Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

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

Leonard low hand here born present. Fisher?

Here.

Mims? Here. Staff?

Here.

Benitez?

Here.

Seastrunk?

Here. I'm asking the staff to please stand up so I can swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth? Yes. Thank you. First order of business is approval of minutes, August 20th, 2026, planning commission minutes. Commissioners, have you had a chance to review it? And if you have, are there any questions, comments, changes that need to be made and or I will entertain a motion.

I've reviewed them and I'm ready to make a motion if you're ready to take one. Okay, so I make a motion that we approve the August 20th, 2026 meeting minutes.

second properly made motion a second roll call please planet yes born yes lohan yes fisher yes mims yes steph yes benitez yes sister yes

Next item on our agenda, moving into our consent agenda, is 26th Street closure 0025, which is a request for closure of a public right-of-way. Location is Old Man Slick Road. Our case manager is Abby Beals. Commissioners, have you had a chance to review this closure? And if so, do you approve the consent agenda? I'll take a motion.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Yeah, just to approve the consent agenda.

Um, there was a motion to approve the consent agenda and 2nd, properly made motion, um, please. Yes, yes, yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Moving into our business session is 25 LDC0014, which is a text amendment to the land development code, project name data centers. Our case manager is Joseph Haberman. We are in business session, but Joe, do you have anything to add or staff?

We have a new draft that we shared with the commission in advance that shows the changes that we field work conceptually agreed to by the commission at the last hearing we also have some additional changes that the commission might want to make based on that feedback that we've continuously received i can put it up on the screen i just have it in ordinance format because that might be the easiest way to look at it but that's at your discretion okay yeah let's let's take a look at it um commissioners did everyone receive the revised drafts yes yes okay perfect

So Joe, I guess for the sake of everybody, if you could just walk us through.

Okay, so I'll kind of go through section by section to remind you of what we agreed to. What's highlighted in this draft is new language or modified language from the draft that I sent prior to the meeting. So, as far as the definitions are concerned, we did strike 2 definitions. There was the decision by the commission to not regulate prevailing wage. So, by that decision, we no longer needed the definitions related to that regulation. So they were just stricken.

And. Or 269, um.

our 4268 we really made no meaningful changes in that section other than some renumbering for our 4268 but what we've heard feedback about was a lot of people were concerned about complex development projects such as a data center coming before the border zoning adjustment so if you see this highlighted language down here it says notwithstanding 11 5a in cases in which the development also requires a zoning or form district map amendment the conditional use permit shall be heard and decided by the planning commission right now if you read 11 5a it it reads as an option that you could have the rezoning or form district done at an earlier point and come back to the conditional use this will require that it comes with the rezoning application and will be acted on by the commission so that's new and 4269 which relates to the data centers between 50 and 500 000 square feet the changes we made in the draft that we sent we increased that separation from 500 feet to a quarter of a mile so that's addressed in the draft that you received We also added some language that they had to be that far from a hazardous, a potentially hazardous use. We made some changes to the times in which generators work and how those work. But the big change related to the noise, we went with what we talked about with the Kentucky Resources Council with some tweaks to that. Those tweaks just to remind the commission where they had a forty or forty five, uh, decimal. Floor, um, we changed that to sixty five and the version across the board and then we not to stop you.

But the reason for that change once again was because that's what all our other. DBAs are set at, right?

Correct. In our code as it stands today, the only time that you see a DBA reference, it will have 65. So the other uses that we have a specific noise standard for is that 65 DBA. Okay. Thank you. So I'm highlighting that section here because we did hear some feedback about that and made a potential other change to that that the commission might want to entertain. and so in the version i sent you it was 65 dba there was we didn't make any changes to the kentucky resource council suggestion related to dbc which focuses more on that low frequency noise but we added something that could be more restrictive which is shall not exceed 65 dba or an increase of 5 dba from the baseline ambient level before construction as documented in the noise plan so that could whichever is less so that could be a more restrictive standard in some context We also changed a couple of shoulds to shalls in terms of the waste heat ventilation and the closed loop systems. Both those went from encouraged or should be to shall be. And we added some language about an environmental impact study as requested. So those pretty much sum up the changes to that section.

We also had a decommissioning piece in there as well. At least the draft I saw this morning.

The decommissioning piece was, yeah, we added that in if it wasn't already in there under that draft for the larger ones. We did add the decommissioning piece in the new draft, and I'll touch on that in a second because that wasn't required for the other types.

So for data centers of less than 50,000 square feet,

We addressed another issue and I guess we did this with the larger ones as well, is there was some concerns generally if we're going to create non-conformities through this ordinance, there are data centers already in existence throughout the county. Some of them might not beat the zonings, some of them might not meet a standard, so by passing this, we're going to create non-conformities. There was some concern that if one of those existing ones wanted to expand that they should meet the rules. Now, we would probably have arrived at that by interpretation anyway, but just to provide some comfort to people, we added language into this new draft, what's highlighted there that states that if you are expanding a non-conforming data center, lawfully non-conforming data center, that that expansion then triggers the conditional use permit requirement if needed. And that expansion will have to meet all the standards. There's already language in the code that talks to how you expand nonconformities and you can't unlawfully expand a nonconformity. But this makes it very clear that we view that action as an expansion. The addition of white space square footage is an expansion. And so that will be set forth in the ordinance.

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

Yeah.

Now, when these data centers expand, that are existing, do the existing centers, they don't have to come up to code, do they? Are they like grandfathered in?

The ones that don't expand?

The new expansion, I understand, have to meet. But what about the ones that are existing?

They're going to be deemed lawful non-conforming uses. And under state law, they can continue to exist in their current state. If they make changes, there's

changes will have to be compliant but you they won't have to come into compliance okay all right yeah that's what i was that's what i was under uh wanting to know excuse me so to say that another way um if they're doing an expansion and the existing section doesn't have a closed loop system for example the existing section can stay Open sourced and then the new section cooling has to be closed loop just to use that as an example.

Yeah. So they would need to go through the mechanisms to get relief to that requirement for whatever reason they might have.

On the new part of the existing part, the new part on the new part. Okay.

And they would do that as part of the conditional use process. So there would be a hearing and they would have to explain and justify why they needed the relief.

A related question. So for those data centers that are already in operation, I didn't see a provision in here for monitoring whether or not they are in compliance if they, you know, with environmental impacts, things like that, that they committed to do during the application process. Will there be monitoring periodically of the operation and impacts from those data centers. The ones that are permitted through this new ordinance?

Yes. There's no monitoring required through the ordinance above and beyond what we do for any conditional use. So we can monitor conditional uses as you know, operation of the department. But typically, we do that through enforcement and hearing through complaints that there might be compliance issues that we need to investigate. There's nothing proactive required in the ordinance, if that's what you're asking.

It is.

Thank you.

Also in this section for the ones of less than 50,000 square feet, we increased the separation and the setbacks as discussed. Now there's a lot of yellow on this page and I'm just flipping back and forth so you see the title. That is because we took the noise standards that applied to the larger ones and we put them into the ones of less than 50,000 in this version on your screen. On the one that you had received previously, we left at just 60. They had to meet 65 at or beyond the property line, and there was no requirement for a noise study. So this version right here would apply the same noise standards to data centers regardless of size, with the exception of telecommunication and accessory data centers.

I have a question, Joe, since you're on that section. When I was going through the version that you sent out last week, I noticed that the separation on data centers, 50,000 square foot or less, was 100 feet to any structure. Has that been changed? It seems kind of, you know, it seems like a kind of a short distance. And I didn't know if there was some

good reasoning behind that or not. But anyway, I thought I'd ask. It's 4.3.35.

The reasoning was the smaller ones tend to have less impact and be in more developed areas. So they have the 100 foot separation from those sensitive uses. But to address the data center concentration issue, there still is the same quarter mile separation. from data center to data center in this version.

Okay. And if it helps, in the draft that we looked at back on August 20th, the number had been 25 feet, and the commission and direction of staff wanted to increase that from 25 feet to 100 feet in this version. So it was originally an even smaller distance.

So it was a conscious type decision on our part. Good. I'm fine then.

Thank you.

In the version on the screen, not the version that was distributed earlier, we also made a change to require the closed loop system for the data centers of under 50,000 square feet. If for any reason they can't meet that, they would need a conditional use permit and they could make their case as part of that process. But that went from encouraged to required with an exception for the accessory and telecommunication data centers. and then there's some renumbering but then we also added in this version on the screen not the version you received a decommissioning plan requirement for the smaller ones previously we only had that for the larger ones For the telecommunication, the only real change we made in the draft that's on the screen is the same language related to nonconforming uses. And if they expand, we want to make sure that the expansion triggers the conditional use permit process. And that the new square footage or the new developments all compliant.

And then.

That's pretty much all the major changes that we made. But again, we made all the changes that were requests at the planning commission. I can go through my notes and see if there's anything that I missed, but I'd be happy to answer any questions or address anything that that we feel wasn't quite addressed.

Any questions commissioners or any just comment or discussion? It looks like, go ahead.

