Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's start the meeting off. I'll read the opening statement here. This is the regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Development Review Committee to hear cases as documented for the meeting today. Public notice has been provided and materials have been available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's meeting. Number 1, please silence all cell phones. Number 2, please be courteous and respectful to the committee and your fellow citizens number 3 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 you like to speak on a case? You may send the messages to the host. Number 4 today's meetings proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the committee must do so from the podium or virtually. If you plan on speaking, please fill out the speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those that have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. Procedure shall be as follows. Number one, staff will present a summary of the request. Number two, the applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation given the reasons for the request. Number three, other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. Number four, the opposition representative will be heard. Number five, those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. Number six, the applicant or the representative will have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during the rebuttal. Number 7, if there are further questions by the opposition after the rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The unanimous vote of this committee constitutes final actions on most cases. However, if the vote is not unanimous or if it has been otherwise required or recommended, the case will be placed on the regular agenda in the next Planning Commission for further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions to the applicant representative or opposition at any time. Could have a roll call please.

Planet present means stupid here step here. Here.

All right, um, 1st thing on our agenda is the minutes 8, 5, 26 commissioners if you had a chance to read them and are there any questions or is there a motion to make a motion to accept the minutes for 8, 5, 26 of the.

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

Yes, yes, yes, step for sure.

Yes, under new business item number 2 on the agenda 26 street closure 0, 0, 2, 3, Zach. Oh, Rachel today.

Hello Rachel Casey presenting on behalf of Zach Walker.

This is 26 STR closure 23 for an unnamed alley behind North Peterson Avenue.

The request is closure of public right-of-way.

It's approximately 32,000 square feet of alley between North Peterson and North Galt Avenue, as well as Frankfurt Avenue. You'll see it's a pretty long section. But this is a completely unimproved alley at the rear of 49 properties. These 49 properties have 42 separate property owners, and 30 of those property owners have provided consent, so more than the required 51%. This is the zoning map of the area. You can see this is all in residential zoning and you can see where the alley will get a little bit better view on the aerial. But you can see here's the alley. It all runs behind these residential properties. Here's an aerial image again. You can see on the South there it butts up against the railroad. So there's unlikely to be any connection through to Frankfurt Avenue at any point in time, because it would have to create a 2nd railroad crossing and then it goes all the way up to where North Galt Avenue dead ends. This is the plot. It's on 2 pages. So the 1 on the left is the southern most portion. You can see where it says Ellen in railway at the bottom. So that's the railroad and Frankfurt Avenue at the bottom on the left hand side. And then the alley goes all the way up shift over to the 1 on the right. Continues all the way up to the properties, like I said, at the dead end of North called Avenue. Uh, this is the area, it's a little hard to get some, some images since it is an unimproved alley and there's no access. Um, but this is an image from Google Earth that kind of shows you that area. You can see it's completely covered with trees. Um, this, this alley is essentially acting as a part of the residents backyards, but it is not officially their property. Um, it is still public right of way. Uh, and so, um, the, uh, this has been an ongoing effort from. A few residents on this street over many years, they put in a lot of work to get the consent here from all of their adjoining property owners to. Get this alley in a position where it can be better maintained by the neighbors. And this is just a view from Frankfurt Avenue again. You can't really see anything, but if you were to imagine you're standing on Frankfurt Avenue, you're looking straight through there. That is technically where the, um, unimproved right of way is is behind those trees right there. So, staff does find the street closure is justified for approval and that it has consent for more than 51% of the adjoining property owners. and your required action is to place the requested street closure on the next available consent agenda of the Planning Commission.

Any questions for staff?

Will the alley be divided among 49 owners?

It will be divided amongst 49 properties.

Thank you.

Yes. Is there any current garages? That have access to this.

No, no, this is a, it's completely unimproved. There's no way to access this alley right now because it's you either have to go over the railroad tracks. On 1 side, or the dead end of North golf Avenue on the north side, and there's no way for a car to get access through there because the road dead ends. So this is, this is essentially an inaccessible alley. That's completely unimproved.

