think that there's something different about this case.

So we are not proposing the frontage road. And that was what KTC had suggested at that meeting we had with them as a way to address it. But they said, once you submit your construction plans, we'll tell you exactly what you need to do and to meet all of our requirements and all of the state and federal requirements. Now that we've done that, they said, The improvement is not a frontage road. It is to make this additional entire roadway width along that entire frontage. There is no frontage road, but we do show an additional two-way left turn lane all throughout there in a wider one than normal.

What you're saying is you're taking out some of the driveways you connected.

What we had proposed, what we had shown at the public hearing was a proposal to connect those driveways. We're not proposing that anymore. We're making the more substantial improvement rather than, that was kind of a Band-Aid fix or a smaller.

Yeah, I remember that, that you would come out of one driveway and go over to the next one to come out into the light and that.

Now we're proposing access that would meet all the state and federal requirements. How comfortable are you all with the 2 million number?

With the what?

With the $2 million number. Well, as far as the additional improvements, our client had an estimate on the original improvements, and that was the $1 million. And then we more than doubled the amount of pavement. And then because of widening the additional, as I understand it, the utilities also became more of an issue. So they had estimates on that, and their estimates were between $2.5 to $3 million. Okay. As far as the total cost, the additional amount would be the $2.

Yeah, I guess my question is if it ends up being $10 million, what does that mean for?

Just to be clear, what we're not doing is, what we're saying is we now know what KTC is going to require, whatever the cost is, we'll do that. We're not proposing to limit the cost in any way, but I only provide that just for context purposes that this isn't a tiny change. This is more than doubling of the amount of improvement.

Okay, any more questions. Thank you Nick. Sophia where I'm going to catch you is someone did is here just answer questions so if we have any questions of Sophia.

If you don't we'll move on to Mister Porter.

Before we begin, I'd like to make a request. Mr. Don Wenzel has also signed up, and I signed up as the in charge of this, the opposition. I'd like to include Don in that 15 minutes, if I might, and let him go first, and then I'll wrap up.

That's fine.

All right.

All right, Steve, can you swear? Can I swear you in the same? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth? I do.

Thank you.

Name and address please.

Yes, Don Wenzel. I reside at 12109 Taylorsville Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 40299. Mark, thanks for projecting these up. If we could go to the first slide. Just for context overlaying on what Nick had shown in terms of location of the proposed development, the property. Thank you, Steve. The 2 that are circled in blue. And as you can see, they are in very close proximity to the proposed development. I think. interesting uh subtext to this slide as it shows the very unique situation presented with this request which is the series of entirely residential single-family home properties across from this massive 22-acre proposed development next slide please Okay, so we obviously grounding ourselves here. You know, today, as Mark had stated, we're trying to determine if the applicant has a new plan that is materially or substantially different from what was proposed, and ultimately, as you heard, what was denied by Metro Council. Next slide, please. So sort of reiterating Commissioner Mim's question, and I think it is the key question here, what has changed? Well, the property has not changed. It's the same property. And the proposed use for the property has not changed. Same property, same use. No plan has actually been filed by the applicant. So we have nothing to assess in terms of a new plan, no new plan. The applicant is relying on this $2 million financial burden contention. This was stated in, and the only documentation that I saw supporting the waiver request was a one and a half page letter with this financial burden contention that appears to be the basis of what is a significant change. What we haven't heard from the applicant is the $2 million number. What is the percentage of that relative to the overall cost of the project? That's a question that I hope one of the commissioners will ask. If it's a $40 million project, it doesn't seem like $2 million is that significant. Interestingly, the applicant asserts, and you heard it here again, that, and this is actually in writing in that one and a half page letter, the applicant asserts, now that the details of the KYTC required road improvements have been determined, the request to waive the two-year rule seems appropriate. That's according to the applicant. Next slide, please. except that KYTC has told us on September 15th that there is no such agreement. And here is a email at the bottom below the stars that clearly states KYTC has not approved any road changes to the west of the ones already in place between the vet clinic and Sweeney Lane. Continue on. Nothing has been approved. So there is no approval. There is no agreement on the scope of the changes, which is obviously the basis upon which the applicant proposes the waiver. Next slide please. further back in March of this year KYTC agreed and I have a copy of the email from Jason Richardson that the neighbors would be included these are the north side neighbors and the other impacted neighbors would be included in any discussion review and ultimate sign off on the proposed road changes no outreach No engagement. What Nick shared today, news to us. Wasn't in the file, not sure why. If the request is to evidence change, I'm not sure why that wasn't presented so we could have seen it and commented on it, but that was not done. Next slide, please. That continues, unfortunately, a pattern in this case where We have tried multiple times to engage the applicant and their counsel in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion about how we can potentially, if possible, reach a resolution. Absolutely no response, cold shoulder from the applicant and their counsel, no willingness to meet with us. Unlike KYTC, who as you saw from the Jason Richardson email, more than willing to discuss, collaborate, and hopefully resolve. Mark Pinto and I have worked together for several years. One thing he taught me early on was collaboration, transparency produce the best results in planning commission cases. We don't have that in this case, unfortunately. So that leads us to the ultimate conclusion that we would like you to draw, which is to deny this application. There's no revised plan. There's no change at the property site. There's no change to the proposed use. There's no final agreement with on the cross change or the scope of the roadway improvements needed. You saw Terry young's email. Um, so we don't see any basis upon which the 2 year waiver. Uh, can be approved. If there's no questions, I'll turn it over Steve Porter.

Thanks, Don.

I just want to emphasize a few things. First of all, I'm not sure it really makes a lot of difference, but the question came up or the thing about who... oppose this or whatever what the vote was the vote that you had to recommend was four to three so it was a split vote when it got to the metro council it was like 23 to 2 or something like that denying it so just for the record to get those in but the the thing here is there's no change in this plan It's still a 50,000 plus square foot grocery. There's an attached fast liquor store and then there's a whole bunch of empty land that is going to be rezoned but with no uses proposed at this time possible fast food there and ky tc has told us jason richardson told us this will not happen until we have met with the neighbors and they are satisfied That's in the email that you've got in front of you. And then the recent email from Tara said, we don't have anything. We haven't approved anything. And when this letter was written requesting this waiver, no plan existed. about any widening of the road or anything like that, or cost dollars and everything else was included with that. All of a sudden today, we see something on the screen with an extra blue line saying, well, we're gonna extend that a little bit further. Extending that just a little bit further really does not have any effect on those 10 or 11 neighbors on the north side who are not in where that blue line is. They're to the east of that. So it doesn't change them at all. But I guess really most importantly is nobody changes. told anybody what their new plan was until today and it's just too late it's just too late they need to abide by the rules and regulations of the planning commission and that is wait two years from the date of denial submit a new application and go through the process again and let's see If there's still a need for this project, see if the traffic would be okay. See if, you know, whatever improvements would make it okay. But let's wait that two years, just like your regulations require. This is not one, you know, we talked about the Kurtz way. They've changed that. It was going to be all these apartments and they changed it to just a few apartments and a lot of single family. They made some major changes on that one. There are no changes here. Same land use, same grocery store, same liquor store, same General C-1. There's no change. There's just some potential, potential road improvements. And I use the word potential because Tara and Jason say they haven't approved anything yet. So there's just no change here. And it's not significant. It's not substantial. It's not a change at all. Thank you. We hope that you will deny the waiver.

Anyone have any questions?

Okay. Did you have some? Jack?

Jack I can't pronounce it last name. Our Linda not oh. I guess you do. Do.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes, I do.

You have three minutes.

Okay. Do I have to give you my name and address? Yes. Linda Panuto, 12309 Taylorsville Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 40299. I'm speaking today regarding the waiver request on behalf of the property owners affected directly across from the proposed development, just east of the proposed traffic light. I am one of those residences. I noticed on Nick's proposal that his his adjustments weren't addressing any of this. Um, but I don't know. There are many of you that have already seen this. This was the frontage road, which they said they've gotten rid of because we showed them that that it was non functioning. Um, it was a hand drawn frontage road that we showed to be inadequate for any type of vehicle except a small compact car in the waiver request letter. This access proposal is referred to as their best guess. on the need for safe access and functional use of the long standing driveways across from the proposed development. With this drawing representing the best guess solution to the safety traffic concerns for the north side neighbors, I want to take a moment to address the responsibilities of those involved in project development, especially a large multimillion dollar one like this and how this relates to the waiver request. As business owners ourselves, my husband and I, we're familiar with multi-million dollar projects, and it's the project team's responsibility to research all guidelines for all aspects of the project and then compile a working budget and cost analysis. There is no best guessing, something that was noted on the waiver request. Lack of research and planning that results in changes to original proposals and end up costing more doesn't constitute a substantially different plan, but rather cost overrun. I find it difficult to call this hand drawing of a frontage road a well researched, thoughtful access proposal for the north side neighborhood driveways that addresses the needs and concerns for use of the drive for our longtime residents. As you know, KYTC assured us that access to our properties is their primary concern. and that they will not approve a plan that does not provide safe ingress-egress for each property. We were also informed that multiple proposals by the applicant had already been denied because the applicant had failed to maintain access to the properties on the north side of Taylorsville Road. With that known, wouldn't best guessing be over after the first denied proposal? Considering the ease of access and plethora of guidelines available through KYTC Highway Design Manual and multiple denials, how does this frontage road from the February 18th hearing drawing now qualify as best guess reason and rationale to bypass a rule, specifically the two-year wait? This waiver request also stated, can I finish?