In looking at that page, I had flagged that when the draft came out and it looks like it's still there in this draft. When you go to D with the generators, I think you were on the right page. at the end with the, yeah. So in this 4.4.14 D, it just says 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. And on the other similar language, it goes Monday through Friday. And then there's an additional sentence that talks about a definition of emergency use. And I thought for consistency purposes, that same Monday through Friday and definition of emergency use should probably be in that D.

So I didn't go into detail on that change, but we took that definition of an emergency that we spoke of that clarified that emergency couldn't be some self-created emergency, that it had to be the loss of power necessitating the need to trigger the generator. There was no direction to apply that to accessory where we didn't have a lot of conversation about accessory, but we could add that in here if you only want to make sure that generators for accessory data centers have to follow the same rules that's an easy change to make yeah my thought is yeah to Laura's point it would be consistent that section would be anyone else all right I think um

Staff, you did a great job. Thank you for picking up all the changes from both us and the community. So we thank you for that. With that, commissioners.

One comment, and I understand that based on these proposed these draft text amendments, data centers can be located. and M3 or M1 areas. And those areas, especially M1 or M3, may be concentrated in certain parts of Louisville Metro.

No. No. So what we did is we, I'm trying to find a section. So we're on the same page.

No, I'll just answer there. Brian Davis, Office of Planning. So for the larger, over 50,000 square feet, we took out the M3, and so it's only M1 with conditional use permit.

Only M1?

Yes. I was looking so I can direct you to that section. Can you say that again? 4.2.69. 4.2.69.

Okay, I'm there. Anyone else?

Okay, so our responsibility is to recommend approval of these revised ordinance. Either approval or denial to Metro Council as written meaning and when we say as written as was just described on the screen to us today, or we can make further changes and recommend approval or denial to Metro Council upon that as well.

And I think you've already recommended one additional change to what's shown on the screen with respect to the generator in terms of hours of testing and what emergency means.

So that would have to be, if someone's going to make a motion, you would have to reference section 4.4.14 accessory data centers subsection D as part of your motion. So with that, I will entertain a motion.

I'm ready to make a motion. I also want to make a comment. First of all, the staff has done a great job. It's been a long several number of weeks and we've through four, you know, forums and probably 20 hours of testimony by the public. And this is kind of the way it ought to be. You know, this is we heard a lot of issues that are related to data centers. But at the end of the day, our, our decision is really about a kind of a normal text amendment to the land development code. And so with that, I think we have captured a lot of the essence of what we heard, and we have put it into what I think is. A well crafted ordinance to do nothing at this point. It's not an option. We've got to move forward with this and so with that, I'm prepared to make a motion. in the case of 25 LDC 0014, I make a motion that we recommend to Louisville Metro Council adoption of this text amendment to the Land Development Code with the revisions that we saw today, including 4.4.14 subsection B. And I make that motion based on a long stretch of of um hearings and uh and text amendments that we've seen today in the staff report can you extend that motion to the suburban cities with zoning authority i do and thanks for the reminder i'll second properly made motion a second roll call please planet no bon

Now.

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

Can you give me give me a count, please?

53.

So this has been recommended to Metro Council for approval as well as other jurisdiction have been zoning authority. Now moving into our public hearing, we have 26 waiver 0077. This case is being withdrawn. Do we need to do anything with this? No? Just withdraw it? Okay.

It's being withdrawn. There's no action you need to take.

All right. On this next one, we do need to take action. So 26 zone 0034, which is a change in zoning from R5 residential single family residential to R5B residential. two family residential with the detailed district development plan with binding elements. The location is 2211 Rockford Lane. Our case manager is Zach Jones. And then just so you know, commissioners, this has been requested to be continued to a date uncertain. I'll turn it over to you, Zach.

I appreciate it, Chair Sestra. Just a little more information on it. This one was originally a DIYer. They've switched over to a different engineering firm. uh who's just taking a little bit of a broader look and they want to cross their t's dot their eyes so they're starting back over with the neighborhood meeting again so that's the reason they decided late in this process to continue this to a date uncertain to give them a little bit more time to get the proper input i think any questions of um zach commissioners if not i'll entertain a motion to continue this to a date uncertain

I'm ready to make a motion it's in the case of 26 own 0, 0, 3, 4, I make a motion that we continue this case to a date and certain to make a motion based on our staff recommendation and testimony today.

Second probably made most of the second roll call please.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,

Um, next case, um, hold on 1, 2nd. Hey, Joe.

Are we going to approve the approval of.

Center minutes that we talked about, so we're going to start working on them.

Now, so that they may be available by the end of the meeting or prior prior to the start of the special meeting at 5 where we might be able to take action on them.

Okay. I just wanted to. Make sure I knew that. Okay. Um, next case is, um, enforcement zone 25 0 0 1 6 1 6, which is a pill of a binding element side tech shin location is 48 26 Preston highway and Laura Ferguson assistant county attorney as our case manager. I'll turn it over to you.

Yes, Laura Ferguson, Assistant County Attorney, 200 South 5th Street, Suite 300 North, 40202. So this case has been in front of you a couple of times. The commission had previously upheld the citation but continued a decision on the fine to see how a revised detailed development plan application would progress. And I've got a pretty short update. It appears that... The case manager received correspondence from the professional working on the application that the property owner was no longer paying for his services. So the agency comments still have not been addressed. There's been no further action on the case. It seems unlikely further action will proceed on this development plan in the absence of something changing. And I don't see any reason to continue this further. I would go ahead and ask for a motion to uphold the amount of the fine, which is $1,000.

Any questions, commissioners?

No, it's too bad. You kind of hope that the folks do the right thing, but they didn't. So I'm ready to make a motion.

Ready to hear it.

So in the case of enforcement zoning 25001616, I make a motion that we uphold the $1,000 fine that has been assessed on this property by virtue of this violation.

I'll second.

Probably made most of the second row call please.

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

Next case is 26 waiver 0085, which is a waiver of the land development code section 5.8.1.b to waive the requirements to construct a sidewalk in the abutting right-of-way serving the development site. Location is 1801 Top Hill Road. Our case manager is Abby Bills. I'll turn it over to you.

Abby bills office of planning staff for for South 5th street Louisville, Kentucky, 4 to 2. this is case 26 waiver 85 on top Hill road. This is a waiver of land development code section 5.8 to waive the requirement to construct a sidewalk in the abutting right of way of the development site. The site is owned are for single family residential in the neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a vacant lot. This development activity meets the threshold for street and roadside design and therefore sidewalk is required on the frontage of top Hill road, which is approximately 900 feet. The lane development code lays out a number of methods of compliance with the sidewalk requirement, one being to construct sidewalks. They may be allowed a reduced requirement or be allowed to construct a sidewalk at an alternate location, or they may be allowed to pay a fee in lieu of construction. This is a zoning map of the property. It's completely residential. This is the aerial view of the property. And then this is a view of the subject property in the road frontage at the west end of the parcel. And then moving forward to the middle, that's what the frontage looks like. And then this is on the east side around the bend. There's one development adjacent to the property. This is a single family house across Top Hill Road. And then this is the site plan provided by the applicant. It shows approximately where the single family home will be. So staff finds that the justification for the request is not adequate and recommends that the Planning Commission deny the waiver. The reasoning is first that Transportation Planning determined that the full fee-in-lieu amount for all 900 feet of frontage would be a little under $50,000. Transportation Planning offered a reduced fee-in-lieu that is proportional to the cost of construction at $3,250. Next, granting the waiver would not be consistent with Plan 2040. Plan 2040 calls for new development to provide for pedestrian movement by including sidewalks along the streets of all developments. Payment of this fee in lieu would contribute to Louisville Metro's ability to do that in nearby areas. And finally, strict application of the regulation would not create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant, as the applicant has been offered a reasonable method of compliance with the regulation, that being the fee in lieu. So your required action is to approve or deny the waiver to waive the sidewalk requirement. Any questions for staff?

Questions commissioners?

Well, I just want a clarification if that would be okay. I remember this case and I thought our decision was that was a motion to, you know, to, I guess, approve not the waiver, but the fee in lieu of $3,200. Was that not acceptable?

The motion was to deny the waiver, I believe, but it did not pass unanimously.

Okay. All right. Okay.

And so when there's a decision of the Development Review Committee that's not unanimous, it rolls over to full planning commission for a decision.

Okay. That's what I'm thinking.

So that's how it got here from there.

Any other questions? And so just to be clear, if it was calculated normally, it would have been the $48,000 or roughly $50,000, but Metro has agreed to the $3,200, has already agreed to this?

Yeah, I believe the $3,250 is standard for single-family construction.

Okay.

you. Anyone else? Yeah, I'm now recalling DRC. This is a reasonable proposition. I think it's a very fair proposition to the property owner who has a lot of frontage on Top Hill Road. So I think we ought to grant this waiver.

Well, we have a person signed up to speak first. We have Zachary signed up to speak. I can't I can't read the last name. If you could give me your full name, address, and zip code, and then I'll swear you in.