So there's no easements or anything back there.

Um, I'm not sure since I didn't review the plat, but if there were easements, we would have received notice of that through our process. We check with water company, everybody that can own an easement has to approve these plats before they reach the development review committee. So, if there were any easements required, they'll be recorded with the street closure plat.

So, the next step for them to record a street closure.

Well, yeah, once it's approved, if it's approved by Metro Council. So, the planning commission is making a recommendation to Metro Council to close the right of way and that if Metro Council approves, then they will record the street closure and any necessary easements that go with it.

So. This is roughly, what, an eighth to a quarter mile long with no access except one end if you can get into it?

Right, and only if you could get into it, which you really can't. There's trees in the way. Makes sense.

Um, did we did to receive any input from neighboring properties? Those that did not sign the petition was like, opposition again since I didn't manage this case from the beginning.

Um, in fact, it's this originally came into our office in 2023. so they've been working several years to try to get this to try to get the consent from their neighbors. So I don't have the through line of all of it, but I do not believe there was any comment from those that didn't sign the consent. Okay.

good thank you okay any other questions all right there are three people that have signed up i'll just call them in the order we received them kennedy turner just for timing are any of them property owners and how much time do you want to give them three minutes a piece uh three minutes is fine

okay um thank you so much for giving us your full name and your address yes kennedy turner and i live at 167 north peterson avenue um so this would take me about five minutes so i'm gonna have to try to go quick and narrow this down um my family and i um my great this house was uh built in 1920 my uh grandparents bought it in 1925 and we've lived there ever since my husband and I bought it from my grandparents or well my family when she passed away back in 2001. So I have a good understanding of the alley and easement and what it looks like and what's gone on with it over the years. For a better understanding of the alley itself it was explained in a memo from my attorney who helped us begin this whole process. It was originally planned as an open pass through with the intention of addressing possible drainage concerns and vehicular traffic, predating automobiles at the time of the neighborhoods creation. The creation of this alley also predates the modern railway layout and goes back to a time when there were numerous crossings, including alleys across the railway to Frankfurt Avenue. The major changes to the railway were. which were made to secure this corridor as a quiet zone from train whistles is what landlocked the alley entirely. Louisville Metro does not seek to keep this type of easement in place as it does not serve the purpose for which it was created and is simply a burden upon them to oversee. Property owners abutting the easement are considered responsible for maintaining their own portion of that half of the, I'm sorry, alley with no assistance provided by or from the city. So, that being said, there are a number of reasons why we're asking for the alley to close. 1st, there are just general safety concerns. Strangers and unknown individuals have been found wandering the open areas of the alley. and wandering into backyards. Wild animals like coyotes and raccoons have been spotted, and although I think they're adorable, they can be a cause for concern, you know, for people with pets and children and so forth. But the main concern that we have is really its ambiguous nature. There's just been a lot of confusion over property lines, where they're located, who is responsible for maintaining this alley area and how it may be legally utilized. It creates a situation for potential confusion and disagreements between neighbors. My husband and I were personally involved in one of these unwanted conflicts, and I just wanted to share a little of my experience to give you an idea of the types of difficult situations that can arise. In 2002, the neighbor who lives behind us on the North Galt side, whose property also abuts the alley, decided or seemed to believe that this entire alley was part of his own property. So, while we were out of town, he bulldozed that entire area. removing healthy trees that we really loved from both sides, and then poured a concrete parking pad over both his half of the alley and our own, all against city code without the proper permits or communication or agreement from Louisville Metro or from us. So he began using that area for his personal parking, boat storage, building materials, etc. And we were fine with him doing that with his half of the alleyway, but we really didn't want him using our side for that purpose. So we tried hard to work this out with him peacefully on our own, but unfortunately that just wasn't possible. We wanted to return our side to the original green space by removing the concrete. But since the alley belongs to the city, it was not technically our property. We really didn't have any legal recourse. So we began working with planning and zoning, the planning and zoning commission and public works department. Ultimately we ended up making. Numerous requests to Metro call having inspections and visits from public works as well as inspections, permits and licenses. We worked with our council woman and then our council man and the Crescent Hill community council. But we even ended up filing a few police reports when this neighbor became retaliatory due to our efforts. Fortunately, this person has since moved away, but despite 24 years of working with the city, and following proper procedures, the concrete still remains. So we truly just don't want to see anyone else have to go through a similar complicated situation. So we have taken this on not to create problems, but to resolve them. It's been a long journey to get to this point, but we see this as an exciting opportunity to establish clear ownership and boundary lines by restoring the full legal rights of ownership to the adjoining deeded property owners. Since the City does not need or use the alley and has stated that they have no intentions to, and because we as the adjoining property owners are already responsible for maintaining and taking care of this area anyway, nothing would really have to change and no harm is done. we could also help reduce trespassing and take better care of and responsibility for the area as the deeded owners so thank you so much for taking the time to hear me today and i sincerely hope you'll consider our request thank you any questions of this oh i'm sorry i ran away any questions of her thank you very much for your testimony um kevin delahanny