Yes.

also stated to be based on substantial additional required road improvements which to me is cost overruns in our business that were not known at the time if they weren't known could they have been should they have been but just weren't again the KYTC design manual is readily available and to summarize this two-year wait period to resubmit proposals offers all parties involved an appropriate pause the north side neighborhood residents and all the neighboring communities have been through the whole process from two community meetings to Metro Council denial. We followed the process. The applicant should follow the process as well. I believe the two-year wait should be upheld by the Commission as part of the process to ensure true due diligence is done by the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dewey Kelly.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

I do.

You have three minutes, sir.

My name is Dewey Kelly. I live at 4005 Carrington Green, Louisville, Kentucky, 40299. And I'm very glad I came today because I'm in shock as much as anything else. One of the things that I learned while I was here is all the major improvements that they say they're going to do is going to be on the south side. Well, Carrington Green is on the south side. And I have a total of 11 houses that face Taylorsville Road and Carrington Green. By those improvements moving into the easement area, and I don't see how I could help but come up into my own property line because it's 23 feet of that center line that he's talking about. That road's going to come right into our entrance. The noise is so bad now on Taylorsville Road that we had to do extra planting to cut the noise, buffer it down somewhat for the residents facing Taylorsville Road. So now I have these residents that are going to be right on top of a road if they put it in. That's not feasible to do all that on the south side of that road. into my easement and probably my property line. I don't know if it does or not because this is the first I've heard of it and I have seen no any kind of stakes or looking at anything to prove anything different. So that's a huge concern that you're talking about changing that road and taking it plumb up into my property line right in front of people's front doors that is huge and we need to really think about that second of all as she said a while ago nick should have known because he was turned down three times by the Kentucky Transportation that what he was proposing would not fly. So this is not a surprise to him. And one of the things he tried to do to mitigate that early on, well, Carrington Green has a gate in the back of their facility that they can open up. If they have to get out, they can get out that way. gate was approved by your city council because my roads are narrow and it was a safety hazard and so they agreed if i paid for it to put in an emergency gate for the safety of the residents so if he if he knew it was not a workable situation he wouldn't even put the pictures of my gate and try to open it up so this new proposal is absolutely uh out of bounds until there's more research done so also we tried to be a friend of the court The friend of the court said, no, you're not really qualified to do that because the city council and the zoning commission and the planning commission, they take care of your needs. They watch out for you. Well, that's what I'm hoping you do. I don't want you to approve this waiver. I want you to watch out for us and we'll work with what is right. But what I have seen so far is not right. And we do not trust what we've seen from Nick or the developers because of our past history. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Nick has it. Is there anybody else that would like to speak out in opposition? Is there anyone online? Okay. All right, Nick, you have five minutes.

Um, well, I'll address some of the things that were mentioned, but again, to be clear, we're not. Arguing the case today, we're just arguing that this is a significant change. These additional road improvements are significant change. I didn't want to address some of the things that were mentioned 1. Steve had mentioned that we haven't had discussions with them. we met with steve the applicant and i met with steve on it was on may 6th before even before even meeting with the councilman benson and councilman kramer and specifically explained and showed all the road improvements because we knew at that time what the road improvements were and the additional scope then in the last three weeks we have emailed steve and asked to meet with him and his clients and each one separate we said we would like to meet with you and your clients and we'd like to do it separately because they're different concerns He did respond back and say they thought they would want to meet together, but I followed up four times and we never heard a response. So we have been trying to meet with him. But the point is, this is just simply a request to be able to restart this case, to be able to refile a new application based upon what we now know as far as the road improvements. I think Linda did a good job, Linda Panuto about, she kept saying that this frontage road was our best guess at the time. And that is the problem. And that is the problem that I was mentioning is because we had Transportation Cabinet tell us that they gave us their preliminary okay, their preliminary approval, And we asked the transportation cabinet, what will you require as part of this? And they came up with the frontage road. We always committed to, we'll have to do whatever ultimately is required. The frontage road was their concept. But they said, you will need to spend a couple of months to prepare the construction plans and have them submitted before we tell you exactly what is going to be required. Uh, this is a case where we have gone through that spent a couple of months to prepare those construction plans, those detailed plans and have submitted those. And we have now, uh, in fact, determined that we've really resolved all the issues with that. And this would be a request to we would to come back and to. uh just re to allow the the case to be heard on on the basis of the these expanded road improvements and we can forget about the cost because the cost is not the i was just trying to put a quantity to it but we're more than doubling the road improvements the asphalt the road is being being constructed And the road frontage is now going to be 43% longer. We're now going all the way down to Old Hedy. So if you want to put it in those contexts rather than dollar amounts, that's why it is more than doubling is because of the fact that just the amount of work that is being done is, in fact, increasing very significantly. And then as to the, you heard some other comments about this is a residential area, some other improvements, concerns. But the bottom line is the only reason Metro Council overturned a favorable recommendation. The only reason cited was for the was the road improvements. They said the road concerns. There was no concerns about compatibility with residential. There's no concerns about noise lighting. Any of that things you nearly do. The only concern cited was road improvements. Now, we know that we are going to do. well more than doubled what we were proposing before so our con our belief is that is a significant change and that does um change this application and we're not asking for this to uh skip a public hearing be reconsidered and then we're asking to be able to start over and that is to file a pre-application rather than to be required to wait two years just because of this additional road improvements that we now know and i think this really is an issue that It's an issue that is an overall issue for the development community because it's really created by the fact we don't get detailed answers from KTC initially. They say they do approve us. They give us our preliminary approval. We're able to go to a public hearing, but they said we'll figure out exactly what you have to do after you submit your construction plans. We've now done that and we now know that there's that the reasons Metro Council deny this are being fully addressed. So we just request that you consider this a substantial change, a significant change to that. And 30 questions that for what I've addressed. Again, Sophia is here. She can help answer technical questions. But the most important thing is, we're not talking about the merits of whether we whether these road improvements will address all issues. It's just. We believe this is a significant change.

Any questions for Nick?

All right, thank you very much. I just want to confirm something you just said twice. You said you have prepared a full set of working drawings for the roadway improvements on Taylor Road, is that right?

Correct, correct. And we have submitted those to the transportation cabinets and then they provided comments. I think there's been a back and forth. The last submittal had only two comments and they're very minor, so that's it we have we're well into the the construction review which again is something as you know you traditionally don't do early on it's generally done after an approval but we have in fact done all that so all that work has been done it's been you've incurred all those costs and okay thank you any other questions for nick thank you sir

Okay. Is anyone else? Well, we've already been through that. All right. We'll move into deliberation. Commissioners, what do you think? This is, and I think we need to stay focused on this as to what we're doing here. Is it a major change or not? You know, I have to go back to the letter that Nick produced as evidence that referred to nine things and they all seem to deal with the road.

Well, the letter itself, at least in my mind, is not enough evidence to indicate that there's a substantial enough change. And I'm sorry, Nick, I kept on looking through all the documents and I was wanting to see a plan. And maybe that's my very nature. I wanted to see something on a plan type document. So, you know, from my perspective, I don't mind the idea of waiving the two year rule. I really don't. I think it's an unnecessary, you know, and this is a policy. It's not a, it's, it's not even a land development code. It's not a, This is a simple Planning Commission policy, and it unnecessarily delays development, and we're oftentimes criticized because of it. But gosh, at a minimum, it seems like we ought to see something on a plan. So I can't support this request as presented today. I could, under a separate application, accept a waiver if it's shown on the plan. And the reason I say that is that somewhere along the line, there's a problem between your development group and the transportation cabinet. And that gap has to be closed because that was a problem in February the 18th. There was a real credibility problem, and I don't know if that's continuing on until today, but it just needs to be resolved. And and so until a plan is submitted to the transportation cabinet and there's a letter or stamp by the transportation cabinet on a preliminary plan. Gosh, I don't know how how we can gauge, you know, as to, you know, if this has been resolved. And it's not prejudging the case. It just needs to get it just kind of needs to have that type of. Validation that the transportation cabinet has, you know, looked at the plan and they're okay with it.

Any other questions remarks.

I agree with commissioner ma'am. That's why I asked him. It would be better if we had had a letter stating that accepted. This new proposal, so it would actually show that they've looked at it and they were happy with it.