How's it going, you guys? I'm Zachary DeVoe, owner slash builder of 1801 Top Hill Road. I'm just coming to you. I need your zip code. Oh, 40272. Yes, sir.

You can raise your right hand for me. Do you swear firm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.

Go ahead. All right, so I just come to you today in defense for my waiver fee. So, under the land development code to 10.2.2, I have severe topographical issues with my land. I also have no option for pedestrian connectivity and there's no chance that there will ever be an option for pedestrian connectivity considering that I am on a road that's connected to about five roads and none of them will ever have a sidewalk and so if you're on top hill road and you're looking down you'll see a big ravine on both sides and it's nothing but a drop off and there's no chance or no way to construct a sidewalk and i have on my on my property um there's a natural ditch for drainage And I don't want to disrupt the drainage. Also, I have another thing. Under 10.2.2, forcing a physical installation or a $3,250 fee in lieu for a site with severe grading and drainage obstacles serves neither public safety nor logical infrastructure planning. And that's, um, according to the book. And I just wanted to state that also $3,250 as a man, that's like an owner and builder of this property. That's, that's a lot for a regular guy like me. And I'm not, I'm not a investment guy and I don't come up to you like a big team of people. So. I just request that you all give me the waiver, please. And if not, I would greatly appreciate if you all let me have a payment plan up until the certificate of occupations. And that'll be all. And I appreciate you all.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?

Yeah, I've got a question. Where is the nearest sidewalk? How far do you have to go down Top Hill?

So, as I'm concerned, and I've looked, it would be near Pinal Road, which is down towards... Are we talking miles? Yes. Yes. A mile. Like, it's not... three or four miles. It's about a mile, maybe two. And it's connected to Jefferson Memorial Forest. And I'm planning on building a beautiful house up there. And the the furthest sidewalk is pretty far. And Like I believe in connectivity too, and I'm a big fan of it. And I believe that it brings a good purpose to the community. But at this point, like I'm only one person. So $3,250 fee is a lot for me. And I believe I have a good argument to back that up considering the land development code and the book.

Would you be willing to construct a sidewalk sometime in the future if one of the adjacent properties had a sidewalk?

Oh, yes.

Oh, yes.

Thanks.

You're welcome. Thank you. Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you. I have no one else signed up to speak.

We have anyone signed up to speak online? All right. With that, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. You can have a seat. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, once again, our responsibility is to approve or deny the waiver from the Land Development Code Section 5.8.1.B, which is to waive the sidewalk requirement. And if we waive the sidewalk requirement, the fee of lieu is $3,200. I want to clarify.

Okay. right now there's kind of a hierarchy of things somebody can be required to do under the land development code his current requirement that he is seeking the waiver from is the fee in lieu for three thousand two hundred and fifty dollars no the the constructing the entirety is not on the table they agree transportation agrees it's not feasible to build so then they move down to whether a fee in lieu makes sense transportation has reduced what could be based on the total linear footage along the right-of-way to the 3250 and that if paid if you required and it's paid it would go to fund other sidewalks within the council district so that's that's so if you move to grant the waiver this fee in lieu will not be paid. If you deny the waiver, then this fee in lieu is still required. The staff report supports denial. The applicant has provided a justification. So if you were inclined to grant the waiver, you're going to need to come up with some reasons. You couldn't just rely on the staff report.

Right. But you can rely on the applicant's justification. Okay.

Laura, I have a question for you. So we do this in the future. If another sidewalk gets developed up to his property, is he obligated to do what?

Nothing.

So to continue the sidewalk becomes the cost of the city, the county?

So, yeah, I mean, if ultimately at some later date, if you grant the waiver today and other stuff constructs, which may or may not happen, but let's assume it did. then yes, the cost would be on the city should it want to do. Now, it could be that it uses fee and lieu money from other projects to fund that, but it could also come out of the general fund.

Any other questions? All right, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a statement. The fee in lieu is a useful process. It does do what we're talking about. It does allow the Metro government to expand sidewalks where sidewalks are not going to be developed anytime soon. I think this is a reasonable proposition, although I do understand the hardship that it places on Mr. DeVoe And to that end, I'm okay with the notion of collecting the $3,250 at the time of the CEO. I mean, I don't have any problems with that, but I do think we need to do what is recommended by transportation planning and our team here. So I'm inclined to deny the waiver.

And I would agree with that. I think the offset, if the sidewalk was to be built would far exceed even the 40, probably more, it would be more than the 48,000. So, you know, I think the concession that transportation has made for the 3250 to go into the fund to build sidewalks and other location, I think is the right idea. And just as Mr. Mims said, if it's collected at the, CO phase, have no heartburn over that either. But I do think that the fee in lieu is applicable here.

Yeah, I agree with what Jim said. Fee in lieu are really not liked by anybody, but I think that the department has done a good job in analyzing this, that $48,000 was very ridiculous. Where do you stop fee in lieu of? If you grant it here, where do you grant it? Somewhere else, not granted. So I think we should stay out of that and approve it for, no, do not approve this waiver.

Sir, for those of us that have been to top Hill road, we would know that it is. Difficult if not impossible to build sidewalk in that area, the likelihood of another sidewalk ever being in that area is minimal at best. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to grant this waiver based on the topography. If this were down in Faraday on the retail area, then yes, he should be required to build a sidewalk. But this is up on top of a mountain in a very sparsely populated area of the county, and their quest for a waiver is reasonable. And I think a full and complete application of this law in this instance is unjust.

Anyone else? All right, I entertain a motion.

So in the case of 26 waivers, there was 085. I make a motion that we deny this waiver. and instead requests that fee in lieu be assessed as it relates to the permitting of this property to the amount of $3,250. And I also make that motion based on collecting that fee at the time of certificate occupancy. And the motion is based on the staff report in our testimony here today.

Do you need to mention the payment of installment?

He just said in payment to be made at the time of the CEO. So if he wants to put the money away, he can do that. There are second.

I'll second.

All right. Probably made motion in second. Brokaw, please.

No. No. No.

No.

Fisher.

Yes.

Mems?

Yes.

Staff?

No.

Benitez?

No.

Seastrung?

Yes. The motion failed. Right my math right? Yes.

So we'll need another motion to grant the waiver.

Seeking a motion in the opposite to grant the waiver.

Yes. I'll make a motion on Case number 26, waiver 0085 that we grant the waiver based on testimony heard.

Second. Hold on one second. You can't base it on, I'm sorry. He can base it on the testimony, but not the staff report. So you need to.

So I would base it on the applicant justification because that actually.

Yeah, I actually was against it. I'm sorry. I based it on testimony heard.

And the applicant.

By the applicant.

No, an applicant's justification statement justification. Second, I probably make motion a second roll call.

Please. Yes.

Yes.

Born. Yes. Fisher. No memes. No step. Yes. When it is.

Yes.

Sister.

No. Um, the waiver has been approved. Next case is 25 zone 0142, which is a change in zoning from R5 single family residential to R7 multifamily residential with a detailed district development plan with associated waivers and binding element. The project location is 211 South 41st Street. Our case manager is Zach Jones. Zach, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you very much. Yeah, this is twenty five zone zero one, four, two, two, one, one South forty first street for a triplex next slide. Again, those requests are changing zoning from our five to our seven multifamily residential. We have a waiver from LBC table to ten point two point three for property perimeter landscape buffer and then a detailed district development plan binding elements. Next slide. This property is zoned R5 in the traditional neighborhood form on roughly 0.1 acres. Proposals to convert the existing property into a three-plex on-site with no alterations proposed to the exterior of the property. The waiver request is for the property perimeter landscape buffer that would be triggered by the zone change request to just accommodate that existing site configuration. Next slide. So here you'll see a copy of the site plan, two-story frame with a basement. Next slide. You'll see those areas where the waiver would be subject to. Next slide. We've got an overview of the map that is West Market Street just to the north. Next slide. Here's an aerial view of the property along South 41st Street. Next slide. We have a view straight on of this property along South 41st Street. Next slide. We have the property directly north that I believe C2 zone parcel. It's a parking lot. Next slide. This is the residential properties just south of the subject property along South 41st. Next slide. And this is just looking across South 41st Street. Next slide. Staff findings are the change in zoning from R5 to R7 is compliant with plan 2040. The request is served by adequate existing infrastructure and it'll advance diverse housing options in the community. The waiver to not provide the property perimeter LBA is adequately justified, meets the standards of review and the DDP and meets the ldc and plan 2040 guidelines next slide so again the staff recommendation is that we recommend to metro council to approve the change in zoning and recommend that plan commission approve the waiver in ddp next slide And here are those specific required actions, three separate ones for the change in zoning, the waiver, and the detailed district development plan with binding elements.

That's all I've got for the staff report, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions, commissioners?

Is the basement going to be used as an apartment?

That is a good question. I'll let the applicant clarify.

Okay.

I had a question for you. Well, the applicant can answer which is, is it occupies it operating today as a multi use? Sure. I'm in multi tenant apartment. Okay. Any other questions?

No.

