Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Uh, read the opening statement. This is a regular meeting of the global 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 are in place for today's meeting. Number 1, please silence all cell phones number to 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 are not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on the case, you may send messages to the host. Number four, today's 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 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 speaker forms will be allowed to speak proceed procedures shall be as follows number one staff will re present a summary of the request number two the applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation giving reasons for the request number three other persons in favor of the proposal would be heard Number 4, the opposition representative will be heard. Number 5, those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. Number 6, the applicant or their representative will then 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 rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The unanimous vote of this committee constitutes final action on most cases. However, if the vote is not unanimous or if it's otherwise required or recommended, the case will be placed on the regular agenda of the next planning commission for the further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions of the applicant, representative, or opposition at any time. Could I have a roll call, please?

Mr. Weber? Here. names here Leonard present staff here Fisher here.

Okay.

The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes five twenty twenty six sure I'd like to make a motion we accept the methods for fat twenty twenty six I second the motion. I roll call please properly made motion in 2nd, we'll call.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Yes. All right item number 2 on the agenda 26 extension 0, 0, 0, 7.

Catherine Gomez and just commissioner staff is recusing himself because he spoke before he was ever a commissioner on the original rezoning of this case. So he won't be participating on this 1 case.

Okay. So noted.

Catherine Gomez office of planning staff 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. this is 26 extension 0007 Cooper Chapel road at 8300 Cooper Chapel road. This is a 2nd extension of expiration. The original major subdivision was approved May 12 of 2022 with an expiration date of May 12, 2024. The 1st extension was approved by staff setting a new expiration date of May 12th, 2026. the 2nd extension request was due to ongoing extension and reconstruction of the church road to parts 10 road that directly impacts the portion of Cooper chapel road adjacent to the subject site. So, if approved the new expiration date would be May 12th, 2028. This is the zone map of the subject site with all within the residential for our 4 zoning district. That's the existing site conditions. Currently. This is the front view along Cooper chapel. It's all undeveloped. This is adjacent property residential north of Cooper chapel. And this is south of Cooper chapel and then on the next slide is a residential across Cooper chapel room. And then this is the approved site plan from 2022. Staff finds that the proposal provides good cause as to why the task cannot reason reasonably be completed within the allotted time. So, your request for, or your required action for today is to approve or deny the 2nd extension of expiration. Do you guys have any questions questions?

I have a question, Catherine, so you really touched on what I think was what I understood to be the justification when that case came through in 2022. I think we either had a binding condition on the bill of church road extension and limited the number of units or something like that. Is that is that your recall or condition of approval? I'm not sure.

I'm not quite sure. I think the applicant can better answer that for you regarding that case. Sure. Thank you. I'm just not sure.

Any other questions?

Okay. Thank you. Catherine Cliff.

Thank you commissioners. It's Cliff Ashmore with 1 on 1, South 5th street, Louisville, 40202 here today on behalf of development commissioner memes. I unfortunately, I do not have the minutes from 2022 with me. My recollection is that there was a limitation and a requirement that a turn lane be constructed on Cooper chapel road. Going West bound to North bound Bula church road in order to allow that intersection. to function properly if the Beulah Church Road realignment had not been completed by the time that the subdivision was being constructed. So if you'll go ahead and advance. As Catherine mentioned, this was the approved MRDI development in 2022. Importantly, on this slide, you can actually see the plans shown. These are the plans that were on the books for the realignment. of Beulah Church, as well as cleaning up the intersection with Cedar Creek Road, which right now is really at the crest of a hill and has some visibility issues. If you'll go to the next slide. So you all may recall, because the Planning Commission has actually seen multiple proposals on this property over the years, including a rezoning that preceded the MRDI and a rezoning attempt that was subsequent to the MRDI approval. In 2024, that zone change was pursued to go to our 6 and to that plan was attempting to be responsive to what we had heard the community saying about the need for a diversity of housing. It included single family. It included town homes as well as the multi family. The planning commission in a split vote recommended approval. Of that proposal, but ultimately the Metro Council rejected that recommendation and part of the ordinance was that the roads in the area aren't ready. They are not. They have not changed materially since the 2021 case. So that was the reason why the planning. I mean, sorry, the Metro Council thought that the. Plan was not ready. These are the road projects and I just I've got them in 3 different colors here. Although they may only be 2 in the area. So, basically North South is Bula church. East West is Cooper Chapel North South. My understanding of the status of that project is that utilities are being relocated right now. So that is construction work that is happening that road. I would imagine the realignment is going to occur relatively soon. That would get North South that comes down to the property. And, of course, goes up to the Snyder and you all are aware that the. Kroger center that is at basically at the Snyder and Beulah church is under construction as well right now. Um, the East West connector, that's the Cooper chapel road extension that's been on the books for a very long time. And I believe as of February of this year, the last piece of right of way that was needed was acquired. If you would advance the slide. And this is the deed that that had filled that last gap from the Emberton's to Louisville, Jefferson County government. So, when we talked about this case in 21, and in 22. The timeframe for these road improvements was. Was this, I mean, I remember hearing somebody say that 2026, the Cooper chapel road extension was likely to be under construction, or maybe even completed that really just hasn't come to pass. And so we're asking that. The plan that was approved based on the existing zoning is allowed to have 2 more years to allow these road projects to catch up to it. And that's that's the expiration date extension request that we have for you.

