Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody.

I'll start by reading the opening statement. This is a regular meeting of the Louisville Metro 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. Following rules are in place for today's meeting. Number one, please silence all cell phones. Number two, please be courteous and respectful of the committee and your fellow citizens. Number three, for those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and are not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on 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 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 who have completed speaker forms will be allowed to speak. Procedures shall be as follows number one staff will present summary of the request number to the applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation giving reasons for the request number 3 persons in favor of the proposal will be heard number for the opposition representative will be heard. Number 5, the opposed to the proposal will then be heard. Number 6, the applicant or their representative will have an opportunity for the rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony may be given during the rebuttal. Number 7, if there are further questions by the opposition after the rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. A unanimous vote of this committee constitutes final action on most cases. However, it If a vote is not unanimous or otherwise required or recommended the case will be placed on the regular agenda, the next planning Commission for further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions of the applicant to representative or opposition at any time to have a roll call please.

Staff yes here hims here Leonard present Fisher here.

Okay, the minutes first thing on the agenda number one is the 9 to 26 DRC minutes.

Mister chairman's this time I'd like to make a motion except the minutes from 9 to of 26 for the DRC.

I second the motion.

Properly made motion and second roll call please.

Leonard yes step yes and yes Fisher.

Yes. Under new business number 226 implant 0018 record plat amendment. Sydney Fawcett.

Sydney Fawcett Office of Planning Staff 444 South 5th Street 40202. This is 26 in plat 18. The request today is a minor subdivision plat to amend a record plat to create two tracks from one The subject site right now is about 0.29 acres zoned R5 single family in the neighborhood form. The applicant is proposing to create two lots, the first one being roughly 6,500 square feet and lot two being 6,100 square feet. The original parcel is lot 56 in the Greenwood Villa subdivision in plot book six, page 75. Both lots do meet the required lot width and area. This is a minor subdivision plot. Again, two lots from one. This is a zoning of the parcel, R5 single family. This is an aerial of the subject site. This is the subject property if you're looking at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Ralston Avenue. This is an adjacent property across Ralston Avenue. Per Section 7.1 of the Land Development Code, DRC does have the power to amend any recorded plat if reasonable notice and an opportunity to express objections to all persons affected by the record plat amendment. MSD and transportation planning have provided preliminary approval and the request of minor plat is adequately justified for approval. Staff finds that reasonable notice has been given and recommends that DRC approve the minor subdivision plat. And your required action today is to approve or deny the minor subdivision. Any questions?

Yeah, Sydney, I've got one. And it might be irrelevant, but is there any covenants to this original subdivision about dividing lots?

Not that I'm aware. I do not know if there's any sort of restrictions saying that you can't subdivide. But just because they are creating a new law, that's why we would consider that a record plot amendment. And that's why it's here before you today.

Okay, thank you.

Kind of a similar question for you or Laura, what is reasonable notice in this particular case? Is it something to the HOA or is it to just the joiners?

Yeah, so we sent notice to the first tier joiners and residents. We have not heard any sort of regarding this case. But that's really the only notice that gets sent, but I've not heard anything.

And that would be consistent with what we have done in similar cases. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioners, any more questions for Sydney?

Thank you. Thank you, Sydney.

All right. We don't have anybody signed up. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for or against this? Is there anyone in line? Okay. I your thoughts commissioners.

I mean if you look at this in this area that these lots are not inconsistent with the lots sizes and pattern that's in the area I I don't have any problem with this and and you know it seems like a reasonable request.

It's probably just an older subdivision at one time might ahead and actually that's probably been dissolved. I agree. I have no problem okaying this.

All right. Any other further comments? Someone would like to make a motion?

Sure.

So in the case of 26 and plant 0018, I make a motion that we approve the record plant amendment based on the staff report and the testimony today.

All sick. Properly made motion and second roll call.

Yes.

Yes.

Step yes. Leonard yes, for sure, yes.

All right. That's approved.

Next on the agenda item number 326 DDP 0038 in Sydney again.