So, that's me, I live at 177 North Peterson Avenue. And the allies directly behind my property also became involved in this issue. When I got in touch with Kennedy somehow. And learned of the things that the property owner behind her had done not only to put a cement pad down on the Eastman all the way across to her property, but did some fairly horrible things. that created real problems for Kennedy. And the situation here, I believe, I agree, that it's a dead alley. I mean, it has no use. There have been, one of the owners had a kid that was using a motorcycle back there until I talked to the owner and they said, I'll take care of him. And we've had people wander down that alley. You can access the alley if you're walking. You can access the alley if you cut through a yard that doesn't have a fence. So, all we want is peace and quiet and I think that closing this alley will prevent further problems. Between owners or properties, and it will. Protect us more because I think that if this is passed. and people get access to the easement behind their property, they may put up more fences to keep people out. I don't know, but I really do think that the issue can be resolved if the easement is removed by the city. Thank you. Any questions?

Any questions to Kevin? Thank you very much.

Thank you all. Thank you.

Cindy Rollins.

I'm Cindy Rollins and I live at 126 North Galt Avenue. I really can't add anything to more that what Kevin and Kennedy said, except to emphasize. That closing this alley will resolve. Property disputes between neighbors. People don't know where the dividing where the center line of the alley is so they feel free to in numerous cases have put fencing up that didn't. took more than their property or all the way up to just like Kennedy described. So I just strongly urge the committee to adopt the resolution closing this alley.

Any questions of Cindy? Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Do we have anyone online? Joe?

is there anybody here that um would like to speak for or against it we don't have anybody speaking against it okay um and uh commissioners let's move to deliberation here any of your voice your can i ask yeah rachel something or can i ask her in deliberation or not can i ask her now you can ask her right now rachel how will these properties be divided up whose responsibility for

So it'll go down the center line of the alley, and then it'll be divided evenly, 50%. So if you draw a center line down the alley, and then whoever's property is coming up, each one will get 50% of that section of the alley.

Will it be surveyed?

No, the survey is this, is the plat that was submitted to our office.

Okay, and whose financial responsibility is it?

So once the property becomes private property, it will become the financial responsibility of the private property owner for the section that they are receiving to go on their deed. Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

While you're there, um, uh, so the, there was a plan submitted for. The alley closure, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. And I think the surveyors actually. Um, would have to go back and set the pins presumably at the center line of the closure. Um, has, uh, who's the survey by chance?

I think you could pull the plot back up again since this wasn't my case all the way through. I'm not sure who the surveyor was Joe. Could you pull up that survey?

Yeah, it's it's it's in the, it's in the case file up there on the meeting docs.

Looks like Kenneth Jason Graves. Kenneth Jason Graves.

Okay, and he's a, he's a PLS or professional license or licensed professional land surveyor. Yes. Okay. So he'll have to set those. The center line corners, I guess what I'm thinking is that, you know, that'll eliminate a lot of the speech himself. You go out there and you can see him.