So, I'm happy to take questions if there are any.

So, the, the reason that the, what you're all saying, the reason, or what you're saying, the reason for you all not proceeding the last extension was the roads. We're not not available now. They do have the deeds and. There, it looks more promising.

Yes, the initial extension was also based on the roads, but I just wanted to give you the current status, which I think within 2 years, build a church road will be widened and realigned down to the property. I should note that the property owner here has already conveyed the right of way along. Well, it's in that section, it's Cooper chapel. The roads are a little oddly named in this area. Um. So, it's already conveyed the right of way to allow that realignment to occur and all of the right of way has been conveyed either to Metro or to the state. I believe it's to the state going all the way up to the Snyder. So that construction work is underway. We would expect that it will be complete. In the next 2 years, which would allow. this development and the road improvements that have clearly been an issue for the community to match up. And that's why we're asking for the extra two years.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Cliff.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here that wants to speak? We don't have another sign up. Or do we have anyone online?

Okay.

Anyone else here that wants to speak in opposition or for? Okay, even deliberation.

Well, the request makes total sense. Um, I don't want to dispute cliff, but I'd be really surprised if it's done in 2 years, but even if it's under construction. Uh, that would be, you know, certainly reason enough to to add on another extension. Um, but, you know, it's it's this is a situation that we sort of created when we, um, approve this subdivision with with, um, conditions. And so I think there's plenty of good reason in terms of this just justification for an extension.

I agree. This road's been needed for a long time out there. And although it's not the preferred way of doing it, maybe by, you know, making sure it's approved, it brings it to light a day and people realize that that should be built.

Any other remarks?

We'll make a motion to approve.

All right. I make a motion to approve the extension. Of, uh, the of, um, well, 26 extensions 0, 0, 0, 7 at 8, 300 Cooper Chapel road based on staff report the testimony we've heard today.

I second that motion I properly made motion and 2nd roll call please.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Good luck. All right. Uh, the next item up item number 3 is 26 and 0, 0, 4, 3, minor subdivision flat to create 1 or sub. Standard lot pursuant to land development code.

Abby bills afternoon, Abby bills, office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 402. this is a request for a minor subdivision plot to create 1 substandard lot. The subject site is owned our 5 single family residential in the traditional neighborhood form district. The minimum required lot size in this zoning district is 6000 square feet and the subject property is approximately 11,000 square feet with the smallest lot being a proposed 4900 square feet. This is related to case 26 MCUP 4, which was approved at the June 1st BOZA hearing this week. The modified CUP was to reduce the size of the existing off street parking lot to only proposed lot one of this minor plot.

This is a zoning map of the subject site. And this is the aerial view. This is a view of the subject property from the alley. And then this is the view from Richmond Drive.

This is the minor plot. As you can see, lot one is gonna be about 4,900 square feet while lot two will be in compliance at a 6,400 square feet. Both Transportation and MSD have given plot approval and the requested subdivision is justified for approval and will rehabilitate a large portion of the site in a way that's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. So your required actions are to approve or deny the minor subdivision plot to create one substandard lot. Any questions for staff?

Abby, what come out of the BOZE meeting? I see BOZE was addressed in this.

The modified CUP was approved at the BOZE hearing.

Was there a general crossover from the alley to the front lot or an easement or anything like that?

No, not one being recorded with this plot.

They're not going to be able to have an encroachment off Richmond.

Correct. The transportation did give approval of the plot.

Yes, I understand. I thought, though, that he was going to get an easement or some sort of crossover. I mean, it's okay. They don't have to have it. but they're just not going to be able to onsite park.

Yeah, that's correct.

I looked at this, I thought I was confused. I figured that the initial plan was to kind of set up another lot similar to what was up and down Richmond drive, you know, but this is kind of going in the opposite direction with one of the lots having essentially frontage on Kenilworth, which is strikes me as being more of an alley, uh, and the other being on Richmond drive. Um, We have any idea what their is this is this for kind of supporting the businesses on barstown road or do you have any idea what it's for maybe I see Mike kind of. Wagging his head there, but maybe you can answer that so yeah, I'll let the applicant answer that question. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions. Okay, thank you very much. Abby Mike.