Yep, Sydney Fawcett Office of Planning staff 26 DDP 38. Okay, the request today first one being a waiver of the linden land development code section 5.5 to allow an accessory structure to exceed the footprint of a principal structure, a waiver from linden section 5.5.2 to not provide vehicular connection between parking lots of a budding non residential developments and then a revised detailed district development plan with amendments to binding elements. The subject site is little over one and a half acres zoned C1 commercial in the neighborhood form. The subject site is currently developed with a 1,650 square foot office building. The applicant is proposing to keep that office building and then construct a 10,464 square foot storage building in the rear to house vehicles for the proposed business. And due to the use of that new structure, it is considered an accessory structure and therefore cannot exceed the footprint of that existing building, which is why that waiver is being requested. This is the development plan. Highlighted in blue is that first waiver for the size of the accessory structure. Highlighted in green is that meant to be waiver two, where that vehicular connection could be made, but the applicant is unable to make that. Here's the elevations of that proposed accessory structure.

This is the zoning map. And then an aerial of the subject site.

This is the existing office building along Linden Lane. And this is some of the commercial development just north of the subject site. And then some more commercial development just south of the subject site. This is the previously approved plan. It was for that existing office building and just some parking in the rear. MSD and transportation have both provided preliminary approval. The proposed accessory structure will allow the applicant to provide enclosed parking for the vehicles rather than having them utilize surface parking. There are concrete ditches that exist along the northern and southern property lines where the vehicular connection could be made, which does pose a significant constraint for construction. And the DDP does meet Plan 2040 guidelines. Staff finds the justifications for both waivers are adequate and does recommend that DRC approve both of those. And staff also finds the justification for the revised development plan is adequate and recommends that DRC recommend to the City of Linden that they approve that revised plan. And then your required actions today are to approve or deny both waivers and then to recommend that the City of Linden approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan with amendments to binding elements. Any questions?

Go back to the diagram showing the parking lot. Right there.

So the building is going to be in the blue?

Yeah, so highlighted in blue is that new accessory structure, so it's all the way in the rear of the property.

So access is strictly from this parking lot?

Yes, from Linden Lane. There's going to be one curb cut.

Okay. And I guess I don't know what is it up to us. Will the building material of the accessory structure meet Lyndon's requirements?

So it was based off Lyndon's code and it meets all building design requirements.

As long as Lyndon, if it's based off their code, then okay.

This is going back to them for final approval, right?

development plan is but you guys have authority to have final say on the waivers okay any other questions for sydney okay thank you thank you very much uh emily wade hello how are you all

Emily Wade, 101 South 5th Street, 2500 Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, Dinsmore and Scholl. We're here on behalf of the applicant, BNDF LLC is the owner and the property is currently occupied by Wilkinson Builders, but they are looking to have mint julep tours utilize the property and that's what's requiring the need for this proposed structure in the back. They do bourbon tours, Around Kentucky, and they have bands and things. I'm sure you've seen them around that. They would use this proposed structure for parking. We already went over the zoning and this is just an aerial of the site. You can see there's a lot of commercial development off. Linden lane in this area, nearly Grange road. And this is just a closer aerial of the site. You can see Napa auto parts is, um, north of the site and their parking areas right behind where our proposed building would be. And then the other, um, commercial properties off London lane. This is a site of the, or this is a picture of the current office building now that will consent builders uses this building will remain and there will there will not be any proposed changes to the front of this site. And then this is on Linden Lane. And then this is adjacent to our site here. This is where the detention basin will go. And then again, Linden Lane on the other side. And this is where the entrance will be off Linden Lane. And then again, the proposed development plan, the primary structure in the front will remain the parking area in the back will be used for people that are coming to do these tours. And then the storage building in the back is where the larger van sized tour vehicles will be stored. And then the elevations for the proposed structure. and the request for the waivers to allow the accessory structure to exceed the size of the primary structure and not to provide vehicular connections between the parking lots of the non-residential abutting developments. There are no connections now. And as you heard from Sydney, there's specific site constraints that would not allow us to provide those connections or would make it difficult. And then just the existing binding elements that were part of the staff report. And then the, Proposed by mean elements and we have Kelly Jones with us. Um, she prepared the site plan for this. If you have any additional questions related to that.

Any questions Emily probably for Kelly. I hate to make you get up. I'm sorry. Kelly, did you fill out a.