And usually when they pull up the plot that submitted, I'll show the center line and I'll show all that. So it's already in the file. Sure. So that when Metro Council, you know, assuming Metro Council approves it, that would be attached to what gets filed. So it'll be a record for people to look at.

Okay.

Yeah.

And they'll, and they'll, they will, the applicant once Metro Council approves it, like I said, they, we go with them. Our staff goes with them to the county clerk's office to record it. So it's officially recorded land.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, it does it in terms of future fences and what have you, that should help out in terms of eliminating that problem as the neighbors have wished. So, okay. Good. Any more questions? Thank you.

All right, thanks Rachel. Okay. Commissioners do we have any further thoughts and or motions to consider?

Yeah, this is pretty straightforward. I think I come in the neighborhood for doing all the extra effort to get this done. And, uh, it makes, uh, it makes sense. I mean, it'll eliminate a lot of problems in the future. And so I would recommend we put it on the consent agenda.

Is that what we're supposed to do?

Yeah, it's it'll be a motion to place it on the next available consent agenda.

All right. You want to make that motion?

Sure. Um, so would that, uh, Jenna be tomorrow?

Uh, it will be quick. Yeah, Joe says, okay, we'll put it on consent tomorrow.

Okay, so, in the case of 26 street closures, there was a 23, I make a motion that this matter be placed on the August 20th, 2026 planning commission consent agenda. I make the motion based on our. Testimony in our staff report today.

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

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Yes. Okay. It's on the agenda tomorrow. All right. On our new business, item number 326 DDP 0022. And Sydney Fawcett.

Yep. Sydney Fawcett, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, 40202. This is 26 DDP 22. Other requests today, the 1st, 1 is a waiver from section 10.2.4 to allow utility easement to encourage more than 50% of a landscape buffer area and to not provide the associated plantings waiver from section 5.6.1 to not provide clear windows and doors on 50% of wall surfaces at street level and then a detailed district development plan with binding elements. Uh, the subject size about 1 and a half acres zoned commercial manufacturing in the neighborhood form. The site is currently undeveloped and the applicant is proposing to construct a 3828 square foot convenience store. With associated gas canopies, the applicant has agreed to a fee in lieu in place of the tree canopy that cannot be provided due to the existing utility easements and a variance to exceed the maximum front yard. Setback was approved by Boza on Monday. This is the development plan with the convenience store on that northern side and then that gas canopy in the front. And this just shows where those utility easements overlap the required landscape buffers. These are the preliminary elevations of the proposed structure. This is the zoning map again, CM in the neighborhood form. This is an aerial of the subject site. This is at the intersection of Commerce Park Court and New Cut Road. This is some of the industrial development just north of the subject site. And this is directly across Commerce Park Court. MSD and transportation planning have provided preliminary approval due to the internal layout of the proposed structure. That is why clear windows and doors cannot be provided on each facade and the existing utility easements prevent the applicant from providing the required plantings. But as I said earlier, the applicant has agreed to a fee in lieu. And then the development plan does meet the plan 2040 guidelines. Staff finds the justification for the waivers and the development plan are adequate and recommends that DRC approve the requests. And then your required actions today are to approve or deny the waivers and approve or deny the detailed development plan with binding elements. Any questions for staff?

Uh, just concerning the, uh, the landscape waivers did the hotel on the, um, North side of this side, or the North side of, um, uh, commerce, um, drive, uh, commerce park court. Um. Did they put in the landscaping there or did they not have the same?

It looks like they, they provided a little bit of landscaping. I don't know if they got approvals to do that. Um, they may have just done that on their own. Okay. Um, the applicant, there is a lot of right of way along new cut road. So they will be providing the majority of their plannings there. Oh, okay. Um, but just with the abundance of utility easements, they just, they cannot provide all that's required.

And so the fee in lieu for trees, how does that work?

So since they can't provide it, they'll be paying a fee in place of the number of trees that they cannot provide. And then I think it's urban forestry. They'll plant trees elsewhere using that money.