afternoon mike hill land design and development 503 washburton avenue louisville 40222 um yes Uh, yes, so this, uh, yeah, you're right. Mr. this, this is a parking lot that was approved by modified conditional use permit back in 2016 to support an adjacent restaurant and apartment building. So, they've made a kind of a change in plans now, and they don't think they need the, uh, the amount of the full parking lot, but I'll show you that in a minute. So. our plan to accomplish this required modifying an existing conditional use permit which we went to bose on monday to achieve that as well as uh create the minor plat that's before you today to split the lot into two um which one of the two lots does not meet the six thousand minimum lot size so this is the area uh it's r5 it's currently a parking lot that serves just to the kind of northwest is used to be church. It was converted to restaurant and apartments back around 2016. The church prior to that had a conditional use permit for this parking lot on this site that was approved back in the late 80s and then modified in the 90s. um so that's the the lot you see prior to that um i believe that the lot was split into two lots kind of long linear narrow lots like the remainder of of the block was developed but uh the the parking lot cup was approved for the church um at some point and and you know it's no longer church uh use now next slide please Um, this is, uh, so this is the view of you can see the orientation of our property where it's located in relation to the. No, Jay Mexican restaurant there at Roanoke and bars town and then in that same building, the former church building was the sanctuary apartment. So this lot. Uh, was intended to serve those 2 commercial uses or the commercial and the multi family back in 2016 when the original modified conditional use permit was was approved. Now, the proposal is to divide the lot into 2 as you see on the plat lot. 2 will be a residential lot facing Richmond drive. Will not have a curb cut to Richmond drive. It will be on site or excuse me on street parking to access whatever size single family home fits on that lot. It's owned our 5. so it would be zoned for a future single family residential structure. lot one uh would remain parking lot and that's what was approved with the modified cup at boza on monday and that would still continue to serve the adjacent business and apartments across the alley from from lot one um next slide please This is the modified plan that was approved Monday basically shows that the lot on the left will remain as a parking lot track. That's the 4900 square foot lot that that we're asking approval of today. And then the residual track on the right was removed from the boundary at both on Monday. And that's where, um. If it goes well, and everything's approved, there will be a new residence constructed on that lot in the future. Just a view of what the current lot looks like from Richmond. You can see the trees and then in the backside. This is the alley access on the right is the former church building, which is apartments and restaurant now. and then as you go down the alley this is the view from the parking lot from the rear from the alley so approximately where that fence is would be the the dividing lot on this side of the fence would remain parking lot to serve the the business and then on the other side of the fence would be a future residential home constructed and i think there's just one more shot there of the back alley i believe that's it Um, so that's that's the summary they've decided, uh, the, the owner of the, um, restaurant and apartment complex who also owns a slot. It's decided that this is what they would like to do with, um. With the lot, they don't need the parking. Um, they believe. The on-street and other parking in the area adequately serves the patrons of the restaurant as well as the apartments, but they did want to retain some of that parking, which is why they're keeping lot 1, I think, and 11 parking spaces as opposed to completely removing the parking altogether. In 2016, when the conditional use permit for the apartments Or, excuse me for the parking for the apartments and the restaurant was approved. There were land development code minimum requirements for both of those land uses. This is in a traditional neighborhood since then those minimums have been eliminated from land development code. Um, so technically. There's 0 parking required for the apartments as well as the restaurant per today's requirements. Um. think that sums it up they're aware that they won't have access to lot two through through lot one to the alley um there is although there will be sewer connection that way the sewer for the future home on lot two is provided through the alley so in the review of this plat msd did require us to show a sanitary sewer easement across lot one and we've done so happy to answer any questions if there are any

So, you're saying that you can't get a lot to from lot 1.

Not with the car.

Okay. That gate going to be removed.

It will be the gate will be removed. Yes. There will be a fence and a landscape buffer between the 2 along the new property line dividing line.

Okay, thank you. Is it noted on the plan? Is that noted on the plat that there will be no access to. Yes, between the 2. I did not review the platform myself.

So yes, we ended up with a whole series of notes. I believe that was 1 of them that landed on.

Okay. Yes, because I guess we could not. Force the issue, right? Even though I don't quite understand why the. They would be unwilling given the setup, but.

Yeah, I'm kind of like you, Beth. I mean, as long as the owner's going in there with their eyes open, it sure seems like it would be, I mean, if the same person owns the two lots and is going to build a home on the lot front in Richmond, you know, I can't see any, you know, really real problem with an access out to Kenilworth. But, you know... Just so he's aware of it, I guess, is the main thing.

Yeah, they're aware. They likely will sell it to another person that builds the home on the front lot, and they'll retain the parking lot ownership on the rear. It's just the way it ended up being, and they understand that whomever builds on that front lot or lives there would have no on-site parking on their lot.

Yeah, and to Beth's point, I think if it's noted on the plat, the buyer has the ability at least to discern it and make a decision, really, if that's going to be a problem with the development of the lot. Right. Cool.

Any other questions? Mike, thank you very much. Thank you.