I filled it out online. Kelly Jones, Say Back Wilson, 301 East Main Street, Suite 202, 40202. Somewhere down there, huh? Yeah. We moved earlier this year, and I always forget our address.

How many trees are you going to have to clear out for this building?

You know what? I haven't really done that exactly yet. take out a couple of those trees that you see in the photograph where the detention basin is gonna go, but the ones that are closer to the road, we are going to be able to save. As far as the back of the site, I'm not exactly sure. I haven't looked at that, but any trees that are up against the road, probably within that first 15 feet from Linden Lane, we'll be able to save. Probably everything else is getting removed, but then we will obviously be planting additional new trees to meet the land development code requirements.

That's what I wanted to hear. All right. Thank you.

Just to correct my earlier statement, the parking will be for employees. For with mentors, and I think in the staff report, we showed that we will meet the true canopy requirement. So, even even with the removal of those trees in the back.

just a kind of a follow-up question to that because it i think it has bearing on the uh driveway connection waiver uh so um mint julep tours um and tell me if i'm describing this correct i mean they have uh you know fairly i don't know their tour buses probably 15, 20-passenger tour buses, do they stage from this area where their guests arrive at this parking lot?

That won't be typical. What is typical? I'm not going to say that that will never, ever happen, but it is very atypical. What's typical is the employees will come park in the lot, get in there, whatever vehicle they're assigned to drive that day, drive it to pick up their guests at whatever the, you know, determined rendezvous location is, and then go from there. So the intent is not for this parking lot to be for guests. It's to be for employees of Mint Julep Tours to come and get their cars. So it's not like you're going to go, you know, to visit the business next door when you're visiting this business, you're coming here to work and then leaving.

Okay. I was thinking if it was for their guests, it would be certainly the justification for the waiver because if I'm NAPA or that other business, law enforcement, supply business, gosh, I wouldn't want that connection because of people drifting over and using my parking lot. It's probably inadequately justified, you know, just based on employees drifting over there.

And it'll also be a secured parking lot. There will be a fence around it and a gate that closes when it's not, you know, probably will be open during the day when people are coming in and out. But there's a gate that will secure that parking lot and close it off. So it's not like in the evenings people are going to come in there and park and go to Napa.

It's not a retail business. It's good. Thank you.

Okay, any other questions for them. Either one of them. All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this case? We don't have anyone to stand up. Is there anyone online? No. Okay. We'll move to deliberation. I, you know, Mint Julep Tours has been around since bourbon tourism started, I think. And they run a good ship. I'm glad to see they've grown to six buses.

Well, it makes sense to clean your vehicles up. You put them in the garage. You've got a way to keep them clean. and ready to present to the public or your guests that you're riding around instead of having to get out every morning and wash it.

I've been on a couple of their tours and they pretty much pick up people that are here in town at the hotel or at someone's house or whatever.

Yeah, this kind of makes sense. I mean, from the standpoint of the waivers, I don't I don't have any problems with either waiver. The fact that they're saving the original principal structure, that structure would probably be landmarked if it was ever a wrecking permit that was made for the structure. So they're preserving that. uh and the fact that they have to build this larger building in the back to you know to do their business plan um makes sense um so are we ready to go into waivers first is that what your recommendation would be you do the waivers the waivers first and you can take them together okay yeah and so the waivers just a reminder the waivers be final approval here and then the district development plan is a recommendation to linden all right so um in the case of the waivers 26 Waiver 0094 for a waiver of the Land Development Code Section 5.5.2.B.1.A to not provide the vehicular connection between the parking lots of non-residential abutting developments. I make a recommendation we approve that. and then also the waiver 0093 from the london development code 5.5.5.8.1 to allow an accessory structure to exceed the footprint of the principal structure i make a motion that we approve that waiver now i make the motion based on a staff report in our testimony here today

second. Properly made motion in second roll call.

Lannert?

Yes.

Mims? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

In the case of the development plan, I make a motion that we recommend to the City of Linden approval of the revised detailed district development plan with the binding elements based on the staff report and our testimony here today.

I'll second. Probably made motion, second, roll call.

Steph? Yes. Mims?

Yes.

Maynard? Yes. Fisher?

Yes. Case is approved.

Thank you all.

Welcome.