I don't know I'm torn and I've just spent a week on jury duty with the semantics of words right and so does that even matter based on what we have to do today because if we say it's okay today yeah there's been significant improvements and i think that the the road work probably constitutes significant improvements with how much it's going to help on both sides of the road and the traffic flow and help the safety because right now you're pulling out in traffic at least it's you have options to not go all the way in traffic and that was anyway um does it matter that KYTC doesn't have a stamp saying, yeah, those are great because they are starting over anyway and have to get their plans approved, regardless if we do it today or if we do it two years from today. And I don't know that, that the significant changes to a plan means you have to scrap the whole thought of there's a grocery store and there's retail stores in there and put all, you know, instead of having commercial, have it all residential or whatever. What constitutes a significant change? And in my opinion, I think those drastic road improvements are a significant change. And what is it, If they got to start over, if we approve it or deny anyway. Then why push the buck off another 2 years when we're back in the same boat starting all over from scratch.

But if does not. Approve their changes to the plan and they can't go forward anyway. Well, then the plan resorts back to that. Nothing has changed. It's the same plan.

Yeah, but they have to take, we're not approving the plan.

Well, no, it's not the plan, but we have to approve it.

KY is not going to approve a plan unless it's complete, submitted, stamped on. The whole problem with this whole project is the road and the traffic. And, you know, they have to go before all the people that live out there and answer a lot of questions. Including the 11 people that they have to. And we're responsible for them. fact that uh um you know the road up there if it if it was a four-lane highway right now the project be going forward so you know the changes they're they're making a heavy bet it's going to cost them a lot of money and a lot of time to go back through this again and i think um enough of a reason to say it's a substantial change well in addition to that when we were asking how confident are you with the three million dollars

If doesn't approve this and say, you have to, you can't do this. You have to do that. And now it's costing 10Million. They've already said that on record that they're going to do what they have what Casey whatever says. Sorry, Steve, go ahead Steve.

Did you have a comment?

Am I do I have a comment commissioner bond?

Did you have a comment at this point? I'm preparing to make a motion if everyone's finished with their comments.

Is there anybody else says remark? Go ahead Steve.

I move to approve and case number twenty five dash zero and a dash zero zero nine nine. based on the waiver on Planning Commission bylaws and policy section 11.3.2.3 to allow the applicant to submit a zoning change application within two years of a denial based on the difference between the new application that's significantly different from the original application, the staff's report and analysis, and the applicant and staff testimony heard today.

So the significant change is the road improvements?

So the significant changes constituting the road improvements.

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

Benitez?

Yes.

Sidner?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Steph?

Yes.

Bond? No. Lohan?

Yes.

Leonard yes for sure yes okay um I think we should take a break is anyone opposed to that let's take a five minute break

Are we missing?

Not everybody's back yet. Oh, yeah, I see that now. We got 1 or 2, right?

Yeah. Yeah.

Um, case numbers item number 7 on the agenda 26 zone 0, 0, 5, 7.

Zach Fisher 26, 0, 0, 0, 5, 7 East Indian trail commercial is the project at 4107 and 4111 East Indian trail. Next slide. i'll start before i get into the request note that i've got a handout that you all should have it's got a updated letter of explanation update justification that statement that came in since the packet was published there is also an email from mr baker that i believe he references in his presentation that he sent me earlier this morning so i did include that so you all have it for your reference as we go through this Um, the requests here, um, there is an update to the request and I'll go over some of the changes in detail as we get towards the end of this presentation. Uh, but the change in zoning is the same as what you all saw back in July on July 16th when this was continued from this is our forced single family residential to see to commercial. There is a change here from general district development plan to detail district development plan with binding elements. Next slide. So the case summary request continued again from that July 16 meeting, two properties zone R4 and C2 requesting C2 for both properties. Again, one of these properties is split zoned. That's why it's referenced in that way. But we're just looking at the R4 section to be rezoned. That's also what the development plan will be. Subject to the subject sites, roughly 3 quarters of an acre. The properties are presently used residentially and then the detailed district development plan is proposed here. You'll note that they are proposed with those residential uses on site. So the big difference here. And if you want to go to the next slide, Joe. Yeah, the site plan, you'll see that it's the same. The residential uses are allowed in C2, so they're just proposing to lock that in rather than make it a general plan where they have to come back with a detailed plan. It would be a detailed plan. If they ever wanted to change anything, they would have to come back with a revised detailed district development plan. Next slide. You'll see an aerial view again of the property. It's bound all by C2 on the East Indian Trail, north side of that road going towards, in between that and Poplar Level. That is suburban marketplace corridor form. It is across the street from some R4 zone properties to the southeast. Next slide. Here's an aerial view of those properties. You'll note that that red line cuts through that one split zone property. Next slide. Here's a view of the subject property from East Indian Trail.

Next slide.

Here's another view from East Indian Trail looking back towards Poplar Level. Next slide. We have a view of the adjacent property to the northeast. Next slide. And then this is the southwest at the corner of Poplar Level and East Indian Trail. Next slide. And then here's across the street along East Indian Trail. That one's also, that's the end of that commercial section that fronts East Indian Trail going towards Poplar Level. Next slide. So the staff findings, Here we have a change in zoning from R4 to C2. It's compliant with Plan 2040. Same review as last time. From a staff perspective, the proposal will not be a non-residential expansion into an existing residential area. It's consistent with the uses in the suburban marketplace corridor form. The DDP and the LDC requirements do meet the, or DDP meets the LDC and Plan 2040 guidelines. Next slide. Staff recommends that the, or finds that the zone change request is in keeping with plan 2040 and recommends plan commission recommend that Louisville Metro Council approve the request to change and finds the DDP is consistent with the LDC and recommends plan commission approve that request. Next slide. And the required actions being that Louisville Metro Council approve or deny that change in zoning from R4 to C2, approve or deny the DDDP with binding elements. And the only two things, again, I'll draw attention to is that change from the general district development plan to a detailed district development plan. It's very small changes to the binding elements, but you'll find they're mostly similar. And then I know that there was a lot of discussion In the last round about existing conditions on the site, I'll note again, too, everything in the staff report, everything in this presentation is based on the plan that's provided here. Staff's not looking at existing conditions. We look at the plan that the applicant has provided that they want to put forward. It meets the LDC. It meets Plan 2040, and that's why staff is recommending approval. So I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them.

I have a question.

So what's being proposed here? Is this just going to continue as a single family home at this point?

Yep. They're proposing residential uses, same as it was at the general plan level, but it's just going to continue those residential uses until a time that they want to come back with commercial uses that would redevelop the site. That's what would trigger that RDDP. But for now, just residential.

Okay. And they're aware that they have to come back. Should this change from a residential use to anything other than a residential use?

That's correct. And I'll let the applicant speak a little bit more why they've changed from the general development plan to the detailed district development plan. But I think for the most part, it was based on feedback heard from that last planning commission hearing. But yes, they're aware they would have to make revisions to redevelop the site at all.

Okay.

Thank you. Of course.

Do you know there's any current code violations on this property?

There is code enforcement on the property. Um, ultimately, Any issues that are ongoing with code enforcement, they'll have to sort that out with code enforcement. If there was a junkyard on site, what they're proposing, this would not be compliant with that. They would remain in code enforcement because of that. So I'm not sure what the exact status is. I know Mr. Baker's got some updates, and then I think there's going to be some opposition that has some updates as well, who that might be better directed to.

okay thank you of course any other questions for zach all right thank you very much yep john

Thank you, Chairman Fisher. Members of the Commission. My name is John Baker. I am with Rickard and Wyatt, 400 West Market Street, Suite 2000, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give is truth?