We don't have anyone speaking in opposition or for, or do we have anyone online? Okay, move to deliberation commissioners. What do you think? Or do you want to make a motion?

Well, I mean, the board probably had more to say this in the, uh, in the commission and I think with the provisions about this note, um, being on the lot as Mike is, uh, agreed to, uh, include, uh, I'm okay with it. Um, so I'm, I'm ready to make a motion. Go ahead. In the case of 23 implant 0043, I make a motion that we approve the minor subdivision plant to create 1 substandard lot pursuant to the land development code section. Uh, 7.1.85 to make the motion based on the 1 with the understanding that there will be a note, you know, noting this condition on the plan and, uh, and based on our staff report and, um, testimony today.

I'll probably made motion and 2nd roll call.

Yes. Yes, Leonard.

yes steph yes yes i am moving on to item number four on the agenda 25 ddp 0097 chick-fil-a catherine

Good afternoon. Catherine Gomez office of planning staff for 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. this is 25 DDP 0097 Chick-fil-A at 10003 Ballardsville road. The request for today, we have a couple requests. We have a waiver of land development code section 5.6 to allow the facade along the street frontage facing Ballardsville road to contain less than 50% clear windows. A parking waiver of land development code to exceed the 52 maximum required parking spaces by 8 for a total of 60 parking spaces. And then finally, the revised detailed district development plan subject to binding elements. So, this is C2 commercial zoning in the neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing a 5183 square foot drive through restaurant with 2 Q lanes and 60 parking spaces, including 388 parking spaces. The maximum parking, as I mentioned before is 53. so parking waiver was requested to permit. Not it's not exceeding by 16 exceeding by 8. so it's a total of 60 parking spaces. This is the zoning map. It's all within commercial zoning district adjacent to residential along ballardsville and brown Sparrow road. This is a, the, excuse me the existing conditions of the site. It's currently vacant and it's on the corner of brownsboro road and it also touches new Chamberlain lane too. Next slide please. This is the front view of the property. There is a grocery store that has been constructed in the rear of the property. That's going to be adjacent to this chick filet. Next slide please. And then this is just a view along Brownsboro road. On the other side of that corner, and then this is view along east of ballardsville road. And then this is West of ballardsville road. You can just see more commercial development and then this is the new Kroger on Chamberlain lane. That was recently done. This is the site plan of the chick filet on the next slide. You'll find where the waiver will be applied to if approved. And then these are the elevations being proposed by the applicant. So, transportation and MSD have given preliminary approval. The proposal meets the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and requirements of the land development code, except for the waivers, which are justified for approval. The applicants parking study sufficiently demonstrates the demand for 60 parking spaces and the proposal is compatible with commercial development in the area. So, your required actions for today is to approve or deny the waiver of the land development code, approve or deny the parking waiver and approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan.

Do you guys have any questions for me?

I have a couple, um, when the public's, uh, development plan came in, uh, how was the traffic, um, numbers calculated for this outlaw was, was it was it calculated as a Chick fil A. Or do, you know.

I, I know that it once was all within the same parcel, but then has been subdivided out. So I can't answer whether the parking study. For the public's took this lot into account, however, particularly did have its own separate parking study and traffic study done.

So, yes, when initially was done with the Publix, it was not calculated to be a Chick-fil-A. So they reran, updated that traffic study to reflect the higher volume that Chick-fil-A gets.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, they're pretty intense. And so then the other question looks like on 1694, they're accessing from the curb cut there. Are they proposing a new curb cut on 22? Okay, I guess I misread the plan. All right. Very good. Thank you.

Yep. No problem. Any more questions?

Any questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you very much. Uh, Alan Wiley.

Hello, Ellen Wiley, 565 White Pond Drive, Akron, Ohio 44320. Can you bring up the site plan please? Just wanted to mention, yeah, we are not providing any new access to either of the public streets. We're utilizing the access into the public's. Parking lot that was provided for us. There was a parking. I'm sorry a traffic study that was prepared. We updated the public's proposal to include Chick fil a traffic. Originally it was a fast food restaurant, but we updated those numbers for Chick fil a and that has been approved by and Metro. Already can you bring the elevations up. Please these are the elevations the 2nd, 1 from the bottom. That is the elevation that we are asking for the variance on or the waiver on. That is what's going to face that is the kitchen portion of the restaurant in order to orient this restaurant so that we don't have pedestrian traffic. Crossing the drive through where they can just directly go from the parking lot to the building. Stop crossing anything we need to have that kitchen at the back of the building in order to serve the drive through. As well, so with that wall being the kitchen wall. We don't want to have any windows because all you're really going to see is a whole bunch of kitchen equipment and stuff on shelves and whatnot. It's not going to be. Very appetizing to look at from the street. Also, we have a plenty of landscaping along by large bill as well to provide screening of that wall. So, that's why we're asking for the, the waiver on the team on windows.