Okay. So it goes to urban forestry and urban forestry makes the decision about where that money is spent. Okay. Get it. Thank you.

Yep.

So, Cindy, will it just be one entrance into this?

I think there's going to be two.

Is there one off a new cut?

No, no insurance off of new cut.

Okay.

Any other questions to Sydney?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We have one person signed up to speak for Nicholas Dunn.

Nicholas Dunn, DSA Engineering, 3485 Old Houstonville Road, Danville, Kentucky. I'm only here for your all's benefit if you all have any questions. I'm the engineer that prepared the site plan.

Okay. Anyone have a question of Nicholas?

Looks like you did your job correctly. Thank you all very much.

Thank you. Is anyone else online? or anyone else here that wants to speak in favor of or against this project?

Can I ask Nicholas a question, please? I'm sorry to bring you back up. I should have caught this sooner.

You're fine. Go ahead.

Is this strictly automobile or are you going to have semi-truck?

No, this is for pedestrian vehicles. It's the site somewhat restrictive. There won't be any commercial. There won't be any commercial options for commercial vehicles.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners your thoughts.

Looks like a good addition to this to this area. It's probably something that's really needed to, um. Based on my being out there, there's not a lot of options.

So, yeah, there's not a lot a whole lot of gas stations on that end.

Yeah. All right right off the Snyder motions. Can we take the waivers together? Okay. So I'm prepared to make a motion.

Please proceed.

All right. So, in the case of 26, 0, 0, 2, 2. I make a motion that we approve two waivers, 26 waivers 0090 from the Land Development Code, 10.2.4.B.3 to allow utility easement to encroach more than 50% into a required landscape buffer area and to not provide the associated plantings. And another waiver is 26 waivers 0095, which is a waiver from the Land Development Code, Section 5.6.1.C.1 to not provide clear windows and doors on 50% of the wall surfaces that are at street level. And make our motion based on the staff report recommendations in our testimony.

I'll second.

Robert, we've made motion. Second roll call.

Leonard?

Yes.

Mims? Yes. Steph? Yes. Stewart? Yes. Fisher?

Yes.

Uh, 2nd, 2nd matter, um, I make a motion that we approve the detailed district development plan with binding elements, uh, based on the staff report and testimony heard today.

Probably made motion and 2nd, roll call.

Yes. Stuber yes means yes step yes Fisher yes.

And that is passed. All right case number 426 M plat 0, 0, 9, 0. Drake Watson.

Hello, all direct Watson office of planning staff for for 4th, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4 or 2 or 2. this is 25 in plat 0, 0, 9, 0 at 1, 0, 1, 0, 7, Watson trail. This is a minor plot to amend a record plot to create 2 tracks from 1. So, creating to touch on 1, this property is zone are 5 single family is in the neighborhood form district. It's a double frontage a lot with access to Waterston trail and locust Avenue. The original lot is lot 40 on the Greg's addition to Jefferson town subdivision recorded within the Jefferson county clerk's office in 1. Page 96, so it's an old 1, the proposed lots meet the required minimum lot width and area requirements. For there are 5 zoning district, this is the zoning map. So you can see there are 5 property there. Um, it was originally our 4 and then it just received approval to change to our 5 to meet the minimum requirements for this proposed project. This is the aerial so you can see there is an existing structure that front waters and trail and then a large lot that's empty in the back on Lucas Avenue and you can see the adjacent structures that do also front Lucas Avenue. Here's just a closer up view of that property as viewed from water central. You said the existing structure there, and then this is that real lot and so you can really get a feel for the houses there. So, but structure we built there, it would feel fit right in. This is the proposed minor plot. So you can see lot 1 is about 9000 square feet and a lot 2 is 8482 square feet. The minimum for our 4 was 9000. so we did the change of zoning to our 5, which has a minimum lot size of 6000. So findings and transportation planning have provided preliminary approval and the requested minor plot to amend a record plot is adequately justified for approval based on staff's analysis contained in the standard of review.

required actions today are to prove or deny the minor flat to create two tracks from one um any questions for drake i'm trying to check my recollection did we did this rezoning on this did we not earlier this year okay yeah yeah that's what drake was saying was that we did a rezoning so so that they could divide the property because they didn't have the full 9 000 they needed okay good thank you

So, the entrance to be off the back road, what is the back road? Yeah.