I do affirm. Yes, I do. And thank you for your time. I do want to state that I apologize to the Commission when we learned the day of July 16th that Mohamed, well, first, I'm here on behalf of Mohamed Hanbali. I'm sorry. He's with MHFNO LLC. They are the owners of the property. And MHFNO own a number of properties, probably one of the bigger landowners in this immediate area. And they look for distressed commercial properties and bring them back to life. On our original hearing date in july 16th we learned that day that uh mo as we call him and uh his friends call him could not make it because there was an intervening event and i should have continued the or asked for a continuance that day because mo could answer your questions and when he was not here especially when some what we believe to be misleading evidence was provided on the 16th he could have responded with more factual information to that so i apologize for that and that was not judicious of your time and i uh appreciate the public hearing today uh as zach did uh present to you Uh, the change we have committed to a detailed development plan, which we believe provides an extra layer of an enforcement to this property. Um, there is really weird kind of almost a missing piece of the pie zoning situation going on here. Um. And as I'll show you here in the in the presentation. MHF&O own a number of properties here at the corner. And this one slice of property that has been left R4 for a number of years, the one property 4107 has been split zoned for decades. And we don't know how that came to be, but it's been that way for a long time. You'll hear today from Mr. Fuchs, who is a property owner that is to the east of this property. His property was rezoned C2 in 1990. The property that is 4107 was C2 long before that. So we have this pie now that's almost an island on the north side of East Indian Trail that's been our four single family for decades. behind it is c2 to the east of its c2 to the west of it is c2 it fronts the suburban marketplace corridor uh it fronts a minor arterial roadway 200 feet to the east of a major arterial roadway that's popular level so as a zoning request karis 100 Uh, 213, it definitely is an agreement with the conference of plan and we would also, you know, I think that finding can clearly be made, but even an alternative finding could be made in that the existing zoning designation for the property is inappropriate in the proposed. C2 zoning for the property is also appropriate. If we can proceed to the next slide. Here's an aerial from a logic map that shows you in the green boundary are the properties that MHFNO own and control. They would like to attract a commercial user that would bring some vitality to this important corner of two arterial roadways. that's not going to happen until they can fix this zoning question if we can go to the next slide here is a zoning slide that just gives you a better idea of all the zoning designations in the area as i mentioned earlier we have c2 zoning that surrounds the property north of east indian trail directly across the property is an r4 zone property but there's a considerable amount of that does not look like it's being used in a single family residential manner but then also moving towards popular level uh you have c2 a lot of these properties including the portion that zoned c2 at 4107 are pre-planned certain c2 zoned in other words when they've been zoned longer than the requirement to file a detailed development plan um so they've been c2 that long uh and have been operating as such mr fuchs's property is to the east his site is planned certain uh was zoned in the 90s and he has an automobile repair shop that he operates from that property if we go to the next slide This just pans out to show the form districts. You can see we sit right below a suburban workplace. The property that is subject to the rezoning application is in yellow. You can see the suburban marketplace corridor down Papa level that comes out and grabs a number of properties that's at the intersection of East Indian Trail, including the property that's before you today. If we can advance to the next slide. And here is just a zoomed in version of the aerial so you can see just the weird configuration that is on 4107. Everything essentially to the west of the number of buildings that are on 4107 and in that driveway there, that is all pre-planned certain C2 property. MHF&O, the property owner, have a restaurant on the corner that operates today. But again, their idea here would be to eventually consolidate these properties and have a commercial center. MHF&O own, for example, 5011 popular level, 5015 popular level, 5022 popular level, 5401 Indian Oaks Circle, all of which are separate properties. commercial plazas or retail centers that have been dated that they're investing in and putting new life into and bringing better tenants to those existing facilities. And they would like to bring new vitality to this corner. Next slide, please. This just shows the roadway classifications for the record. Poplar Level is a major arterial roadway and where the property fronts on East Indian Trail is a minor arterial roadway. If we can go to the next slide. This is an environmental slide, there is no floodplain or indication of hydric soils steep slopes, so this would be a property, that would be you know okay to move forward on development for so wanted to put that into the record for why it's further right for development and appropriate for C2 zoning. Go to the next slide please. This is some contextual slides from Google Maps. If you look east, put the white line down there in the front yard that shows the boundary line for the zoning, C2 here in the foreground, R4 in the background. You can see 4107 there, and the zoning line is right on the east side of that structure. Then 411 is R4 single family, and then right behind that is C2 again. You can kind of get a picture of what's across the street from the property. If we can go to the next slide, we'll be looking west. You can see that roof with the different colors there. That building is on the corner of Poplar Level and East Indian Trail. Again, we're about the property subject to the zoning application is around 220, 230 feet from the intersection. If we can go to the next slide. This is directly across the street from the property that's subject to the zoning application. The property that's the gray residential structure is the R4 property. But as you can see to the east of that, it has a fairly screened in yard that is all pavement. So not entirely sure what's going on there. Auto use across the street to the west of that house. Next slide. Here is the relationship between Mr. Fuchs' property that's at 4115 East Indian Trail and the property that's R4 single family. As you can see, relatively intense use to the right. Really, it's going to be tough to use this property as single family. MHF and O allow residential use there at a very low to minimum if not zero rent just to be nice to let someone live there but there's no way they're getting any type of market rate or less than market rate rent there and it's just not suitable for residential use much longer if we can go to the next slide here's just another contextual slide that shows you that from the west to that white line, all of that property there has long been zoned C2. It is C2 pre-planned certain. And to the right is the area that is remaining R4 single family. There are a number of buildings here on the 4105, 4107 property. I know that Mr. Fuchs has issue with that. But, you know, as he rezoned his property in 1990, he should have been aware that this property has been long zone C2 zoning that allows for auto uses on that property. If we can go to the next slide. And this was an email then that you have in your hands, and I just wanted to bring this that I sent this email to zach and members of the planning department on the 17th of July, 1 day after our public hearing. Because there are a number of pictures that were provided to the planning commission that were represented that. A salvage yard was being operated on the property. now there's a tenant in 4105 in the western portion of 4107 that does auto repair that mo and you can ask him questions he's here present today has told numerous times you've got to keep the cars on your side of the property that's c2 and he's had a number of um conversations with that tenant and it's auto repair there's no salvaging of cars going on at all um however um That is what he's been subject to code enforcement from is having wrecked car parked on the R4 portion of the property. And Mo must follow up with code enforcement because to his knowledge, he has consistent communication with them. He's unaware of any open code enforcement matters on his property. But regardless, that is also the idea for the details. because until we can attract a commercial user to the property, he's stuck with that residential use. And if it's not being used as a residence, and if cars are parked on that portion of the property, then he's subject to binding element enforcement, which is an added layer that's not on that property today. So that gives Mr. Fuchs, who routinely calls code enforcement, as well as this planning commission, the ability to have Mo or MHFNO back in front of you for enforcement should he not abide by the binding element. we can move forward and the reason i have this email here is because the next day we provided planning with pictures that showed that reflect the current day the pictures that were provided to the planning commission might have had one or two pictures that mr fuchs snapped but there's a large amount of those pictures that had trees with zero leaves on them they were taken from a dated time frame but it was made have this commission believe that that was the current condition of the property with an abundance of cars all over the yard and these were the cars that were parked and these cars are parked on the c2 portion of the property if we can move forward here's the aerial to show you where that portion of the property is as you can see the picture that was taken on july 17th 2026 shows the property's backyard towards the c2 property to the east so you can see there's one line of cars that is on the back that backs up to mo's auto service and to mr mims who did raise a question that mo who runs mo's auto service and tire repair is not this mo from mhfno there's no relation there mhfno has zero interest in that property that mo's auto service and tires operates from no relation no property interest separate property entirely separate land use as well and you can see mr fuchs's property from the aerial as well so if we can go to the next slide Here is another version of the backyard that was taken on July 17th, one day after the July 16th public hearing. That is the backyard of the property, Mr. Fuchs' property in the background. If we can go to the next slide. And that just shows you some more context of where that is on the aerial in relation to where the C2 property is and where the R4 single family property is and where Mr. Fuchs' property is. If we can go to the next slide. That's just another picture of the backyard of 4111 that was taken on July 17, 2026. Next slide, please. And that's where that area from that picture was taken, in that backyard right there. Next slide, please. This is another, that's the rear part of the yard. Again, C2, that's what the relationship is today of the rear yard and a chain link fence that separates the properties. If we can go to the next slide. This is in the yard of 7, or 411, not 7, that's an error on my part, but looking west towards, or no, this is looking towards East Indian Trail. You can see Mr. Fuchs' property there on the left. That is a fence. And then front of that fence are the houses that you saw earlier in the presentation, that front East Indian Trail. Next slide, please. And just more contextual slides. And if you can just advance to that's the detailed plan. So that portion that's on the right side of the line that will have to stay in its current condition affixed to memorialize by binding element. And if MHFRO, FNO or the tenant to the west puts things that are not allowed on that property, they're subject to binding element enforcement.

We believe that provides the security for

planning as well as the neighbor so that it stays paused until a commercial user can be identified for all of the properties there at that corner. And with that, happy to take any questions as well as Moe is here. If you have any questions for the property owner, appreciate your time.

Any questions for John? Yeah, Jay, can you go back to the drawing right before you started the pictures that had the kind of lots with the blue layout?

Back a few more. Right there, right there. Is that drawing correct?

Is that property line going through that building?

That's the zoning line.

Zoning line?

Yes, sir.

That's odd. That's odd that it would, or was the building put up after the zoning?

It happens occasionally. Sometimes zoning was kind of painted with broad brushes and every now and then you'll see split zone properties, split building properties, but that structure's been there for quite some time.

Yeah, I used to live out there, so I know it's there, but yeah, I'm just amazed at how much the zoning went right through the middle of that building. Okay, thank you, John.

Any other questions? Okay, Zoe.

Zoe is with LD&D and she's here. She drafted the development plan. If there's any questions, I know it's a pretty straight development plan. There's no proposed new structures or improvements, so it's just capturing the existing condition. But she's here to answer any questions if you have anything related to the plan.

Any questions for Zoe? Muhammad, does he want to speak?

He's here to answer any questions from the commissioners.

Any questions for me?

No, one for you, John, though. Does Mo own EVA Auto Sales?

No. Okay. Thank you. And Steve Fuchs? Thank you. My name is Tom.

We swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth.

Yes, I do. All right. My name is Steve Fuchs, 4115 East Indian Trail and 40213. I do have some pictures, current pictures with the dates and times on them, but I'll pass them out.