Any questions yeah, let's go back to the. Previous drawing parking lot. Uh, your entrance off of public's entrance. Is there enough room in there in case you get back up during peak hours? And I say this because I see the 1 on outer loop and when they get. Backed up and crowded, it gets out into the highway. I just want to make sure you have plenty of room.

Yeah. So the way that we have drawn up this layout here is we actually have the 2 lanes around the building. Then we can actually, if necessary. We could stack 2 lanes of traffic all the way before we even exit our property.

Okay.

Yeah, there's a lot of Q on this 1 and this is a very efficient. Kitchen inside, it's 1 of the new prototypes.

So I think the outer loop property was probably 1 of the 1st outside properties y'all put in Jefferson County.

Okay.

That's the 1 I frequent. Mostly, like I said, peak hours, even though you do have 2 lines, it moves, but it gets tight in there.

Yeah, we have, we have a extensive stack before we get off of our property. The goal is to keep everything on. Property not affect publics.

Okay, if traffic backs up, then you'd go into publics.

Yeah, if it got to that point, yeah, I mean, we could technically wrap it.

It's not backing up into a main road.

If it reaches the public street, we have a massive, massive issue on the inside. Like, no chicken to sell that would be bad.

Yes. Any other questions. Well, just out of curiosity, have we done the waiver on the on facade on other stores here in. Jefferson county.

I don't know the answer we have.

Oh, yeah, most likely. Yes.

I can't confirm, but maybe the 1 on the blanket Baker. We've done it for a bunch.

This happens very often when they're on corner lots, right? Because they have to have windows facing 2 streets instead of just 1.

Okay, I mean, I just mainly want to be consistent and not set any new ground here.

So, okay. Good Thank you.

Okay, any other questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, we don't have anyone speaking in opposition or for here or online. Correct. Okay, move to deliberation commissioners remarks and or a motion.

It's about the easiest Chick fil A I've worked on as far as traffic goes.

Well, in a parking waiver, it's a Chick fil A and that their business model is, you know, they've But a lot of people out in the parking lot and they run food out.

They do. I think they do a great job with it.

They do a great job, except they don't bring samples in for lunch.

We'll have to live with that, I guess.

All right. Prepare to make a motion.

Go ahead.

Case number 25, DDP-0097. I make a motion that we approve the waiver of the land development code section 5.6.1.C.1 to allow the facade along the street frontage facing Bylethville Road to contain less than 50% clear windows based on staff report and testimony heard today.

Second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call.

Leonard? Yes. Mims? Yes. Stover? Yes. Steph? Yes. Fisher?

Yes, then on case 25 DDP dash 0, 0, 9, 7, I make a motion. We approve parking waiver the land development code 9.1.16 to exceed the 52 maximum required parking spaces by 8. For a total of 60 parking spaces 26 now.

Based on testimony 2nd today in a staff report properly made motion and 2nd roll call.

And it.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Fisher.

Yes. And then lastly. Case 25 DDP dash 0, 0, 9, 7, make a motion. We approve the retail revised detailed district development plan that provides binding elements based on the staff report testimony heard.

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

Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Yes.

Yes. I think that's it. Right. Okay, move on to case number five. Uh, twenty six zero zero zero four Abby pills.

It's your day today, Abby, Abby bills, office of planning staff for for South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky for two to two. This is twenty six on Diane Marie road for a big coffee. This is a revised detailed district development plan with revised binding elements. The site is on commercial in the regional center form district. It's approximately point 42 acres. The site is currently developed as an off street parking lot and the applicant is proposing to construct an 861 square foot drive through coffee shop. This is a zoning map of the property.

And then this is the aerial. This is a view of the subject property looking north on Diane Marie Road. And this is a view of the opposite side from Chamberlain Lane. This is a view of the commercial property to the east. And then these are the commercial properties to the west and south.

This is the site plan. As you can see, there's an 800 square foot building. You have drive-through lanes and then one point of access from Diane Marie Road. Transportation and have given preliminary approval of the plan. It's consistent with the guidelines of plan 20, 40, and it's compatible with the high density commercial uses in the area. So, your required actions are to approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan with revised binding elements.

Any questions for staff go ahead go ahead access role is, is it from within a shopping center?

There's access from Diane Marie, and then it is connected to that existing commercial lot to the east. But that's the only access or in the West.

Stay down with the attorney. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions. Thank you. Um. Alex Russell online. He's number 5.

Alex, can you hear us?

Yeah, I can hear you Alex Russell for 66 or longer road rolling or Kentucky 4, 1, 0, 1, 8 on the civil engineer for the development. I don't anything else to add, but happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from any members. For Mr Russell. Okay. All right. Stand by in case something comes up. Do you have anything to add, Mark or Alex?

No, nothing to add.

Okay. All right. Anyone else here to speak for and or against it?