All right. Item number four on the agenda, 26 DDP0046. And Zach Jones.

Thank you very much, Chair Fischer. 26 DDP 0046 Pioneer Acres Mobile Home Park at 1 Trappers Trail and 1 Wagon Trail. So we have two requests here before you today. One for a waiver from Table 10.2.4 for property perimeter landscape buffer. We're taking that down to three feet, zero feet for a portion that I'll touch on in a moment. of the property and then a revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. Next slide. So for this, we have a roughly 10 acre site. It is zoned R6 in the suburban marketplace corridor form. The development plan was originally approved in 1986 for a mobile home park that was already existing at that time. That same year in 1986, a CUP was approved for that mobile home park. Those case numbers are on the slide. Modification was approved by BOZA as well as variances on Monday. for this project. There is a waiver here to accommodate existing conditions on the site in concert with those variances that were approved by BOZA on Monday. And there are some updates to the binding elements. I'll touch on those in a moment. Next slide. Here is a copy of the site plan for your reference. Next slide. So here's the waiver exhibit. So you'll find that the upper southern boundary, that's where your buffer is going down to three feet. The L-shape, reverse L-shape piece, those are the areas of license agreement where those buffers will go down to zero feet because they couldn't possibly be anything if they're using part of Farnsley Road. And then there are no other buffers on the site. property perimeter landscape buffers required on the site. Here you have a view of the zoning. You'll see that the property's surrounded by some easy one C2 zoning, C2 to the north, and as well as along Cane Run Road, R4, with the neighborhood to the south. Next slide. Here's an aerial view of that property. You can see that neighborhood to the south and the existing businesses along Cane Run Road. Next slide. Here is that subject property along Cane Run Road. You'll see your first units towards the back of this picture. The Thorntons is along Cane Run itself. You can actually see the entrance sign in the bottom right of the picture. Next slide. This is a view of the property along Farnsley Road. You can see a fire access gate in the middle of the picture. There is some property fencing. The neighborhood is behind basically from where this picture is being taken. Next slide. Here the adjacent properties along cane run road, you can see the Thorntons that we were talking about a moment ago towards the back of this picture and the other commercial uses along cane run slide. Of the properties along Farnsley road, looking back from where the previous picture was taken in towards the neighborhood. Next slide. We'll go over a few technical review items. There is a licensing agreement in place with Public Works for the use of Farnsley Road right-of-way. I mentioned that a moment ago in a couple of those yellow highlighted areas where there are units up against that, so they've decided it would be easiest instead of rather close the road to license it with Public Works, and Public Works has been agreeable to that. They have that agreement preliminarily in place. This has been approved by MSD. They've taken a close look at it, and they have no concerns. And again, this was approved for variances and modified conditional use permit by BOZA on Monday. Next slide. Staff findings. So MSD and Transportation have provided preliminary approval. The waiver for the property perimeter landscape buffer area is adequately justified and meets the standard of review as referenced in your staff report. The RDDDP is consistent with the policies of Plan 2040 and compliant with LDC standards except where the waiver is being requested. Next slide. So for the recommendation, staff finds that the RDDDP is in keeping with Plan 2040 and recommends DRC approve and finds that the waiver is justified and recommends that DRC approve. Next slide. So you have two required actions here, approve or deny the waiver from table 10.2.4, to waive the required property perimeter landscape buffer on site, providing a minimum buffer of three feet. I've added the language, it's actually not there in the staff report, it occurred to me that that Farnsley Road would go down to zero. So I've just put as depicted on the site plan, if you all see it fit to make that part of your motion. And then approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. You'll note that there are a variety of binding elements that are existing on the property. some of those are outdated we have modernized those kept the only one that was really relevant today which i thought was important to maintain access this is actually on two properties so there's a property that sits behind cane run road and there's another property parent parcel that is on the other side the west side of the railroad tracks if you want to go back to the site plan where the aerial is actually probably easiest but basically the binding element preserved to maintain that crossover access. So, um, otherwise the track two would not have access, uh, to get out so that they maintain that. And then yet another binding element, a new one, um, that they maintain that, uh, licensing agreement for Farnsley road so long as they intend to use it. That's all I have for the staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Zach, is this on the outer edge of Shively?