Locust Avenue.

Okay.

I think they're both or locust is.

Any other questions. Great Thank you.

Thank you.

David Grimes.

Daniel Grimes, 2106 Beath Road, Henryville, Indiana, 47126. I'm the surveyor on this project with Renaissance Design Build. So I'm just here to answer any questions if you guys have it. Like we said, we went through all the zoning requirements. We had approval through J-Town. There's not meant to be any cross through. One lot will touch Locust. One lot will touch Waterson Trail. So there's not an easement that runs between them. So they will be independent lots on their own.

Any questions for Daniel.

Okay, thank you. Daniel.

Thank you guys. Appreciate it.

I don't have any other people spoke.

Didn't want to speak up anyone online.

No, one's here that wants to speak for against this project. I take it. Okay, we'll move into the liberation commissioners, so we'll make us recommendation to J town.

Subdivisions are totally the authority of the planning commission, regardless of zoning jurisdiction.

Just wanted to ask to make sure.

Yeah, this makes total sense. I think we had this kind of discussion when it went through rezoning other homes. Those long lots have been created on locusts in the same sort of way. So I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead.

So in the case of 25M-PLAT0090, I make a motion that we approve the PLAT that's been presented to us today. I make the motion based on our staff report and our testimony.

I'll second. I properly made motion and second, but I just wanted to add that this goes along with the re-densification of residential properties.

Exactly.

I probably made motion and second roll call.

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

Okay. And finally, number. 5 on our agenda today is 26 waiver. Oh, 9, 9, Molly share.

Molly share office of planning staff for 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2, this is 26 waiver 0, 0, 9, 9 at 1, 6, 0, 1, Dixie highway. This is to waiver request today 1 from land development code section 555 to promote an accessory structure to be visible from the public street. And the other is a waiver from section 10 to 10 to wave the 5 foot vehicle or use area landscape buffer area, a planting requirement. The subject property is in the C2 commercial zoning district and traditional marketplace corridor form district. The applicant is proposing to construct a 990 square foot storage building 5 feet from the property line along West Galbert Avenue. So it'll be visible. And that's why the waiver request is here. And that new development triggers landscape requirements that the applicant is also requesting a waiver from. This is a zoning map of the property C2 commercial traditional marketplace corridor residential outside of that. And then this is a zoomed in aerial of the property. This is the subject property from Dixie Highway. And this is looking at the subject property from West Colbert Avenue. And then this is across the street on Dixie Highway. There's a dry cleaner and a church. And then this is across the street on West Galbert Avenue. That's a Thornton gas station. This is the site plan provided by the applicant showing the position of the storage building and then where the landscape buffer area is asking to be waived. Staff finds that the requested waivers are adequately justified for approval based on staff's analysis contained in standard of review and recommends approval of the waivers. The requested waivers are the minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant since there's nowhere on the site to construct a building without it being visible from the public street. The construction triggers the landscaping requirements, which are not a current condition on the site and expensive to install and maintain. The provisions of the regulation create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant and as the subject property already has limited space for inventory, complying with these regulations would hinder their business by taking up inventory room and blocking visibility. And the waivers not adversely affected joining property owners as it's intended to make the site look better, more visually appearing appealing. Your required action for today is to approve or deny the 2 waivers. Any questions for stuff.

Um, so, Molly, um, does, uh, this site have a conditional use permit? Because when you sometimes when I get on street view. Um, I guess it probably depends on the version or the day that the street views made it. It sure looked like that. There was. You know, some, you know, like salvaging auto salvaging going on.

It's a used auto sale lot. It's on C2, which is a permitted use for this.