Someone with the fire authority wants to speak about this case, so I'll bring over Gary Mueller.

Okay. Very do you hear us.

Yes, I do thank you.

I give your name and address including zip code and tell us what you. What you're for against it and proceed from there.

Anchors no town fire department. 9814 other bail lane or feather belt Boulevard. 4 0 2 4 0 0 5 9. We support the request. We don't have any negative findings. We wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that at time of permits, we will not allow any trees within four feet of the existing private hydrant, and we will need a current third party inspection of that private hydrant that's on this property on the proposed development plan.

All right. That's what you need. Hold on a minute. Alex, are you still there?

Yeah, I'm still here.

Did you understand what this gentleman's saying?

Yes, I understand. And we can have that inspection done.

Okay. Should we make this part of it now?

No, this is a required a construction phase. So these will be addressed at the construction stage. It doesn't need additional.

Okay. All right. Well, um, uh, Gary, thank you for bringing that to our attention. And, um, it sounds like, uh, Alex is agreeing to your proposal. So we'll proceed with that. Thank you as part of the record. uh any anyone else who wants to speak for or against this okay all right move to deliberation uh commissioners what do you remarks or and or motions i make a motion case number 26 ddp-0004 that we approve revise

The wording, right provides detailed district development plan with revised binding elements based on staff report testimony heard today. 2nd, probably main motion 2nd, roll call.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. And moving on to our last case, case number six, 26 DDP 0019, Lowe's, Northeast Louisville. Zach?

Yes, Zach Schwager, Office of Planning, Louisville, Kentucky, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. Next slide. So there is a request for a waiver for outdoor storage that is to increase the outdoor storage area and height and also the location to public right of way. And then there is also a revised detailed district development plan with revision to binding elements. Uh, so the sites approximately fifteen acres, uh, on, uh, in the Norton healthcare Boulevard, uh, in old Brownsbury, Brownsboro crossing, uh, it's own commercial in the regional center form district. Um, in the applicant is proposing about ten thousand square feet of permanent outdoor storage, uh, as well as increasing the seasonal sales display, uh, storage, um. And then the waiver again is stated that the outdoor sales and display will increase an area height and location to public right of way. Next slide. So this is the previously approved plan. Again, this is still Lowe's out in the Brownsboro Crossing Shopping Center. Next slide, please. This is the proposed site plan. The permanent storage, proposed permanent storage is in green, and then the proposed seasonal is in yellow there on the right. Next slide. This is the zoning of the subject area. Uh, right off, uh, 265. Um, and then this is the aerial of the subject property and surrounding properties. And, uh, this is the front, uh, yeah. And then so sorry, I was just going to say that the permanent storage is over to the right. It was hard to get a, like. Good screenshot that would actually show something, but the permanent storage would be to the right there to the north and then the seasonal would be to the left to the south. Yes. Thank you. And then the staff findings is compatible with the surrounding uses, and it will not negatively impact the joining properties. And the revised detail district development plan does meet the requirements of the land development code implant plan. 2040. And then the required actions today are to either approve or deny the waiver request for the outdoor sales in storage and approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan and waiver. I'm sorry with revision to bonding elements. Are there any questions.

I have one here, Zach, if it would be okay. Is there a limitation percentage wise as to how much can be devoted to outdoor sales and storage? Yes, it's thirty percent. Thirty percent. Okay.

And then the one, the seasonal is increasing by about fifty. So,

that's where there you know there is some gray area there okay so 30 percent um is what's allowed for permanent outdoor sales or storage yes And then we're, we're, we have this seasonal thing going on here and that's, that's taken, that's taken it above that thirty percent. Correct. Okay. And is there a waiver for that? I guess it is. Sure. That's what we're doing.

Um, yes. And then, but this actually does bring up another point that I failed to mention, um, the, and I, there is the letter, um, it's, it's Louisville Metro code of ordinance, uh, based on outdoor display in fire lanes. So there is concern in that regard. That's really the main and, you know, your point is a valid one as well in terms of the waiver request. But I wanted to make note of the Fire Department note as well.

Sure. Did each commissioner get a copy of this or that needs to be the one? Okay, then I'm going to start it over here.

I can't read it.

Yeah. Well, also, I think I think Mueller it's the letter from and I think he's online.

Yeah, Gary would like to speak to this case too. So he might be able to describe that document a little further.

It's a letter from him.

All right, Zach. The permanent storage, is that infringing on any buffer area to Norton's parking lot?

No, but the applicant has proposed to increase their landscaping along that northern property line that is shared with Norton.

Okay, all right. Yeah, I saw that was over there.

Yeah. And then that's kind of the bigger 1, I would say, personally speaking. Is along that northern property line, the increase there, because it looked like it was a crossover.

From the parking lot in there too.

Yeah, and they indicate further landscaping, but they would have to revise that.