All right. Thanks, Zach. Of course, to speak as a representative in support, we have door Sims. If you could state your full name, address, and zip code for me, and then raise your right hand, I'll swear you in.

Doris Sims, 679 Millbrook Circle, Shepherdsville, Kentucky, 40165. Raise your right hand.

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

Yes.

Thank you. You can go ahead.

Okay. Good afternoon, commissioning. My name is Doris Sims. My husband and I bought this property in 2022. He recently retired recently. from the Air Force. So our goal was to relocate to Louisville where he's from. So this was our first development property that we bought. History on the property, it was built in 1923. And looking at when we purchased it and looking at the Lg utility lines, there's 3 of them and we assumed it was a triplex because looking back at the, the utility inspection and when we purchased it, we purchased it as a triplex. So it was renovated in 1986 as a triplex. So that original person did not. go through that rezoning process. So we purchased this as a triplex, assuming it was zoned as an R7. So when we purchased it, it is three levels. So the basement, the main level, and the top level, so the second floor, were all separate apartments. At that time, it was not fully rented. They had squatters, it was deteriorating, and it was trash. So my husband and I definitely removed the squatters, removed the trash, put a new roof on it, and everything was fully renovated with new flooring, updated kitchen, and appliances. So by the time we figured this out, we were ready to rent it out. We were more focused on low income housing such as Section eight. And that's at the time we identified that it was not zoned correctly. So at this time we have three, uh, ready but only one is rented at this time and so the other two are vacant. So that's why I'm coming here to request that my rezoning to R7 allow for those two other apartments to be identified as a triplex to rent those other two apartments to low income housing. We do have another property that is Section 8 and from those participants Our tenants, we find them, they are proud of when we renovated the properties that it's newly updated that they take care of the place. So we wanna give back to the community. When you saw that parking lot, that property is behind Shawnee High School. So what I'm really looking for is to find a family to really have, actually that one tenant is in there has a daughter that goes to that high school and walks there. So I'm looking forward to having those two other apartments rented out to the local community. So, um, having this property rezone to our seven, um, will, will allow me to give back to the community, offer more housing to align with that plan 2040. And I talked to some of the local neighbors and they said that we did a really good job renovating. As you see, it's clean and there's no trash in the front, but compared to how it was when we bought it in 2022, I think that our neighborhood definitely brought it up and built a community for that area. I need any questions. That's all I have.

Any questions commissioners? No. Okay. I hear none. Thank you. Um, that's all we have signed up to speak. Uh, we have anyone online Joe? No. All right. Um, with that commissioners, um, we'll close the public hearing unless anyone objects. And our responsibility, once again, is to recommend approval or denial of the changing zoning to Metro Louisville, to Metro Council. And then approval or denial of the waiver, which is our final action. Then approval or denial of the detailed district development plan with binding elements. I will entertain any comments, questions, or motion. Go ahead. You go ahead and make a motion.

No.

Okay, go ahead.

uh you know i've got no problem affordable housing looks like they've done a good job on this but stepping up to r7 was house meat coat that that would be my question yes and when i asked about the basement you know egress getting in and out that would be some of my concerns going to r7 taking up more or less when this house was built back in 25 Since I grew up down in that area, not that time period though, these were single family houses.

So, that's some of my concerns. I'm not going to make a code leap. My question to staff is, is our 7. The best zoning I'm looking at everybody is the best zoning for a triplex.

Yeah, so this is the lowest intensity zoning allowable to allow 3 units to be on the property. We worked backwards to reverse engineer this. So. 3 units is the Max that you could do given the acreage. Perfect.

Ms. Leonard, you were getting ready to say something? Ms. Bond was first.

Oh, well, I was just wondering if we could hear a little bit about the property and the egress that exists, opportunities for egress on the property. And maybe that would be the applicant.

It sounds like they have a question about the basement unit and whether it has valid egress.

I mean, it has it or like a full door that where there once was a garage has been converted with a constructed wall with a window and a door. Um, it's visible on the street view since at least those 7. so it's like. I mean, it would have to be inspected by a building inspector to determine if the unit met construction, but they would need to get a certificate of change views and get that occupancy determined prior to being able to rent it out legally.

Yeah, and I would just want to be careful of just only looking at egress. There's other things to go into it, so that's why I keep my mouth closed on that and let IPL handle that portion.

Well, when I said that, I didn't mean to throw a wrench into it. I mean, that was just my concerns that I was voicing. A lot of these houses down there have been changed to that, but and I have no problem changing this. I just want to make sure it meets code.

Again, much like the case we denied on North 41st Street within the past 18 months, it's our duty to protect, in my opinion, our four single-family dwellings, especially in our most vulnerable neighborhoods that are trying to maintain single-family homes. I somewhat sympathize with the applicant's purchase and sad discovery but nonetheless this property is not suitable for a triplex. It's a single-family dwelling and should remain so and consequently this application should be denied.

Yeah now I'll say I will echo Mr. Leonard's comments as well if you look at the block actually it's kind of kind of interesting it looks like a block that's trying to be uh stabilized if not you know just a block already stabilized and they appear to be doing that in a single family manner and with that being said most of them are the larger homes there's some smaller ones um and i think that in keeping with that keeping this as a single family resident Along with even the frontage of it, which is being altered by the use of a basement use and now turning that into a door even alters the appearance and the street scape. So I would agree with Mr Leonard that this should remain a single family resident.

I'm not all the way with you all on that because and the only reason I say that is that there's. It's surrounded by Shawnee High School. The parking lot north of it is a faculty or student parking. If this was in the center of the block, yeah, I'd say you're exactly right. It's important to preserve the entire block. But this is, in my mind, kind of transitional. And quite frankly, I think the job that they've done in terms of making the basement accessible is actually pretty well done. So I really, I don't have as much heartburn about this rezoning case as maybe you all do, and I'm kind of in favor of approving it.

Anyone else?

All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Sure okay, so it's probably easier land so in the case of 25 zone 0, 1, 4, 2, I make a motion that we recommend to little Metro Council approval of this rezoning from our 5 to our 7 multifamily and make motion based on our staff report in our testimony today.

So, I could probably make motion second roll call please. No, yes, yes.

Fisher, yes means yes. Step. Yes, many days, yes, sister, no.

OK, a second item on the same case, 25 waivers 0073. I make a motion that we approve a waiver from the land development code table 10.2.3 to waive the required property perimeter landscape buffer along the southern and eastern property boundaries. and make a motion based on our staff recommendation and our testimony today.

Probably my most a second roll call please.

No one yes. Yes Fisher yes means yes step yes, but it is yes system now.

And finally, uh, I make a motion that we, um, approve the detailed district development plan and binding elements, uh, based on the staff recommendation in our testimony today.

Okay. Probably my motion and second roll call please.

No, no.

Yes.

Born.

Yes.

Fisher.

Yes.

Memes.

Yes.

Staff. Yes. Ben, it is.

Yes.

Sister.

No. So the zoning has been recommended to Metro Council and the waiver and the plan and binding elements have been approved. Next case on our agenda is 25 zone 0092, which is a change in zoning from our four single family residential to see one commercial with a detailed district development plan with an associated waiver variances and binding elements. The location is 6107 and 6113 New Cut Road. Our case managers, Martin Pinto, I'll turn it over you, Mark.