It is.

So Shively, it's outside, right outside?

Yes, it's in Louisville Metro, but it's outside of Shively.

And why, and this is for my own curiosity, do we have to lease agreement for the road?

So I'm not sure what the status was in the 80s when they did. Did this approval, but the, there are some units that are into the right of way the right of way the portion of the right away has never been improved. Um, so it's just looks like grass, uh, if you're out there on site. Um, so some of the units have. I don't know if they ever even realized that they weren't part of the property. So to resolve that, we had a couple solutions. We could have removed the units. We didn't really want to displace any residents as part of that process. We could close the right-of-way, or they could license it from Public Works. At this time, Public Works and the applicant, and I'll let them speak a little more to it, found the licensing to be the most practical beneficial agreement here. Could always come back and close the right-of-way later if we felt that was necessary.

Okay, thank you.

For sure. Kind of similar questioning. I mean, really nothing physically is changing. We're just cleaning up some paperwork here.

Exactly. And I'll let the applicant speak more to it as well. But effectively, we have something that exists on the site. It's out of compliance with the original approval. I'm not sure if it ever really complied with the original approval that was done in the 80s. But what they're looking to do is to, rather than pursue non-conforming rights, just look at this holistically and legalize what's there. They're not looking to add any units. If anything, there might be some units being taken away. But yeah, at this time, that's really all they're looking to do.

And there's no code enforcement action against this property? Not that I'm aware. Okay. And then one other thing, kind of maybe tangential, but the Louisville loop kind of rolls somewhere in this area. Is there any interaction with the Louisville loop?

We sent this out for comments and didn't get any comments back from Public Works or the... His name escapes me, the program manager for the Louisville Loop.

I mean, Swintoski was the manager. He retired.

There's somebody there who is a point of contact for the Louisville Loop, and they're usually pretty good about when it's part of their mapped area, about requesting those sort of considerations. But I'll say, too, there's no portion here that – I can imagine would be along the loop. There's the portion along the railroad, but it's pretty well all taken up by the units. That's part of the request. And then the portion that's along Cane Run actually doesn't have much frontage here. It's just the access to get back to the parent parcels.

Yeah, that would be the only thing I'd ask. I'm not making this a part of a condition of approval or anything like that, but... I don't know if it was along Cane Run Road. I thought the loop was on Cane Run Road through this section, but it may be something somebody on your team may want to take a look at.

Yeah.

Since, you know, John's retirement, I'm not sure that we're getting, you know, the type of detailed look at it that we should be getting. So thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Of course, chair, just so you're aware, um, member stubers online, she can't participate in any votes because we have a quorum here, but she can participate if you have any questions. Related to transportation.

Okay, um. Emily, you're back back.

Hi, I'm only way Denz, Marshall, 1, 0, 1, South history, 2500 for a 2 or 2. And we're here on behalf of CP pioneer pad owner, LLC, they purchased the property about a year ago and during that time did a lot of due diligence on the site. As Zach said, this was approved for a mobile home park in the eighties, but existed prior to that probably around the fifties and sixties as a mobile home park before they formally requested the conditional use permit for the mobile home park. they when they acquired it they reviewed the approved plan and we saw several technical issues that we're trying to address here and that were addressed earlier this week at the board of zoning adjustments with the variances and modified conditional use permit application and mostly we're just making sure that they're in compliance and that when older homes kind of phase out that newer homes can be put in their place in those areas next slide Again, this is the entrance off Cane Run Road, right behind the Thorntons. And then this is a view from Farnsley and Zoller Avenue. So this is where the fire access is. And then along that fence line, that's where the license agreement is coming into place. We have Sophia with Milestone Design Providing Exhibit that Beth Stuber looked over with the license agreement for the specific areas, the site that are encroaching on Farnsley Road. The portion of Farnsley Road past the railroad tracks is not public right-of-way, but we talked with, the transportation department and they confirmed the width of farnsley road to the east of um the railroad tracks and that we would are currently in a portion of it so that's why we came to the license agreement there's about three homes that are access is on farnsley road so that's why we went with the license agreement instead of trying to close that portion of farnsley road down next slide again this is the end of farnsley road where you can see the railroad tracks And then this is just a picture of some of the homes within the site. There's a mix of older homes and newer homes. And so they're really just making sure that when the older homes come to the end of their useful life, that newer homes can be replaced in their spots. And then this is the development plan that Sophia prepared. And then this just shows the leasable area. So each of the lots and there's not really lots just leasable area that each mobile home will be on when the plan in the in 86 was approved. They were part of 20 foot separation. 15 foot separation based on the next slide's regulation. 902K AR 15010 provides for 15 foot separation for mobile homes. And then next slide. Again, just our request for the revised plan and the waiver for the perimeter landscape buffer area. The site, again, has existed since the 50s or 60s, so we're really just bringing it into compliance, but nothing will change with the layout of the site. We're just replacing new homes as they need or need in. And then we also have the site manager, April, here today, if you have questions specifically about the mobile home park.