Anyway, we need it in a binding element, or would it be on the plan?

It's in the revised. Yeah, the revised proposed revised binding elements is that they'll need a landscape plan.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions. Okay, there's no one signed up unless someone online. Is that what you said?

Gary wants to speak. The applicant was online, so I just brought him over to the panel if they have anything to add. But if not, we can move on to Gary.

All right, that's fine. Let's get Gary on the line.

Mr. Bartok, do you have anything to add or anything that you want to describe about the project?

Yeah, if you don't mind, this is Todd Bartok, Senior Construction Manager for Lowe's, 1000 Lowe's Boulevard, Mooresville, North Carolina, 28117. I don't know if you have the color-coded version in front of you, but the red area over to the northwest corner of the building is screened with a tube steel aluminum fencing. So along with the additional landscaping – oh, yeah, it's green here on this screen here. um in addition to the additional landscaping to buffer that area we've also proposed a um a tube steel aluminum fencing to go along with that to screen that in i don't think it's shown there on that plan but it was on the last plan that we had submitted okay any questions

Todd, thank you, Todd. And Gary, are you still with us?

I am, thank you. Gary Mueller, Anchorage, Middletown Fire Department, 9514 Feather Bell Boulevard, 40059. Sorry. I'm not sure how well you can zoom in on that same color site plan, but... Anchor's Middletown has no opposition to the proposed yellow and green areas. What we have an opposition of is that on sheet three of their plan that is not on this screen, they show pictures of existing approved permanent storage of merchandise along the building and but not in the also shown and required fire lane that is marked with signage and striped and labeled on pavement as fire lane. Unfortunately, on their sheet three that they submitted, the pictures they show and the illustration that they provided does not match what's actually out there. All of their merchandise that they have has extended all the way out into and beyond the fire lane on the front, the back and the sides, all four sides. This was shared with the manager on site. I met with them on site when I was taking the pictures. Our comments was also emailed to Mr. Bartok. Sorry if I mispronounced your name, but we hadn't received any comments back. So the importance of fire lanes is one, there is a fire department connection that ties into their sprinkler system between their front door and their garden center. And we have to be able to pull up and run hoses and connect to that to suppress fire. Unfortunately, they have lawnmowers, plants, garden material, lots of items that are blocking. All the signage that's on the buildings have all faded and are very, very difficult to read. But our issue is they have presented a development plan to you all that does not reflect current conditions and they are exceeding what they were originally approved. So we believe that should be corrected to match either propose it all permanent and show a new fire lane or show it as it's accurately should be and as well on site. But we do our we don't have a their proposed permanent and proposed temporary seasonal areas in green and yellow that they showed. We don't oppose that. We oppose how their that what's not shown that's actually on site that they're not asking for. That's what we wanted to bring to your attention.

May I comment?

Hold on one second.

Yes, sir.

Let me go ahead and ask you, Steph. Do you have a remark?

All right, Gary, let me ask you this. On the northern side, the green part, It's over by Norton's parking lot. With this new addition for permanent outdoor storage, will you all have access to get completely around the building on that side?

If they remove the material that is existing along the building, because otherwise, no. Currently, there's photos that shows lumber, building material against the building. out into the drive lane. Once they, if they put this permanent there, maybe the goal is to move everything against the building out into this parking space. That would be great for us, but we need that access lane, which is currently blocked by product. That's not being requested to have stored outside.

Yeah. I just want to make sure you can get around the building. We run it as before.

That's what we want to.

Uh, yeah. Yeah, we have a compliance issue evidently here.

Yeah, so really the issue here is compliance. That's why we're here with this revised development plan. There was enforcement on the property. They were not in compliance with the approved development plan. So they have to come in, revise the development plan to get in compliance. What's shown on the development plan? That is that Zach has brought forward that the agencies have offered preliminary approval. does not have storage in the fire lanes on the approved plan would be the approved plan. So if that plan is approved, then the issue becomes enforcement of the improved play of the approved flight.

Can we approve the addition of these items subject to, um, them being compliant with the plan that

I mean, you can't you can't necessarily approve them. You can't approve the expansion. On condition that they are in compliance with the plan, because if you approve the plan, then they have to be in compliance with the plan.

Okay, so, um. Since this is a compliance, we can't pass. Although we're inclined, I think we're inclined to pass, and I think Gary was speaking about he doesn't have a problem with the extra storage, but he has a problem with compliance, right?

Right. The issue appears to be compliance.

Okay. So what do you think, Commissioner?

Are they needing the, yeah.

Okay. Todd, did you want to do a rebuttal here?