This look like inoperable vehicles, wrecked vehicles and things like they've been made aware of that.

And they're trying to come into compliance, which is why the storage building is being built to put some of that equipment and inoperable vehicles inside.

Yeah, so they're under enforcement for having more than five inoperable vehicles on the site. The intent of putting the building on the site is to resolve some of that enforcement so that they do not have those issues and so that the site gets cleaned up a little bit. And as a part of putting that storage building on, it triggers the landscape requirements.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I mean, it looked like they were using like food trucks to kind of hide their operation, you know, from Galbert. I mean, it was it was it was pretty messy.

And so, well, maybe this is a step forward. I hope. I don't know. Who knows?

Any other questions, Molly?

Thank you, Molly. Thank you. Edward Rhodes.

Are you here just for questions, Edward? Yes. Okay. You don't have a statement that you want to give?

Not really. Only thing that I have is they said something about landscaping and wanted me to put trees over concrete. I didn't understand that, but I'm not trying to do nothing but better the community with the garage that I'm building to hide all the bumpers and fenders that I have.

I think we understand that. Any questions of Edward from the commission?

Well, sure. Um, so you're going to build a building and it's really a 2 car garage didn't really understand.

To pick up I was catching, but, you know, I understand the city is the city.

And so some of that salvaging work will occur in that garage. Is that right?

All of it will. All of it will. Yeah. And first, more the food truck. I didn't get the food truck up and running.

All right. Good. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

We have a... pretty good history of people that have abused this, not you, but people have abused this. So we're a little skeptical and are, you know, handing things out because, you know, it's just important that people understand what they're getting into.

Yeah. Well, I've been there 12 years and the man I bought the building from had it probably about 40 years and it was about a foot of strip. In the middle of the property, I didn't know, and I didn't know that. That's what took me this long. I had to hire a lawyer to solve a foot that I bought a property that some other man did for 25 years on. So that took me, it's been a long road getting there.

Yeah, well, you've got that behind you now. Anything else? Any other questions? All right, thank you very much. You're welcome. Is there anyone else here that wants to speak in favor of or against this?

And do we have anyone on line?

OK, let's move into deliberation. Commissioners, what do we think? And or do we have a motion?

Well, I mean, it's, it's, uh, these, you, you, you explained it very well and that our history with auto sales and auto repairs has not been all that good and they. they do kind of morph into something that, you know, just ends up being an undesirable aspect or, you know, to the neighborhood. At this point, we're just really kind of trusting that will not be the case here.

Right and I think that what they're proposing is reasonable here if there are enforcement problems, then enforcement would have to take care of that.

Yeah. Yes.

The gentleman Edward spoke and he seemed to have a good handle on it now. So, um.

I think Molly didn't mention because it's not particularly relevant to the waivers, but the applicant has agreed to also pay a fee in lieu for the street trees that are required. So, for the plantings that won't be put on site, we will receive a fee that can be applied elsewhere.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. All right.

This property zone C2 and the word salvage. in this conversation is of concern. Is the applicant aware that salvage is not allowed in this zoning category?

He's been informed by our office and by zoning enforcement that it cannot be salvage junkyard, et cetera. That's where the enforcement came from was for having more than 5 inoperable vehicles. There is a fine line and that's the issue that, as you guys have said, is what we run into a lot is there is a fine line between folks who buy cars, fix them up and then sell them and a true salvage and junkyard operation. So the. sort of the line that we set it out is that five inoperable vehicles so if it maintains under those five inoperable vehicles at any given time then they do not fall under that definition thank you all right ready for a motion we are take both waivers together case number 26 waiver zero zero nine nine uh i'd like to make a motion that we approve

the waivers of the Land Development Code 5.5.5A.1 to prevent an accessory structure to be visible from the public street, and Waiver Development Code 10.2.10 to waive the five-foot VUALBA planning requirement based on a staff report and testimony heard today.

I'll second.

Probably made motion second roll call.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Make a motion. We adjourn.

So moved.