Where did you get them? I don't know. Are you in support or are you in opposition?

Please.

Are you for or against this?

Against. Okay, and what he's telling you that he wants to do with this property is develop it or sell it to somebody who's going to develop it into something else. Well, there's not as clearly as you can see the pictures that I've got. He had a junkyard scrap yard. They're working on cars. They're painting cars all day. They don't have no paint booth. The paint that they're painting these cars is blowing it out of a fan out of the side of the building, and it covers the whole area. You can't even breathe. It looks like a big, thick fog. And all the overspray that comes off the paint, it gets all over the cars, and I got to clean them up. I've already had to buff two cars out because of the overspray. You can run your hands over it, and you can feel it. It just feels like sandpaper. And I've done that. And then, you know, he's got problems with the water not draining back in the back. They added a drain back there, and then they added on to the back of this building that he clearly saw up on the videotape here, where they added 20 foot onto the backside of it, which is in a residential section. And that's what they're painting these cars out of and doing this body work. You know, there's so many, they took all the topsoil completely off all the ground back in the back and they brought in tons and tons of big old rock, great big rock. And they can't cut the grass. The weeds were up to my neck the other day. I got pictures of that. Well, they had somebody come in yesterday and they were weed eating all the weeds. And last night I found a snake. on the driveway, and it came from over there, and I don't like snakes, I don't know anybody in here that does either, but, uh, you know, that, um, I had raccoons, there was a raccoon living in a car back there, uh, it would come over and get my garbage, you know, I finally caught that, I took it up to the zoo and let it go, but, uh, You know, he doesn't work over there. He's letting somebody work out of this building and they're cutting these cars up and they're doing this body work out of it. They have no paint booth. You know, in the state of Kentucky, if you've got a body shop and you're painting cars, you're supposed to have a paint booth. That's one of the laws. And every law has been broken here. I went down yesterday to code enforcement to see what permits were pulled. the property since he bought it and they told me there hadn't been any permits pulled on this property since the early 80s i mean it's it's been that long i knew it's been a long time it's not that i don't want him to get the zoning changed at c2 it's just that he's not going to use the property for what he's intending to use it for you know he told me he was going to be selling cars he ain't sold the first car out of there since he's been there okay can you sum it up uh well yeah that's about i'll just leave it at that but uh you look at the pictures and and that they say they say it all okay thank you very much do we have anyone else that wishes to speak for or against us and we do have anyone online joe

Okay. Rebuttal?

Yes, please.

Does John need to see the photos? Would it help for him to see what is being passed around?

Jake, if you wouldn't mind, could you bring back up the PowerPoint and then go to the last two slides before the question slide? Because those images were taken yesterday and it shows the area. And you heard Mr. Fuchs at the end of his presentation says he doesn't have an issue with the rezoning. He doesn't have an issue with the C2. This property doesn't get zoned to C2. Well, then the existing condition and the other part of the property that zoned C2 is going to stay the way it is. There's not going to be an ability to attract another commercial user that will have brand new development on the property. This image was taken yesterday. So I don't know what cars are being cut up on the R4 section of the property. If we can go to the next one. That's the zoning line right there. That was taken yesterday by Moe. I drove to the property on Wednesday. I didn't see any cars that were stacked in the property. Mo, as I said, has talked to the tenant that's operating on the C2 portion. He's told him he cannot put cars on the R4 single portion of the property. And if that tenant is doing something that is not in accord with the law, then he should not be doing that. But the reality is... we have the situation because we've been boxed in by a c2 property that is mr fuchs and frankly it's not really the subject matter of this of this hearing but mr fuchs might want to pay attention to his own property when it comes to code enforcement because he has a plan certain plan approved for his property and he's not in compliance with it so You know, we just want to have the property rezoned so we can attract a better user. There's zero question that C2 zoning is appropriate for this, considering the context that it sits in. It is staff finding that C2 is appropriate for the property. We're in the suburban marketplace corridor. It says proposed new commercial uses are encouraged to locate within the boundaries of existing corridors. Reuse of locations within existing corridors is preferred over expansion of a corridor. We're within the bounds of the suburban marketplace corridor. We would like to bring the zoning forward and into compliance with the form district and with the surrounding properties. So we can bring a new user to this corner. And it's an important corner. And we believe, you know, we've heard that there's a concentration of auto uses here. Well, if we want to bring something nice, something new, a restaurant, a retail center, we need to be able to put these properties together. And this is a piece of the pie that will allow us to do that. And with that, Happy again to take any questions. I would after the commission's finished looking at those pictures to be able to review those as well.

Any questions? I guess I'm a little confused. Is there any enforcement proceedings against this property currently? Or has there all been... Not that Mo's aware of.

I mean, he has conversations with code enforcement. He doesn't have any letters that he's aware of that says he's in violation of anything. So...

But, Zach, you said there was, didn't you?

At one point in time, there's been enforcement. It's kind of hard to parse exactly the status of that enforcement. I don't know if they've cleaned up the property and it's come out of enforcement. It was earlier this year.

Okay. Yeah, because I know when I asked you when you were speaking, if there was anything against it.

I want to just one more time make sure that I'm clear on this. So at this point, we're getting it rezoned from R4 to C2. But the use is going to remain as a single family home. And, you know, it looks like just an accessory building of some sort.

There's someone that lives in that home.

Okay. Somebody lives in the home. Um, but just as a point of clarification and, uh, as a, you know, within the context of a single family home, there's there's, uh, I'm just trying to think of the. you know, the potential issues that may come up. Okay, I'm living on that property as maybe a renter. Then I want to bring in 10 cars. Does that signify a change in use, Zach?

Yeah, it would. It would trigger... if you're parking cars on the site that would no longer be in compliance with the development plan so there's certain limited things they could do if it didn't trigger site plan requirements like if it went to a small amount of multi-family and it had the existing parking or something on the site that might be allowed but to do something like bringing cars to the site would not be in in compliance with it and they would have to get an rddp for that okay and and your client is aware of that right john

absolutely i mean direction we took from this commission was it was not comfortable with the uncertainty of a general plan and walking through options with the applicant He needs to be able to attract a user here, and he's not gonna be able to do that unless he can show them that it's zone appropriately for them to come and locate on the property. And so what we informed through Mo was that, you know, you can have a detailed plan that locks in the existing conditions, but you can only have those conditions that are there today on that property or you're subject to enforcement. And he understands that. And he also understands that should another commercial user come, they have to come back before this commission or the commission's committee to get a revised plan approved, which also would put binding elements on that revised plan. So we believe that was a solution that Addresses the neighbors concern addresses the planning commission's concern, but would allow this property to be rezone appropriately to match. The suburban marketplace corridor, and to have these properties be able to eventually be consolidated into 1 site.

Okay, and likewise, uh, you know, to actually set up a. John Potter, You know repair shop, and you know begin a painting operation of some sources that's that would not be permissible under the general plan, but he could come back and you know for a detailed plan approval and he could he could get that approved or potentially, but it would be a process where he had to come back in here right okay good Thank you.

John Potter, Any other questions for john. Thank you, John. Thank you.

And I wouldn't close the public hearing until the commissioners have finished looking at the pictures and John gets a chance to look at the pictures.

John, do you want to come forward and take a look at the pictures?

I think they're piling up over here.

They're in front of Mark there.

Thank you. you you

john would you like to address any of that only to say that a lot of those photos are dated um we we provided pictures of with the the area that zoned r4 in our presentation taken from yesterday um again you know mo has had consistent conversations with the tenant if it's going to have to be a situation where he moves that tenant off that's what I have to do. That's not most business. It's just the tenant. You know, I don't think it goes to the question of rezoning for this property. And, you know, I didn't want to make this public hearing about that. But Again, I think Mr also needs to pay attention to his own property, because there's quite a bit of compliance issues with his property.

So, well, I just to make the point he entered his evidence and and it just, we want to make sure that.

your client understands that none of that would be approved by this committee he understands that fully and he understands the ramifications of having a detailed plan iron down what can be done on that section of property that's r4 um and that's what he wants to do because his ultimate goal is to attract a user that is going to develop that corner so john is there any plans in the future of your client combining these lots into one Yes, to be a commercial user there that, depending on what kind of buildings proposed, uh, it will all be, you know, contingent on the site design for whether it's a restaurant or a small retail center that might have a number of tenants that might locate there. But. Okay, all those properties were bought at the same time.

Yeah.

Any other questions you, John.

I'm looking at the binding elements. You've looked at the binding elements too. Um, you know. by the element number one, you know, it's very clear that what's there now, you know, remains in terms of, you know, the improvements in the activity. So in what we saw in the photograph and what you see out there today, it is what it is.