Yes, Mark Intel office of planning staff for for for South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4 0202. this is 25 zone 92 for 6107 and 6113 new cut road. The request is a change in zoning from our 4 residential single family to see 1 commercial. There is a waiver in a variance also associated with this request. 1 being a waiver from section 10 to 4 to allow a vehicular parking and maneuvering area. to encroach into the required 25 foot landscape buffer area and also a variance from land of land development code section 533 c2b to allow that same vehicular parking and maneuvering area to encroach into the required 50 foot regional center setback from the rear and side yard with a detailed district development plan with binding elements So, again, the proposal is for C1 commercial is to allow a new retail center where 1 building is a retail building with an attached restaurant. And then the other building is going to be like a drive through fast, casual restaurant. The site is approximately 2 acres. There is an existing residential structure and a couple of accessory structures on 1 lot that are proposed to be removed. And again, the subject site is within the regional center form district, which is what dictates that additional setback from neighborhood form and from lower intensity zone properties. It's a 50 foot setback requirement. So here is the proposed site plan. The building to the north is that proposed retail building, roughly forty seven hundred square feet with that attached restaurant, about fifteen hundred square feet. And then to the south is the additional proposed standalone restaurant, like a drive through style restaurant, roughly forty to seventy five square feet. And here is the waiver and variance exhibit. So along the eastern property line is where the variance and landscape waiver is being requested. The majority of the 25 foot landscape buffer area is being provided. There's a small area where the drive through cuts into that. And that is the need for the waiver. but in the applicant justification they detail that the required plantings and screening will still be required in that buffer and then the setback is just also highlighted in yellow which again they're providing a 25 foot setback instead of 50. here are some preliminary elevations of the proposed retail building and here is from the rear and the side And here is some preliminary elevations for the fast casual drive-thru restaurant. Here is a zoning map showing the zoning of the overall area. This is located along the New Cut Road commercial corridor where there has been some recent development throughout the years. The CM is the UPS facility and the healthcare facility. The C2 is the new car wash. And then the properties to the north and south have also undergone commercial zonings. And this is sort of like the last section of R4 in this little part that remains. here's just an aerial showing the existing site conditions that existing home and detached accessory structures here is the front of the subject property looking in from new cut road and here is across the street just looking at some adjacent property there is a home and then that car wash you see to the south So all MSC and transportation comments have been resolved. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. They were required to do a traffic impact study by and. That study came back and found that there were no roadway improvements that were needed from this state at that and then public work stated that all of their agency comment had been resolved. this site is also located in the new cut road taylor boulevard corridor study area where it actually recommends c2 commercial at this location along with the other properties that front new cut road to the south of outer loop so the requested rezoning is consistent with that corridor study So staff does find that the change in zoning from R4 to C1 is compliant with Plan 2040. The proposed zoning allows for non-residential uses and this proposal would not constitute a non-residential expansion into an existing residential area. The requested waiver and variants are also adequately justified for approval as they do meet the standard of review and the staff report and the detailed district development plan meets the other requirements of the land development code. And it's also consistent with plan 2040. So, staff does find that the request is in keeping with plan 2040 again, and recommends that the planning commission recommend that Louisville Metro Council approved the requested change in zoning from R4 to C1 and staff also finds that the justification for the waiver variant to DDP are adequately justified for approval and. Recommend the plan commission to approve the request. So your required actions are to recommend to Louisville Metro Council to approve or deny the change in zoning from R4 to C1, to approve or deny the waiver, to approve or deny the variance, and to approve or deny the detailed plan with binding elements. Are there any questions for staff?

Any questions, commissioners?

Mark, the housing across the street from this has been changed to C1.

Sorry?

The zoning. On the houses that are across the street from this that you showed next to the car wash. Is those properties don't see what to be honest that had to look at the zoning map again because I do not remember. It looks like it is okay. All right. I've. I had it up on logic and then I lost it. So. Oh, okay. So, all right.

Thank you. Thank you all. I have a question about the waivers in the variance. So, how much of a variance are they asking for? And really, I guess the waiver, how much of an encroachment do they have going into that area?

Yeah, so for the variance, the proposed setback is 25 feet and the requirements 50, making it a variance of 25 as far as the waiver goes. I'm not sure of the exact footage of encroachment that that driveway does into the buffer. That would be a good question for maybe Ted or Nick coming up after me to know that exact. Okay. Number of feet, but it appears based on the site plan that the majority of that 25-foot LBA is being provided.

And the 50-foot is just because this is a regional center, so they have just really wide.

Correct. And if this development was in neighborhood form, it appears that the setback would be compliant. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. The sign up speak for the applicant is Nick and Ted and Nick and Ted. If Ted, if you could stand up, I'll go ahead and swear you in. And then when you just come up, just state, you've been sworn in, give us your full name, address and zip code. Um, do you swear from the testimony that you're going to give to this commission? It's the truth. I didn't do. Thank you.

If you start with your full name address and zip Nick, Nick, 1,000 North Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky for 223 and all kind of follow up with what was just presented. But this is a zone change from our 4 to see 1 and it's for what's really the last portion of. What is a minor arterial just north of the gene Snyder interchange there, which I'll show in just a 2nd, and it is for a little retail center and a restaurant. If you go to the next image, I'll show them the, this is the logic map shows the property. It is these 2 tracks being the last 2 are 4 properties north of the gene Snyder there. And again, this is on new cut between the gene Snyder and the outer loop to the north. If you go to the following image, then it shows the aerial and this is shows the. Aerial the area, both with the gene Snyder as well as. Outer loop there and this is again just 2 of those residential properties that remain there. If you go to the next image. So, here's our plan, which I'll come back to and show a little bit more detail, but this shows the plan in relation to the healthcare and then the Midwest dental across the street as well as that car wash. But 1st, I'll show kind of the history of this area and if you go to the next slide, I'll start with that. But so this area did go through and have a small area plan done for the quarter study for this. The new cut road, Taylor Boulevard quarter study. This was in 2013. so it is a little bit newer than some of the ones that we sometimes see, but. It was done and adopted in 2013, and if you go to the next image in 2013, it did note that this southern portion that we're talking about here had a number of different zoning districts there, some R4, some C1, etc. And you see the site there is R4. And if you go to the next image, that plan did propose as far as the recommended zoning for the area, they recommended a zone change for all those different parcels that I mentioned to C2. So, what we're requesting here is a rezoning to. We're going to request it to see 1, but the, the quarter study did even go further as far as this area being a C2 zoning district. But then, in addition that we had worked on in 2015, um, the wolves for, um, main street realty, uh, it was the old different strokes golf course across the street. Um, and when that was developed into large industrial buildings, but this is kind of what started this in 2015, just. Just after that quarter study, if you go to the next image, I'll show the plan there. This was those two are now UPS healthcare buildings that have been constructed. But that was rezoned at the time for for those. If you go to the next image. As part of that other zoning, and this was the main street realty, the health care buildings, the properties across the street did go through a form district change from regional center to. Suburban workplace at the time it was what was. Uh, you know, thought would be the best for the area, because this portion of the southern portion of that quarter study that we're looking at probably doesn't fit perfectly in the regional center form district. The reason I say that the reason I want to point this out is this is what's. Causing the variance request if we, this property was also a suburban workplace. Uh, like, across the street, we would have a 0 would be our required rear yard setback instead of the 50 feet. If we were neighborhood, like, we are just the properties are to the East. It would be 25 feet. So this is the variance request is really just a function of where a little strip portion of a regional center that doesn't really serve that that anymore. But if you go to the. Next image, here's a view of the site. This is looking directly at the site from new cut road. And if you go forward another slide, this is looking south or looking towards the gene Snyder with a site to the left. And then you can see that car wash across the street that they're to the right. And so the other direction, this would be looking north or towards the outer loop the site to the right there. And then if you go to another, so here's our proposed development plan shows those 2 buildings, the. Roughly the 5900 square foot retail building to the north of the site and then the proposed drive through restaurant to the. southern portion of it. Our detention will be on the frontage there that you can see a little bit lighter green. And then we also have the proposed sidewalks as well, both pedestrian connection and sidewalks in addition.

And if you go to the next image,

Uh, 1 thing that took a while as far as addressing the comments was, we have our connection to new cut there, but we had to figure out a way to make a proposed stub connection, both to the property, the North and the property, the South. Both of those are undeveloped today. Who knows if they will be developed likely they will, but this is 1 thing is it took a lot of working with the plan to do so, but we do show proposed connections, both to the North and the South in the event of those properties. Do develop at some point in the future if you go to the next image. So here is the variance image or shows that variance request again. This really is a function of the fact. We were in a regional center form district, but the line that is in yellow there. That is what would be. Where that 50 foot setback would be. You know, if you apply that fully again, if we were across the street, it would have a 0, or to the, if we were behind this, it would be a 25 foot setback. So this is just a. A function of this form district to this property. If you go to the next image is the waiver. We have a very, very small area. You can kind of see the top right there. Um. But that is the only area where we technically do encroach into that and we would still have all full plantings throughout. In addition also those. The area to the east is not those. Those are the rear of those lots. The homes are further up. To the north, so there's not joining a residence there. It's the large rear yard. And if you go to the next image. We did have a traffic study done and you can see there, but this doesn't change the level of service from what it is really today or in the no build condition. And they determined no improvements were necessary. And then if you go to the next dimension, I have some. Because these are style design or elevations, this would be of the restaurant, the drive through restaurant. And if you want to, you can kind of just go through these, they're very similar was shown. This would be for the retail building. And the different sides of that proposed retail building. And then with that, I can take any questions you may have and Ted Bernstein is here to answer technical questions as well.

Nick, I got 1 for you. Have you had discussions with the. Residential properties to the East.

Concerning the variance, they were at the properties, the owners of the, some of the properties to the East or at our neighborhood meeting. We didn't have any discussion regarding the variance or issues particularly related to that. The main concern that we heard from the persons to the East along it's a brown Austin road is. has to do with their access and how they get in and out. But it really doesn't because we aren't proposing to connect to it. That was their main thing. If you don't mind going back to our color plan on aerial, if you could, I'll show kind of the concern. So, the, the, this property, the 2 properties we are here for today at 1 point in past previously, someone had had. Talked about developing this these properties we're talking about here plus the 1 to the north, which is being circled right there. And I think at the time, I believe it was a gas station that was proposed. We weren't involved the time, but the neighbors along that street brown Austin really had a problem with that. And the concern having a gas station that would. Front on, or have a connection into their road. So, when we met with them, once we explained that this is not. Our proposal does not include that parcel that's on and they, they were less concerned in that regard. then this this probably shows better what i was referring to you can see the homes are a long brown austin and they have very some of them very large but larger backyards and so the the rear half or third of the lot has nothing on it and that rear portion is kind of what we are close to is the part that's away from their home it's their the bottom part of their backyard

Yeah, Nick, you're rendering is on landscaping in the back. Is that basically what you're going to do with the residential? The buffering.