Yes, sir, if you don't mind. Thank you very much, Commissioners, for my time. The plan is shown as, I mean, we understand that's the reason why we're here is that we received a notice of violation of being noncompliant and moving the material that's up against the building on that Northwest side of the building that Gary is talking about. That is the reason why we're doing that enclosed area. Is to put that lumber and miscellaneous building materials that are being stored there for pickup and or delivery at this time. It'll go into that area that I believe is in. Green on your screen? Mine's red. So I can't really tell you. But yeah, that is the whole reason why we're here is we're going to build that fence, put that material back there and become compliant with that fire lane. Yes, the green. And then the other areas that Gary was talking about is we have taken what was previously approved as kind of a blanket across the front of the store and put all the access points, cleared those, and then also any FDC or fire connection areas on the building, we've shown that to be clear also. And once the store manager gets the approved plan that will come from me with a what we call a clearance letter that will go into their books and this will be the plan that they'll follow. So there will not be any more storage up against the building in the fire line. And we can also replace all this faded fire lane signs.

all right so i see his problem i think is there anyone else that we need to have speak we can move into the deliverance then all right commissioners uh your thoughts i mean it kind of sounds to me like uh they need permission to create the stories that they need to be compliant right

It seems to be that we would need to approve this and then let the applicant and the fire department work out the compliance. But again, this is a compliance issue. Either this is resolved at staff level. If it's not resolved at staff level, this really falls back into the compliance issue, which really doesn't involve this committee, in my opinion. So we should, in my opinion, approve this matter and then let them get together and work out the compliance.

Rachel, does that satisfy what you were talking about?

Yes, that's correct. That is exactly staff's opinion of what should happen.

Yeah, as long as we get a dedicated fire lane through where it's not blocked, we've got passage around there, yeah, this plan, what they want to do needs to be voted on.

all right so do you want to make a motion and i guess we we're making a motion here to approve the rearrangement of so they can go ahead and do it i guess i have a i'm going to express one concern i don't know prepare the plan i think maybe our company did but um the main thing i was a little bit concerned about it doesn't look like we have a an accurate plan here um so my question to you zach is is the base plan accurate

Well, I think that's kind of the main point, or I guess what Gary brought is that it's not. Yeah, yes, not reflecting the current site conditions.

Um, well, we're, we're, we're proving. With this, if we pass it, we're approving storage in those areas to any of those areas violate.

It didn't sound like they did not based on the plan that's before you today. Um, so I guess that is previous plans would be remediation of.

This is a revision of a previous plan, right?

Yeah, and I guess that when I guess I agree with commissioner, uh, Leonard that, um, I mean, it's, it's more of a kind of a staff level level compliance issue. Um.

Or is it you tell me well, it would have had to have come before the committee in order to revise the binding elements and to. Vote on, you know, to approve or deny the waiver request. Um, so, I mean, the plan is, I guess what they intend to do.

Yeah, so there's there's 2 issues at hand here of how this got here. There's non compliance because they weren't in compliance with the approved plan. And the approved plan on site did have that outdoor sales and display area in front of the building, but it did not have the additional seasonal display and the additional permanent display. So that was the 1st issue not compliant with the approved plan, because it's got these extra areas for outdoor storage. And then there's a 2nd compliance issue, which is that they're not in compliance even with that old approved plan, because they are storing items. In the fire lane, so there's 2 issues of compliance, but what this is doing is bringing it into compliance with that waiver for outdoor storage to say that. Yes, it is allowed to have an expanded outdoor storage and sales area in those highlighted areas that Zach had on his plan. And then, yes, there's sales and display that's cleaned up with fire lane markings in front of it. And then if there's any. Items that are stored in the fire lane that would not be in compliance with both the plan and also with the fire code. So then it becomes an enforcement issue.

Yeah, and I guess that's, I mean, just looking at the pictures, it looks like a flea market out there in with stuff stored in the fire lane and scattered about. It's exactly what we don't like seeing with whether it be Lowe's or Home Depot or Menards or any of these operators. So I'd say, you know, I'm okay with with making this change, but. We've got to get busy with this in terms of the compliance, right?

Exactly. So what, you know, as commissioner Leonard stuff said, we get this plan approved and then our enforcement officers can go out and say, this is the approved plan. You must be in compliance with this approved plan.

It sounds like they want to be in compliance. So I think we're all moving in the right direction. So motion anybody.

Sure, I'll go with it. So in the case of 26 DDP0019, I make a motion that we approve the waiver from the land development code section four point four point eight point C point one and four point four point eight point C point two relative to the outdoor sales and displays in storage areas exceeding the maximum area in height as permitted in storage within twenty five foot of the public right away and make the motion based on our staff report and testimony today.

I'll second. Probably made motion in 2nd, roll call please.

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

Okay, and the 2nd matter, I make a motion that we approved. The revised detailed district development plan. Uh, with revisions to the binding elements and, uh, and assuming we'll have compliance with this plan, uh, I make the motion that we approve, um, these 2 items based on our staff report and testimony today.

I'll say probably main motion and 2nd roll call.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. Motion. Motion to record. We are adjourned. See you tomorrow.