And in between... our july public hearing and today we had mo and we sat down with zach at planning and we walked through that and he has a full understanding of exactly that and binding element number one we did talk about okay thank you all right thanks very much um yeah we'll close the public hearing and go to deliberation commissioners what are your

I do have some comments on this site and this proposal. I'm really familiar with this corridor having assisted Jefferson County Public Schools in buying, I don't know, 20 acres immediately south of this site. on poplar level road to expand a new middle school that they're under construction and it's contiguous to the existing school and it is improving the frontage on poplar level road to a nice expanse and it's just the immediate south block so i'm really familiar with this area and i think that Provided the applicant understands his detailed district development plan is for what is right there today, right now. I think that this is entirely appropriate. You've got this wedge of our four flanked by commercial. It's not changing the form district. And I can understand why from a development standpoint, this has to be cleaned up in order for something new to go there. And I think that would be appropriate and good for development. this entire corridor for a new use to come in and kind of clean up that corridor. So as long as the applicant is aware, they cannot make one change to that development plan. You can't put something on the back and use it in a different way. I'm in support of this.

All right. I kind of agree. Does anyone feel like a motion? Yeah, I got one comment myself. Go ahead.

Properties are sold all the time subject to zoning. And if there was a plan for a little strip center or whatever on there, this zoning would be a slam dunk. So I got a little bit of a problem with this because if you rezone this to C2, it allows him to expand the auto business on that in the intro. I think this is better served by rezoning this once they have a buyer in hand. So I'm a no on this one.

i think on pop rush you make a great point but i think in this corridor it's i think it's entirely appropriate for a landowner to rezone it to have a larger assemblage of land that he can take to the market but i understand your point any other remarks well i think it makes the possibility of of offering a bigger piece of c2 for somebody to take in and

Right there on both sides, that whole corner, that crossroad section, it is commercial on all four corners. I think it's good to get this island of R4 out of there. And go ahead and make it C2 theory.

I think that would be make it more attractive to a potential purchaser. And then when I look at the plan, 2040 plan elements and staff analysis. You know, in in every instance, it looks like there is compliance with plan 2040.

Steve, this area has been changing for the last 65 years and it should have been rezoned C2 long ago. We shouldn't penalize the applicant for his possible irresponsibility. So I would suggest we rezone it. Then the neighbor, if his photographs are accurate, can certainly go to code enforcement and get plenty of activity on this property in a hurry. it's obvious you cannot paint vehicles without a paint booth and you cannot change oil and work on vehicles without an oil water separator. So the neighbor has plenty of ammunition to have the code enforcement address this site, but I think we should go ahead and rezone it.

Yeah, I agree with probably 90% of what's been said here right now. It's a, it's, area is kind of a crud scape and you know we're putting a lot of faith in the decision we're about ready to make here and a lot of faith and mo and john and zoe and i just hope it works out i might trust that it will and i'm prepared to make a motion uh if we're ready for one so um so in the case of uh 26 zoning is zero zero five seven i make a motion uh that we recommend to louisville metro council rezoning of the property from our four single family to c2 commercial and i make the motion based on our staff recommendation our staff reporting our uh testimony here today did you did you also want to include the testimony from july 16th as well as our testimony from july 16th and thank you very much probably made motion second roll call please

Leonard, yes. Lohan, no. Cheek, yes.

Bond, yes.

Steph, yes. Mims, yes. Benitez, yes. Fisher, yes.

And moving on to the detailed district development plan, I make a motion that we approve the detailed district development plan with binding elements. I make a motion based on our staff report and our testimony here today. I'll 2nd, in the July 16th, uh, 2nd.

Properly made motion and 2nd, roll call.

Yes, no, no. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Is that it?

That's it. All right case number 826 zone 2067. Zach, you're up again.

Thank you, Chair Fischer. 26 zone 0067 at 5012 East Manslick Road in Louisville Metro. This is for the Wesley Manor Independent Living Facility.

Next slide.

Oh, thank you.

Thanks, Rachel.

All right, so we have 3 requests here before you today change in zoning from our 4 single family to our 5, a multi family residential. Variants from land development code table 5.3.1 to allow the proposed buildings to exceed the maximum height of 35 feet allowed for a proposed height of 42 feet variance of 7 feet. And then we have a detailed. Element plan with binding elements next slide. Pre-zoned R4, again, in the neighborhood farm district. The site is on roughly 21 acres. That includes the area that's going to be, that we'll talk about in a moment, for the 111 multifamily units as well as the existing nursing home facility. It's that whole parent parcel. There is an existing nursing home approved under conditional use case number B9574. Of course, that was in 1974. They are currently working on minor modifications to that CUP with staff. We're almost there to allow that nursing home to adjust to accommodate this development. And then again, there's that variance for the building height to accommodate a proposed three-story development. Next slide. You'll see here again, this is that independent living site just behind that that almost star shape type building. That's the existing retirement community wasn't in a retirement community and that's going to be on. i don't know if the applicants are intending to separate these parcels or not i believe that they are um that's on about 15 acres this is on about five acres uh the the new 111 multifamily units next slide got some elevations here we can go through those as our own over the next several slides And then here's a rendering of the artistic rendering of what it's going to look like. Next slide. We have a view. You can see it's a lot of yellow here, a lot of R4 surrounding. But there is R5A immediately to the east. I believe that's connected in terms of ownership with this facility. Next slide. Here's an aerial view of those properties. along East Manslick Road. Next slide. With the Snyder to the south. Here's a view of that property from East Manslick. You can kind of see the facility. We'll see a better picture of it in a moment in the background. Next slide. This is a view on the east side of Manslick looking back towards the west. You can again kind of see that facility in the background. Next slide. Here's a closer view from the driveway of that Wesley Manor facility. Next slide. Here is a view of the multifamily units to the direct east of this site. Next slide. You can kind of see it's... not terribly dense development with pretty good setbacks, but these are some residential properties to the west of the proposed development. Next slide.

Here's a view across to East Manslick Road. Next slide.

Staff findings here, change in zoning from R4 to R5A is compliant with Plan 2040. The request is served by adequate infrastructure and will advance diverse housing options in the community. The variance for building high is adequately justified meets standard review and the DDP meets LDC and Plan 2040 guidelines. Next slide. So we've got two staff recommendations. Staff recommends the zone change request, finds it in keeping with Plan 2040, recommends that Planning Commission recommend Louisville Metro Council approve the change, and then finds the justification for the variance and DDP are adequate and recommends that Planning Commission approve those requests. And here are your required actions. Again, recommend Louisville Metro Council approve or deny change in zoning R4 to R5A. Approve or deny the variance for land development code table 5.3.1. Approve or deny the detailed district development plan with dining elements. And I think Tony Kelly might be online as well. If you all have questions related to drainage, there was some kind of back and forth. But MSD has preliminarily approved the plan as well as transportation planning. But that's all I have for the staff report. Happy to answer questions.

Any questions for Zach?

Well, what about Beth Stuber? Is she dialed in?

I'm sorry. Is she dialed in right now? Okay. There you go.

Well, I guess, was there any, East Manslick, I guess, is a state road. Did we hear anything from the Transportation Cabinet about this?

No. There was, Transportation had some comments, but they were mostly related to the sidewalk on the frontage. We got that figured out. They had a sidewalk that was pretty far recessed off of Manslick Road that they're relocating to accommodate this development. But that was, to my recollection, just about it.

I guess because there's so many darn entrances into this facility, there's no left turn requirement. Was there any consolidation? I mean, this thing keeps on growing in little pieces.

I don't believe transportation required anything like that, and they didn't make any comment to that end. But if Beth's around, she'd probably be more qualified to answer those questions.

All right.

Okay.

No, they were surprisingly noncommittal on this one.

Surprisingly, not in the middle.

Yeah, they didn't really say anything. You need to swear her in. Oh, yeah, I guess I am staffed.

Say again? Swear her in. Swear me in. Oh, yeah, she needs to be sworn in.

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

Yes.

Wave.

Wave.

Okay, well, that was a, we had talked to them a couple of times about this site and they did not. Have any concerns that they expressed to us. You know, we went over the cases. They weren't even really concerned about the right of way, which was kind of surprising.

Okay, and were they putting. What about sidewalks, or is there a sidewalk along Manslick?

There's a meandering sidewalk, and I believe they're also going to put a... I wish I could remember off the top of my head, because there was discussion about that.

Yeah, they're relocating more of a recreational path, and then there's going to be more of a traditional sidewalk along Manslick Road.

It runs the full east-west length.

Okay. And the only other thing I remember was the trying to connect Coventry Lane opposite Cherville Road. But anyway, we'll hear from Ashley and see what she has to say.

Okay.

Okay. Good. Thank you.

Any other questions for Zach or Beth? Okay. Thank you very much.

Of course.

Let's see. Greg?

I can't read to Ashley.

Ashley.

Good afternoon. Ashley Bartley, QK49920 Corporate Campus Drive 4223. I've also got Andrew Alden here.

Andrew Alden, AG Architecture, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes.

We got a podium upgrade. It's nice. It is bigger. We're going to. If you want to stand up here, you can, I'm going to do the 1st section 2nd stand here and support you.

Sounds great.