With the trees, as far as the what we had shown on there was, I think a conceptual plan, we'll still have to do a full landscape plan. The main thing we were saying is we would not have any. we would still provide the required plantings throughout that 25-foot LBA, whether they look exactly like this or as part of the landscape plan, if staff wanted them to be different, we could work on that. But there's no requested diminution or we're not proposing to decrease the plantings.

Okay. I guess this one is for Ted. Come on up here, Ted. Yes. Speak at the new . Well, will that ditch get to it if it floods? The main ditch or long outer loop?

Should.

Oh, I thought you already swore him in. I'm sorry.

Excuse me. No problem. Ted Bernstein, 503 Washburn Avenue, 4222.

I saw Tiandre already swore you in when he swore Nick in.

Right.

Oh, okay.

I apologize.

Will that ditch get to it if it gets out? Is there MSD saying anything about it?

MSD is fine with it. We have talked to him several times about it. Okay, because I know it. Preliminary approval. Yes, sir.

Instead of every 100 years, it seems like it's every 10 years anymore that that ditch likes to get out and wander on a heavy rain. So that would be my only concern.

Hopefully, this can possibly make it even better, right? Because we're now controlling that rainwater as it comes off our side. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Ted, while you're up there, getting back to Mr. Steph's comments about the landscaping, you have to put both perimeter trees and landscape trees, right?

Yes, and we'll have a screening. We obviously have a screening requirement. We have enough room to do anything that the LDC would require, and absolutely we would do that.

Okay, good. Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thank you, Nick. Do we have anyone signed up to speak online?

All right.

So with that, commissioners, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And our requirements, once again, is to recommend approval or denial of the zoning change to Metro Council, and then to approve or deny the variance from 0092.

and then um approval or denial the waiver which is waiver number zero one three six and then the approver denied the detailed district development plan with binding elements i'll entertain any comments or a motion i think it's good plan it's it's taking the last island or residential amongst all that commercial out and making a commercial in your it's right along new cut road that'll handle the traffic so i have no problem being in favor of this

I agree.

Anyone else? I'll take a motion. Sure. I'll make a motion. So in the case of 25 zone 0092, I make a motion that we recommend to Louisville Metro Council approval of the rezoning from our four single family to see one commercial. I make the motion based on our staff report and recommendation and our testimony today.

I'll second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Leonard? Yes.

Yes.

Born. Yeah. Fisher. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

A second matter on the variance 25 variance 0, 0, 9, 2, and make a motion that we approve the variance of 25 feet from the 50 feet that is required to make the motion based on our staff report in our testimony that we've heard today. Second, I believe a motion second roll call, please.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, many days.

Yes.

Staff? Yes. Mims?

Yes.

Cistern?

Yes. In the waiver request, 25 Waiver 0136, I make a motion that we approve Waiver from the land development code in section 10.2.4 to allow particular parking area maneuvering to slightly encroach into the 25 foot. Landscape buffer area make the motion based on our staff report recommendations and testimony today second.

Probably make motion second roll call please.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, many days, yes, staff, yes, names, yes, system.

Yes. And finally, um, uh, relative to the detailed this development plan and binding elements and make a motion and we approve the detailed, uh, district development plan and binding elements in that too, is based on our staff report in our testimony today.

Probably my motion second roll call, please.

Yes, staff names.

Yes.

Fisher yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Thank you. Um, before we go, do we need a 5 minute recess?

Yes.

All right.

We'll take a 5 minute recess.

My next case is 26 zone 0087, which is a change in zoning from C1 commercial to C2 commercial with a detailed district development plan with mining elements. The location is 3937 Taylorsville Road. And then before you go, do we have someone signed up to speak on this one online, Joe? No?

We've got the applicant here, or the representative here.

Okay, just if you get a second, if you already did, we'll find it. Oh, you did it online. Okay, perfect. With that, then I'll turn it over to you, Zach.

Of course, yeah. 26 Zone 0087 McMahon Plaza, the Dubliner, 3937 Taylorsville Road. Next slide. We got two requests here, a change in zoning from C1 to C2 commercial, and then a detailed district development plan with binding elements. Next slide. This is zone C1 in the regional center form, sites roughly 3.75 acres total for the property. That's the McMahon Plaza, but the area to be rezoned is only 0.1 acres. The proposal is to add an outdoor patio in association with the tavern there, that is the Dubliner, which is what the reason is for the request for change in zoning. There's no other alterations to the property, to the exterior of the property, beyond the reduction in parking required for the outdoor patio area. I will note on this site there is 21 CUP 0121 that allows a similar use outdoor sale of alcohol that's in association with a restaurant. This is a tavern so it's a slightly different use which is why it requires that different process to go from C1 to C2. Here is this site plan with the area in yellow. That's the highlighted area that's going to be subject for the rezone. The patio is that, if you can barely see it, the sort of hatched area right at the front looking towards Taylorsville Road. Next slide. Here is a copy of the zoning map. Next slide. An aerial view of the property. Next slide. And so here we've got a view along Taylorsville Road. I've tried to highlight in yellow where exactly this is going to go. The patio is, again, in those parking spaces right up along the unit. Next slide. This is going west along Taylorsville Road, looking at the properties to the west also along. Next slide. These are the properties to the southeast along Taylorsville Road. Next slide. And then this is across Taylorsville Road. Next slide. So we have your three staff findings here. The change in zoning from C1 to C2 is compliant with Plan 2040. The proposal won't be a non-residential expansion into an existing residential area. This is also consistent with the regional serving uses recommended in the regional center form. And the DDP meets the DDP, however many D's are in there, meet the LDC requirements and Plan 2040 guidelines. Next slide. We have staff recommends that the zone change request is in keeping with Plan 2040, recommends that Plan Commission recommend Louisville Metro Council approve this requested zone change, and that the DDP is consistent with the land development code and recommends that Plan Commission approve this request as well. Next slide. And again, you'll see those 2 required actions now recommend that Louisville Metro approve or deny that change in zoning from C1 to C2 and then approve or deny the detailed district development plan with binding elements. That's all I have for the staff report, but I'm happy to answer questions.

One follow-up question, if that would be okay. So El Napolito doesn't need the same type of request because it's a restaurant liquor?

Yeah, exactly. We talked about that with the applicant, but the Dubliner does not derive 50% or less or less. Make sure I'm getting that right. Most of their sale isn't food, which is the reason they have to go from C1 to C2 here.

Gosh, I thought the name of the place was Ladies Invited.

I'll let the applicant speak to that one.

Yeah, because that's the sign. That's what the sign says.

All right, anyway, any other questions? Does this change the parking requirements at all?

We looked at the parking. It does not tip them outside of either bound the minimum or the maximum, that reduction in four spaces. Anyone else?

All right. Thanks, Zach. Of course. All right. We will go to Doug Sellers. If you could state your full name, address, and zip code, and I'll swear you in.

Sure. Doug Sellers with Sayback, Wilson, and Lingo. It's 301 East Main Street, 40202.

Raise your right hand for me. Do you swear affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth? I do. Yeah.

Uh, good afternoon. Thank you guys for having me come up and speak today. Uh, again, this is for the Dubliner in the McMahon center, uh, on Taylorsville road. Um, They are requested, they would like to build or construct a patio very similar to the one that is in front of the El Napolito down the street. This tavern used to be called Hikes Point Lounge where ladies were welcome, according to the sign out front. So you were right, Jim. But so this is a zoning map is again, Zach did a great job pointing everything out already. So this is a lot of this is repetitive. So we're going from C1 to C2. Next slide. So this is an aerial shot of the site showing where the area is located. The Dubliner is located on the left and then Subway is adjacent and we're rezoning both parcels. There's a possibility that they may be expanding into the Subway, but the Subway can also use the patio out front as well. A couple of views looking up and down Taylorsville Road near the site as well. Next slide. A similar slide from the previous one that Zach showed, showing the area to be rezoned with the patio out front. Next slide. So this is a couple of examples. On the right is the existing patio in front of El Nepal. They've been utilizing it a lot from what I understand. They really use that quite a bit. And this will be in keeping with the same pattern, the same cinder block construction or split faced block construction with the lattice block above it and lighting as well. So you can kind of see a rough sketch on what it's going to look like in front of the Dubliner down below. Next slide. As part of a previous rezoning on the property that's across Yorkshire, they're proposing to do some roadway improvements in our parking lot as well. So I wanted to show you that as well, that we're actually doing some landscaping on our site that's not really related to the rezoning, but I felt it was necessary to show you all that that was part of this development as well. Next slide. And I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions, commissioners?

All right. Thank you. Thanks.

Anyone signed up to speak online? No all right with that we'll close the public hearing unless anyone has any objections once again our responsibility is to recommend to metro council approval denial of the change in zoning from c1 to c2 and then our final action which is approval deny the detailed district development plan and binding elements. Any comment? This makes sense to me, Commissioner, so I don't have any big comments.

It does. I mean, Hikes Point Lounge has been there for a long, long time. It sold, I don't know, a couple years ago, and I'm glad to see it's kind of a neighborhood bar. That's kind of what you want, to keep people from climbing in their car and driving someplace, you know? And so I'm really kind of in favor of what they're doing. Plus there's scats of parking there. So the displacement of parking in front of the building, it's not a factor at all. Any other comments or a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion. In the case of 26 zone 0087, I'll make a motion that we recommend to Global Metro Council rezoning of this property from C1 to C2 based on the staff report and our testimony today.

I'll second.

Properly made motion is second. Roll call, please.

Planet?

Yes.

Lohan?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Fisher? Yes. Mims? Yes. Steph? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Sister?

Yes. Second matter, I make a motion that we approve the detailed district development plan with binding elements. And I hear again, based on our staff report and recommendations and testimony today.

say probably made motion and second roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Okay, thank you. Our next case is 26 zone 0, 0, 7, 0, which is a changes on it from our 5 single family residential to see 1 commercial with a detailed district development plan associated waivers and binding elements. The location is 2909 hikes lane. Jude Mattingly is our case manager. I turn it over to you.

Good afternoon, uh, we'll go slightly South for this request and, uh, we'll give them a 2nd to get the PowerPoint up. Uh, yes, this is a change in zoning under case number 2, 6, uh, zone 0, 0, 7, 0 at 2,909 hikes lane to go to the next slide. Please. They are requesting the change in zoning from the current R5 residential to C1 commercial. There is a waiver from section 10.2.4 to omit property perimeter landscape buffer area along western and northern property lines. And there's a detailed district development plan with associated binding elements. Uh, so the property is within a neighborhood form district contains 0.29 acres, uh, and is currently developed with an existing 1 story non residential structure. Uh, the applicant has indicated that they would like to repurpose this structure for a C1 use that could include something like a cafe salon or potentially an office use. The site plan shows that there's five parking spaces provided. There's no new construction associated with this request. And again, you have a waiver because there will be some remaining adjacent R5 zone properties. Next slide, please. So here is a very zoomed in version of their site plan. Again, that structure is currently existing. And if you go to the next slide, we'll see a waiver exhibit. Not my best highlighting work, but I think it gets the point across. Next slide, please. Here is a zoning context of the property. It is, you know, in addition to being adjacent to R5 zoning, it's also adjacent to C1. And then there's a larger swath of C1 directly across Hikes Lane. If you go to the next slide, please, we can see an aerial of the existing site conditions. If you go to the next slide, please. We'll get some street view images. You'll notice a State Farm sign out in the front yard. As I mentioned in the staff report, the property has been used for a non-residential use for a considerable amount of time. Our records suggest at least the past 20 years, the applicant might be able to provide more information of exactly how long, but it's not like this has been a residential use for, you know, pretty much my entire life. Uh, if you go to the next slide, please just some site context. This is hikes lane. If you're headed north toward taylorsville road, you have a car wash and then actually subject side of the next case on the agenda is right across the street as well. And the next slide is just the opposite way. This is if you're headed south toward goldsmith lane, the property on the left is a fire station and you have some residential structures on your right hand side. If you go to the next slide, please. Chain of zoning from R5 to C1, we felt it was compliant with Plan 2040. Again, the site, while it is residentially zoned, it is developed with a non-residential structure and has been used as such for a considerable amount of time. Um, we thought that the, uh, justification for the waiver was adequately justified and, uh, you know, besides where that waiver is requested, uh, we believe the detailed district development plan meets not only the land development code requirements, but also the plan 2040 guidelines. If you go to the next slide, please. So with that being said, our recommendation would be that the Planning Commission recommend to Louisville Metro Council to approve the request to change in zoning. And again, we found that the justification, not only for the waiver, but the detailed district development plan was adequate. And we would recommend that the Planning Commission also approve those requests. If you go to the next slide, please. finally your required actions would be to recommend either approval or denial the change in zoning from r5 to c1 approve or deny the waiver of section 10.2 sorry 0.4 of the land development code and approve or deny the detailed district development plan and the uh proposed binding elements that we indicate in the staff report and if you have any questions for me i'm more than happy to take them i've got one yes sir so this property has been operating illegally for 20 some years uh well i mean It is possible that it's non-conforming. I don't think non-conforming rights have necessarily been established on it, but it has been operating as a non-residential use for at least the past 20 years. Whether or not it's unlawful might need to be determined again through a non-conforming rights review. So why is it coming here now? I believe that the applicant wants to, you know, get the zoning in check so that they can improve the marketability of the property. That would be my understanding. And now they might be able to speak to that further, but.

What does that mean? Improve its marketability. What does that mean?

To have a commercial use that's been operating as a, you know, an office use in a correct zoning that would allow for it. You know,

So they're seeking a commercial use for the property. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay.

And to add to what Jude said, you know, even if they establish nonconforming rights, then they're limited to that nonconforming rights. They can't really expand the use. They would have to go through a process if they wanted to switch from one nonconforming use to a related nonconforming use. Getting the rezoning cuts all that out. going forward. So I don't know, like Jude, I don't know if there's been a determination one way or the other as to whether this is a legal nonconforming use or an illegal use. But even if it was a legal nonconforming use, a lot of times you might want to go ahead and get the rezoning to give you that level of flexibility going forward.

I have a question. Jude, did the applicant give you any idea what they were thinking about in terms of a use?

Yeah, so in the application materials that they provided, like I said, I mentioned them in the presentation. They mentioned uses such as like a cafe salon hairdresser type place potentially just another office use. Now they are here. I did have their representative turn in a speaker's card. So they might be able to give you a better idea of it. But, you know, if they were to propose some kind of use that required any new construction or reconfiguration, obviously, that would be a revised detailed district development plan that would likely come back before this planning commission.

Any other questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Sign up for the applicant. We have a Thea Otis. You could give me your full name, address, and zip code, and then raise your right hand.

I'll swear you in.

Althea Otis, 309 Shaliford Place, Louisville, Kentucky, 40245.

You swear affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth?

Yes.

I think you can go ahead.

Good afternoon. Um, to expound a little bit on what Jude was saying when I am his real estate agent, Mr. Awad, and we purchased this property with the thought of it remaining a commercial property. And so the reason we need the rezoning, it is actually operated as a state farm office for 42 years. And the way it was worded to us, it's grandfathered in. Now exactly what that means, I'm not sure, but it is configured inside as an office. So without having the zoning to either do a small cafe or salon or one of those things mentioned, we would actually have to reconfigure it back into a residence would be the only option. And so with the commercial property all the way up and down, Heights Lane car wash on one side and this seemed like a feasible thing to do. Now we did have a zoning meeting and we had one resident show up that was adjacent to the property and his concern was that he wanted the ability to continue to take his riding mower around on the other side of the building, which Of course, that would be no problem, but that was the only concern that had been raised. Can I answer any questions?

Questions, commissioners? No questions.

Thank you. All right, commissioners, with that, we have no one else signed up to speak, so we'll close the public portion of the hearing unless someone has an objection. Our responsibility, once again, is to recommend to Louisville Metro Council the change in zoning from R5 residential to C1 commercial to recommend approval or denial. And then our final actions, which is to approve and deny the waiver, 26 Waiver 0105 from Section 10.2.4, and then to approve and deny the detailed district development plan with binding elements. With that, commissioners, any comments or a motion?

I don't necessarily like the idea because it's so close to the other residential and that's what's going to stop it from going all the way down the street. But. With the fact that there's the car wash next door, and it's been basically a business for almost 50 years, it makes sense to continue doing what it's doing.

Yeah, I tend to agree with Mr. Benitez on this. I've passed by this property a lot, and it always seems to be well-maintained, and I never even thought about it not being properly zoned, but... It seems to work. I think if they come in with a use that is different, then they'll be back here to get a new plan approval, as Jude has indicated. So I'm comfortable with this rezoning as it's been presented and with the understanding that it could come back at some later date and we'll take another look at it.

I agree.

I'll entertain a motion. OK, I'll make a motion so 26 zone. 0070 I make a motion that we recommend to local Metro Council rezoning of the property from R5 residential to see one commercial. And that's based on our the staff report today in Jude's recommendation and as well as her testimony.

I'll second probably main motion second roll call, please.

Leonard yes, Lohan yes, born yes. Fisher? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Mims? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Seastrong?

Yes. Second matter on this case, 26 waiver 0105. is a waiver from the Land Development Code 10.2.4 to omit the required 25-foot property perimeter landscape buffer. And I, again, make this motion based on our staff recommendation and the testimony we've had today.

And I'll second.

Properly made motion. Second, roll call, please.

Leonard?

Yes.

Fisher? Yes. Bond? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

names yes step yes when it is yes sister yes and now finally um um 26 zone 0070 uh i make a motion that we approve the detailed district development plan and binding elements as presented today and as recommended by the staff make the motion based in the uh based on the hearing i'll say and the staff report yes of course

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Lannan?