All right. I'm going to go ahead and. Address your questions Mr. members just so I don't forget. Yes, there is a sidewalk provided in the right away. It is more of a meander. So that will be provided and it has multiple connections. I'll show you that on the site plan as far as the left turn. We never heard any requests. This is assisted living for the aging senior population. so they're not driving as much. We never heard much more about infrastructure other than that. But again, we did have the sidewalk located on the property and then we pulled it out into the right-of-way. And well, just to address 1 other comment, we will not be subdividing this partial out. It will remain the 1 parcel for the contiguous 21 acres. If we do subdivide it, the density frankly, doesn't work on that small. So. So, without further ado, here's the an aerial photo of the campus. So that blue shape is where the development area is next slide. Uh, just to kind of orient you in the county, we are out in kind of the South of the Oklahoma area back up to the gene Snyder East of interstate 65. Next slide. And just to kind of review the campus. So this parcel outlined in blue is the subject property that we're seeking to rezone. The parcel to the east is also owned by Wesley Manor. It's a separate parcel that is the cottage development. So those are condo type living for, again, the aging population. And then to the east of that looks like one house with a long driveway. That actually was a house that they converted into a community center for use by the residents. That actually got approved for additional independent living units summer. So that will also be part of this kind of overall campus redevelopment. The campus was built in the sixties, started in, I believe, 1967, the star shaped assisted living memory care building. And then the nursing home was built in the seventies. So it is aging. The nursing home currently is undergoing an M cup modified conditionally use permit. I'm not sure they've been kind of been running concurrently, but I think it's close to being approved. Or maybe even approved because it was going to be staff level. They're doing some minor interior renovations and Andrew can talk more about that later when he's up. Next slide please. Excuse me, so this is a Google search that I did for independent living facilities in the Jefferson County area. The star is Wesley Manor and all those red dots are the ones that popped up on the map. So you can see very concentrated in the northeast part of the county and not a lot down in the south part of the county. So this is definitely, especially with the aging population needing more facilities like this. This is an underserved use in this area. Next slide. Here's another zoning map. So, yeah, it's predominantly are for, but those 2 other parcels of Wesley manner are both zoned are 5 a. so with the that East parcel, we didn't have to go through a rezone. It was already zone correctly and actually had been approved for independent living previously. So we just did a revised development plan there.

Next slide.

Here's just another copy of the development plan. The red area is actually a section of the conditional use permit that we are releasing because we don't need it anymore for this use. So the nursing home facilities do operate on the R4 with that conditional use permit, but the independent living does not require it, just the R5A. Next slide. And then here's a rendering. So I'll kind of walk you through the site plan. Cause this is a little easier to see, um, on the, so this is north is generally up, uh, on the west side is the west access and that is there. So both of the access points exist today. We are modifying them, widening them slightly to become 24 feet and making the radii correct per their requirements. Um, we're adding 152 parking spaces, which, uh, the range of required is 111 to 222. So we're on that lower end. Of, you know, in the middle, the yellow building is the proposed independent living 3 story building and Andrew is going to talk a lot about that and the height variation out in kind of the front and center in between the building and man slick is right now. It's fairly conceptual, but that'll be an outdoor activity area for the residents. And then you can kind of see, you see that Miranda meandering sidewalk along the frontage. Outside the purple line is the property line so you can see it is within the right away and then it connects into a network of sidewalks throughout the property and leading to specific points of ingress and egress on the north and south and east and west actually lots of sidewalks. There was also a question about the access to the East to Coventry lane. You can kind of see at the Northeast on that Eastern access. There's a road that actually this already connects. So there is cross connectivity between the 2 parcels and the sidewalks will also provide connection between the 2.

Uh, let's see what else do I have?

Oh, detention. Um, yeah, I know Tony's on the phone. I had heard that we, we went back and forth a lot and we frankly did way more than we typically do at this stage in the game as far as detention analysis and preliminary grading this site. So we're. In the, let's see East of the West entrance. There's kind of a rectangle with. With radius corners, that is the at grade detention basin. There's actually a detention basin in that general area. Now it takes on. I can't remember how many acres, but. A significant portion to the north drains there, and then it's kind of hard to see, but to the west, there's actually a pond kind of at the top left. That's the overflow. So right now, that's an existing at-grade detention basin that takes off-site drainage. So we're maintaining that. We've already done the calculations to confirm that that is large enough. And we went through very many iterations of the building design to make that work. Andrew can attest to that. We used to actually have like a west finger that went up into there, but... ultimately the detention kind of helped shape how the building laid out, although I think it's a great building. We might be able to make all of the detention from off-site and the new development work in that basin, but if we can't, that rectangle that is to the left of the 152 spaces label, that is an area reserved for underground detention. I haven't sized that, so that's completely conceptual, but that's where we could put underground detention for the new impervious only. because the through drainage has to be in a traditional at-grade basin. And we also did start looking at some grading because of the height variance. We are requesting seven feet, which I'm getting ready to turn it over to Andrew, but there's a lot of grade change on the site and the grade differentiates Pretty significantly around, you know, this is a pretty large building. So, from 1 side to the other, we have, you know, this is even going to have, like, a stepped finish floor. So there's a lot of things that play here, but we've put a lot of time into this 1 and feel like we've got it at a good place and definitely a use that could be appreciated in this part of the county and community to help with the aging population. I think that's all I have. I'll turn it over to Andrew. You can stay if you like. Okay. I'll hang out.

Next slide. There we go. So, this slide specifically shows the grade plate analysis that we're going to talk about for the height variance. I can also speak into the microphone. This shows the grade plan analysis that we use to talk about the height variance requirement. So the footprint on the top shows the building and we basically put the building into two buildings so that the portion on the left, we take advantage of the grain on site. So we're able to build it into the hillside a little bit and we can drop it down. And then the U shape on the right, that is a full three floors. That's the requested height variance. You'll see some other images coming up. So the point of all of this exercise is to say we tried to work with the site for a portion of the building that didn't need the variance, but the other portion does. So that's why we're here requesting the variance. We tried to do our due diligence and make it work. That's what I'm getting at. So next slide. So that sort of shows the difference on the left. You can see where it's built into the hill. It's a little lower and on the right. It's not built into the hill. So it's a little higher and that's where we need the height variant request. We go in the next slide. So, here we see, we got 42 feet overall and down at the bottom that 34 feet. So, by working with a topography on site, we were able to reduce the overall height of the building, have a blend in a little more with the landscaping and topography building wise. We're at 111 units to guest suites, a mixture of 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, 2 bedroom core units, ranging in size from. I think 850 to about 1300 square feet. So it's a pretty big building and we did our best to mass it to be residential in nature with common forms and features. So you have pitched roofs, you have good quality material, stone, brick, siding that we're all used to seeing. Everybody has a balcony and a porch. Go to the next one.

We're just working our way around the building perimeter.

And 1 more, and this 1 shows the center of the building, whereas the comments, so a lot of resident amenities are there a little larger volume spaces, amenity spaces, nice activity. That's where a lot of the stone goes. So the purpose of the elevations is to show that we were trying to respond to the context of the neighborhood with residential forms and shapes and materials because of the scale of the building. That's why we need to height variance because of the. The topography that we're able to work with a little bit, but not on a portion of the building. Next slide and there's a rendering just think design intent. This is very conceptual nature. We're at the very beginning of the project. We're just working these things out. So design intent once again, really looking for that residential form a nice warm, soft feel to the building. That's the corner as you drive into the campus. And picking up on the. the discussion about the nursing home. You can see the assisted living, 1963 in the nursing home, 1978 for construction. So there is some minor, not minor, there's some interior renovations going on in a nursing home now, trying to encourage that to get a little higher quality of life for residents and staff and make that interior look better. So Wesley Manor is always working on improving their environments. And back to the original site. Anything else you want?

That's it for us. We're here for questions.

Any questions?

I do have a question. If you could go back to the site plan for the building. On the left side at the western entrance, is that a stub into the long portion of the building for interior parking or is that a delivery area?

That's back of house delivery.

Okay. Thank you.

What's the ceiling height of these apartments?

I believe they're at nine feet.

Nine feet. Now, is all of this interconnecting?

Yes. The building is connected amongst itself on the main level. And I think it's staggered a bit. So there is at least one across the whole building.

Elevators?

Oh, yes.

Where is... Somewhere right around in that area, there's a pond out in front. Is that to the west of the site?

Yeah, it's kind of that dark. If you see that second tree on the far left, yeah, that is the pond. And that's actually the overflow for the detention basin currently and will continue to be. And that's in front of a single family residence.

Okay, and you're going to keep the walking path around it, right? I think there is.

Oh, the pond. There's no pond on this property. There's a ditch that will be piping.

Right in that area somewhere, I know there's a big pond out front.

Yeah, there's that one, but that's on the adjacent property.

Okay, yeah.

All right, there it is. Okay. Any other questions?

Have you asked the fire department what they said about the heighth?

be questioned in far as the building height yeah no i've not run into that before with the well i'm just wondering since it's seven foot higher than what's normally out there and that's mostly in the roof um okay all right i mean they the fire department does comment actually on the rezone so they didn't have any comments based i think although their comments were fairly generic they just add these notes to the plan so all right thank you it's a sprinkle building though right

Of course it does. Yes. Okay. Any other questions?