Yes.

Fisher? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Steph? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Mims? Yes. Cistern?

Yes. Thank you. The zoning has been recommended approval of change to Metro Council and the other two actions, the waiver and the detailed district development plan have been approved. Um, with that, we will go to the next case, which is twenty six zone zero zero nine five, which is a changes on it from commercial to commercial with a detailed district development plan and binding elements. Um, the project name is golden nugget expansion located at twenty nine, twenty two hikes lane. Jude Mattingly is once again our case manager. I'll turn it over to you.

Yes, Jude Mattingly, Office of Planning, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. We'll go right across the street for 26 zone 0095 at 2922 Hikes Lane. This is a change in zoning request from the current C1 commercial to C2 commercial with a detailed district development plan and associated binding elements. We go to the next slide this property is also within a neighborhood form district contains 0.33 acres. It is currently developed with an existing to store to story non residential structure that has been used as a bar since 1963. that is known as the golden nugget and a connected 1 story non residential structure that, you know, based on what we could find was last used as barbershop. There's no new construction associated with this request. However, the C2 zoning is needed to allow that bar to expand. They want to take over the old barbershop location and expand their bar. They need C2 in order to do that. And they are providing a total of 17 parking spaces. You go to the next slide, please. Here is their site plan. Again, no new construction, all existing structures, and even connected. If you go to the next slide, please. Sorry that the parking didn't come through very well on that scan. The zoning context, just like our last case, you can see this one is actually firmly ingrained into the C1. So it's adjacent to C1 along all property lines. If you go to the next slide, please. Aerial of the subject site as it's presently developed. If you go to the next slide, please. Here is some street view imagery. So again, Golden Nugget and then it looks like a barbershop used to be called the Cutting Edge. You can see it connected on the right hand side there. Next slide, please. Pretty much the same site context, right? I mean, this is Hikes Lane headed north toward Taylorsville Road. And the next slide is going to be Hikes Lane headed south toward Goldsmith Lane. You can see the previous subject property on your right hand side there. Next slide, please. Again, we find that this change in zoning from C1 to C2 is compliant with Plan 2040. The site is already developed with a non-residential structure. Now this one, it's more, you know, I think known that it's a non-conforming use. So we're talking about a pretty moderate expansion into another existing structure for a use that has operated since 1963. You know, beyond that, we also think that C2 zoning fits within that current, you know, form district pattern that currently exists. The detailed district development plan seems to meet all the land development code requirements and plan 2040 guidelines. So our recommendation would be that the planning commission recommend to Louisville Metro Council to approve the change in zoning from C1 to C2. And again, we find the justification for the detailed district development plan adequate and we would recommend that the planning commission approve that request. So your required actions would be to, if you go to the next slide, please recommend to Louisville Metric Council to approve or deny the change in zoning from C1 to C2 and approve or deny the detailed district development plan with the binding elements that we've presented in the staff report.

Questions, commissioners?

No questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Signed up to speak for the applicant. We have John Talbot. Could give us your full name, address, and zip code.

John Talbot, Bartlemore, Talbot, Roberts. Address is 1000 North Hurstbourne Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223. I love this new table. This is nice.

Raise your right hand so I can get that on the record. Yes. Do you swear from the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth?

I do. Thank you very much for your time. I know you've got a big agenda today. This will be a pretty quick case. I have Sonny Steyer here with us. She's the owner of the Golden Nugget. And to tell you a little bit of history on this, I know you're probably mostly familiar with the Golden Nugget. It's been around in this location since I think 1961 or 63. So a really long time ago. I'm reminded of our firms, we've been involved in a couple cases, the Chuck's Cafe when they expanded and also Flabby's and Schnitzelberg. And so this is right along those lines to help out and allow the continued growth of a very, very established local watering hole that everybody is familiar with. and in this case it's a very very modest expansion as you all heard there's no new outdoor construction no change in the footprint no increase in parking it's all there it's all just internal construction and they're expanding into the the barbershop that's been there next door and they've tried to get it to work with the other uses but it's just been really tough and there's not a lot of uses that can get into that small of a space you can go to the next slide please this just has some of the history on it i think again most of you are pretty familiar with it and one thing i did want to put tell you all that is not in that is the steyer family are the ones that uh originally started this local watering hole and they still own it uh sunny's husband joe that's uh he leads signature healthcare here in louisville He's been really committed to the entire Hikes Point area, and he has kept this in his family. And I stopped by there just randomly one day a couple years ago, and he was there. So he actually does love it and spends some time there. Next slide, please. There's just some pictures to give you an idea of what the area looks like. They've taken really good care of it, and it's still a very popular establishment. Next slide, please. And the case summary, most of what I've already said. I think the only potential negative was a request to maybe improve the curb cut. That's not required because there's no construction and there's no increase in the parking ratio. We're not doing that. We're just trying to keep this as economical as possible, but it is not required. Next slide, please. And that shows where it's located. Next slide. Next slide. If you could get perhaps to the one that shows our development plan. Yeah, right there. And then you go to the next slide, please. So the blue area is where the barbershop is. So that's where the expansion of the bar will be. The red area is where the bar currently exists. And you've seen the outdoor pictures of it. It's just have a slight increase in square footage for the bar itself. And that's basically it. It's not much more complicated for this. It's an adaptive reuse of an existing building. They're not tearing anything down. And it's got adequate infrastructure. There's sidewalks. There's public transportation. It's on a minor arterial. And so we believe this is totally appropriate for C2 expansion. And again, we wouldn't be doing it. We could just do the small barbershop as the expansion, but we thought we'd bring the entire bar, which is an existing legal non-conforming use, bring it all into legal compliance since we're going to be here as it is anyway. And that's the entire case. We've got a justification statement that has been put into the record. So hopefully there's a motion to approve and if you do i'd ask you to also refer to a reliance on that justification statement as well so thank you very much and we're here for any questions any questions commissioners i do have one i hate to kind of steal the podium here but um is the patio is there an outdoor patio right now john There is an outdoor patio, and they have a, what do you call it, a food truck, I believe, that serves food. And so the patio area has kind of been used for bringing in families and so forth. And they had Mayor Greenberg out there for a picture taking with that, I think, on July 10th. And so that has been a part of the use as well.

Okay. And, I mean, there still is a, which is good and bad. I mean, you have a residential neighborhood that's... I guess I'd be kind of West and South of this facility. But you know, the,

the other aspect of it it doesn't get you know late loud and drunk and um and has there been any noise concerns that you've there's not been any complaints at all i mean i think it's a well-loved part of the entire community appreciate that question so we could kind of get that on the record and uh we had our our neighborhood meeting and not a single person showed up so and i don't believe there's been any opposition letters or emails written either so I think it's fully supported by the local area.

Okay. Just wanted to kind of make sure I understood it. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you, John. Thank you. With that, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And once again, our responsibility. It's to recommend approval or denial of the Metro Council changing zoning from C1 to C2. And then our final action, which is to approve or deny the detailed district development plan with binding elements. Any comments, commissioners, or statements? No? I'll take a motion.

Yeah, I mean, this is just more or less bringing something into compliance in the right sort of way. So I'm okay with making a motion on 26-0-0-9-5 for recommending to Metro Council rezoning another property from C-1 commercial to C-2 based on Jude's staff report and our testimony today. I'll second.

Properly make motion and second. Roll call, please.

Lennox? Yes, Logan. Yes, born yes. Fisher, yes, means yes, Steph. Yes, when it is. Yes, sister.

Yes, second matter. I recommend make a motion that we approve the detailed district development plan with binding elements based on the staff report that was presented in the testimony that we've heard today.

Second property, my motion is second roll call, please.

Leonard yes bond yes low hand yes official yes step yes, but it is yes means yes system, yes.

All right that concludes that case as well we need to review in a. We need to review and approve the minutes as it relates only to the data center. Data Center case, sorry. With that, commissioners, has everybody had a chance to review the minutes? Or would you like to take a moment to review it? Take a moment to review it if you need to.

Just take two or three minutes.

Yep, yep, yep.

Okay.

Okay. Okay. Got everything right. you you What's the decibels? What's the decibels? In here?

Point two. All right, we're good. Has everybody reviewed them? All right, I'll take a motion.

That's a good question. Is there a reason Uh, which the matter the commissioners voted omitted at the bottom of page 2.

0, page 24.

You asking how each of you voted.

Um, it's on the average, it's on page 24. Text amendments are a little bit different because we want to be very clear what you're recommending. So we include the entire text amendment. So, it makes them longer, but if you look at page 24, yeah, it's there.

It will have the votes shows the breakdown.

I understand I'm still.

My question stands, but why it's not included earlier.

Right?

All right, I'll take a motion.

Sure. I make a motion that we approve the September 3, 2026 meeting minutes concerning 25 LDC-0014.

I'll second.

Properly make motion to second. Roll call, please.

No. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right with that, um, look for a motion to adjourn.

I got motion. We adjourned.

So moved.

So.