All right.

Now you're actually in Andrew and I don't know if anybody else, I think other people might've signed up to speak. Oh, I didn't introduce our team. we brought a whole entourage so we do have mark stevens from wesley banner pat gleason uh he's with graystone graystone development he's their co-developers on this and you've met andrew and me and we've also got greg erhard who's the counsel for the project but unless they have anything to say i think just here for answering questions correct yep okay thank you very much thank you thank you okay is there anybody else here that would like to speak for or against this

And do we have anyone online, Rachel?

OK, we'll move into deliberation.

Commissioners, I think this is a nice fit.

I'll be brief. Yeah, I think this is a great fit. I'm really familiar with this area. I'm very familiar just having driven this by some of the development here. And as someone who has a parent in senior living, I think that this is just an excellent fit for your campus for transitional care so people can stay in this area. And I hope it looks like that elevation because that's a beautiful building.

It is.

is and i'm in full support yes uh there's no more questions would someone like to make a motion i was just going to say that the slide that showed the density of um of similar facilities in the northeastern part of the county was a stark comparison to uh to this property so yes that's i'm i'm prepared to yeah i'm prepared to make it actually one down the road from it that wasn't showing up behalf

So, well, behinds are tiny though. I mean, I think they're there, but I think, yeah, I'm prepared to make a motion unless there are any other comments. All right. Um, In regards to this case 26 zone 0, 0, 6, 7, I based on the testimony heard today and the staff report I recommend that we recommend approval to the local Metro Council to approve the request change in zoning second.

Probably made motion and second roll call.

Yes, yes. Yes. Bond? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Mims? Yes. Sidner?

Yes.

Benitez?

Yes.

Fisher? Yes. All right. And regarding the variance from the land development code to allow the proposed building to exceed the maximum height, I recommend we approve the variance. And I base that on the staff report, the testimony heard today, and the beautiful rendering.

I'll second. Properly made motion and second. Roll call.

Lannett? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And lastly, I recommend approval of the detailed district development plan based on staff report and the testimony heard today.

Did you want to include the binding elements?

Pardon me? Did you want to include the binding elements? Yes.

Properly made motion and second roll call.

Planner. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, all right.

The final case today is number 925 LDC 0, 0, 1, 2 and Rachel.

I don't think I can quite reach that Zach.

That was nice of him wasn't it?

Uh huh.

Alright, last but not least here, we have 25 LDC0012 back to you that was continued from the July 30th Planning Commission. This is related to notice requirements for zoning and form district map amendments. Uh, so I'm gonna bump through this is mostly the same presentation that I'll have just a refresher sentence since it's been a minute since you guys saw this and then some additional information. So, the request is a text amendment to the level Metro LDC regarding notice requirements for zoning informed district map amendments. Uh, this was initiated by a resolution from Metro Council in 2025. it requested that the planning commission undertake a review of the LDC with regard to notice provisions, including posting unique signs for neighborhood meetings and expanding notice for zoning cases to include property owners outside of the required 1st and 2nd tier threshold. Um, if you may recall the posting unique signs for neighborhood meetings was taken care of that was, um, placed as a requirement in the bylaws in the planning commission bylaws. Uh, so that is now an active requirement for zoning change cases. Uh, so this case was continued from the July thirtieth planning commission, uh, to address, um, concerns about increased burden on applicants. So, uh, our office staff, we met with the building industry association and with the Metro council members that sponsored this resolution. and staff's determination was that no changes should be made to the proposed text amendment and because that is because as written it provides an appropriate balance between the desire for additional notice and managing the burden on applicants um so we uh you know as part of meeting with both parties uh it didn't seem like either party was willing uh to make a compromise So, staff feels that the compromise that staff has presented is the best option to balance both the, as I said, both the desire for increased notice and trying to manage burden on applicants. So. So as a reminder, the recommendation is to expand notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property in traditional forms and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property in suburban forms. And then in addition, it also updates the current resident notice to buildings within 500 feet of the subject property in all form districts. And then there's also an additional provision to clarify that no notice is required across expressways, railroads, or perennial streams. So just to be very clear, that means that the recommendation is for owners within 500 feet and current residents within 500 feet in the traditional forms, and owners within 1,000 feet and current residents within 500 feet in the suburban forms. So just buzz through this really quick because you guys saw this before, the exact same information. But again, staff reviewed zoning change applications over the past four years. And we analyzed the options for a third and fourth tier adjacent property expansion as well as these 500,000 foot buffers and also performed cost comparison for each notice option. So if you guys will recall these maps that were created on the next slide. So this was these were the maps that were created, the colored in properties are the options for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier. And then the buffers around it are obviously the 501,000 foot buffers. So staff determined that the 3rd and 4th tier would be. significantly burdensome on applicant uh and that sort of the straight distance buffer requirement was more reasonable um as an option to expand notice so jay if you just want to click through the next one similar here you can see how how burdensome a third and fourth tier um could be uh and how that the the buffer uh makes a little bit more sense And then this is an example of the cost comparison that we looked at again. We've showed this before, but so this is an example of a zoning case from 2022, the 1st and 2nd tier, which is required by law was 224 notices. 136 dollars going to 3rd and 4th tier would have. Almost increased that by four times, so 700 notices, $431. Going to the 500-foot buffer does double our notice increase and roughly double our cost, but it does not necessarily increase it as much as going to the third and fourth tier would. And we did some additional cost analysis. I don't have it in the presentation here, but I think you'll recall some of the developers and applicant representatives that spoke at the last hearing talked about how the current resident notice is specifically burdensome on the applicants because they could have apartment buildings with a lot of units next door. And so I had our staff run some comparisons on some other ones. And we do think that by looking at it that Instead of the first and second tier buildings and multifamily properties, being very clear that it's any building within 500 feet is actually in some cases going to reduce the number of current resident notices. So, you know, I think that there is a balance here where we're making it more clear where the notice lies. And, you know, for property owners, but also specifically for the current resident notices when there's large apartment buildings.

So before I forget my question, if I can jump in. So if notice if if the 500 foot buffer, let's say bisects an apartment building apartment complex, the notice is just to those folks within that buffer and not to residents outside.

That will be correct.

Thank you.

Yes, that is sort of, like I said, the compromise here to say that we do understand that it takes the applicants sometimes, you know, if it's a big, big case and they've got 700 notices, it could take, you know, a paralegal a whole day to put that together. And we do understand that. But part of that is making this determination of what's first, what's second, where's the building, what's the building. If we implement this, like I said before, we feel confident that we have the ability to create an online mapping tool where folks can see the 500,000 foot buffer and it should help make this easier.

And that is our intent. Be maybe added to logic or would it be added to the GIS that has the online GIS map?

If you're familiar with like our short term rental map, it would be like that. Okay. It might not be integrated into Logic, but it could be hosted on our website and would be similar to that short-term rental map. So staff finds that the proposed amendment increases public notice and minimizes additional regulatory burdens on the applicant, and that it advances the equity principle of the Chase principles by encouraging the engagement of more citizens in the decision-making process, and that it's consistent with community form goal one, objective E, as it will result in increased opportunity for the community to be engaged in the planning process. So your required action is to recommend that the Louisville Metro Council approve, approve with modifications or deny the proposed text amendment related to expanded notice.

And that's it. Any questions?

No, just an appreciation for you all going out to the BIA and, you know, talking it through with them. I think that made a world of difference after it was, I think it was Cliff, you know, that kind of brought up that, you know, this was potentially a pretty big deal to developers. And I think that kind of softened things when, you know, you kind of went out and explained it and reached a reasonable compromise. Thank you for doing that.

Did the Builders Association agree with this? They didn't agree to anything, right?

Yeah, I mean, I can't speak for them, but I'll say that the sentiment was not strongly positive. But again, like I said, our ultimate goal determination and our sort of job as staff here is to speak to all of the interested parties, but to ultimately determine what we think is the best application and the most reasonable proposal and also the one that balances the needs. And so that's why we ultimately determined that not to make any changes to the proposal. Ultimately, this is a recommendation to Metro Council. And so they can ultimately have final say on what they want this to look like. And so we also did not want to deviate too much from what the council sponsor's goal was with this resolution. So we feel that this is the best compromise to balance the desire for increased notice from council and the concern for additional burden on the applicants.

Okay. Any other questions.

You want us to make a motion to approve to now or modify right right, yeah, yet to recommend recommends to get the motion be to recommend approval denial to Metro Council.

Do we have to go into business session.

I make a motion. I like Mike motion case number 25 LBC dash 0, 0, 1, 2, I recommend the text amendment on the land development code that Metro approved based on board and testimony heard today.

I also want to include the testimony from July 30th.

Yes.

And there is also findings of fact included in the staff report for you.

Yes, findings of fact, definitely. Do I hear a second?

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

Leonard?

No.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.