Any questions, Emily?

Do you have to go through any state re-review? I mean, I know the state has some jurisdiction over mobile home parks.

Yeah, during the due diligence part where before they purchased the property, we had some communications with the state on the permitting for these. So that's been done.

Okay. Any other questions? Emily, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Sophia? Yeah.

Sophia Mazzocco, 108 Daventry Lane, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223. I'm mostly here for questions, but I did go ahead and look up the Louisville Loop Master Plan. It diverts to Campground Road before it gets to this property, so it does not run along the front. Thank you for doing that.

Any other questions? Thank you. Any discussion? Anyone else here wants to speak for or against this? Is there anyone online? Okay. Commissioners, what do you think?

This all makes complete sense. I mean, you know, this... Tidying up? Yeah, tidying up, you know. Everybody wants to say stuff about mobile home parks and factory-built homes, but it's kind of a thing. And so I'm kind of glad that they're doing it and continuing this park along. So you want a motion?

Yeah. Ready to make a motion? Go ahead.

Okay. uh so when uh in the case of 26 waiver 0097 i make a motion that we approve the waiver from the land development code uh 10.2.4 to weigh the required property perimeter landscape buffer area on site providing a minimum buffer of three feet staff finds a justification request adequate and recommends the development review approve the waiver And we approve, we agree with the staff and recommend the approval of this waiver based on our staff report and testimony today.

Did we need to read in the zero?

The zero.

Yeah, there was language that he had suggested that said as depicted on the site plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, yeah. To zero feet, yeah.

Go ahead.

You ready for a second? Yes. Second.

Properly made motion. Second roll call.

Leonard.

Yes.

Step.

Yes.

Mims.

Yes.

Fisher.

Yes.

Okay. Second matter. I make a motion that we approve the revised detailed district development plan with binding elements based on the staff report in our testimony today.

Second. Properly made motion. Second roll call, please.

Steph?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Lannert?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes. Okay, case approved. Case number five today on the agenda is 26 DDP0033, Revised Detailed District Development Plan, Catherine Gomez.

Yep. Catherine Gomez office of planning staff for 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, little Kentucky for a 2. 0, 2, as you said, this is 26 DDP 0, 0, 3, 3, new cut road apartments at 5323 new cut road. The request is a revised detailed district development plan with finding elements. This is an R5A multifamily residentially zoned property in the neighborhood farm district. The site is approximately 0.47 acres and it's currently developed with a 4,564 square foot multifamily building with four units. The applicant is proposing to reduce the vehicle use area from 4,403 square feet to 2,912 square feet to shift the 88 parking space. There's no new building construction being proposed today, and there are no increase in units being proposed today. Here is the site plan. And you can see the parking, the 88 parking space in front of the building right there. Next slide, please. This is within the R5A zoning district and it's surrounded by additional R5 zoning and R4. Next slide. This is the existing building as it is today. Next slide. And this is the front view of the subject property on New Cut Road. This is adjacent residential to the south of New Cut Road. And then across the street you have Iroquois Park. This is the previously approved plan. This is 23 zone 0041. From the plan, you can see that the vehicle use area, the 88 parking spot, extended up the drive lane, but now that's gonna be moved. Next slide, please. The overall site design is compatible with the existing and future development of the area. Neighborhood form district promotes the variation of low to high density that blend compatibly into the existing neighborhood areas. This revised development plan meets the LDC requirements and Plan 2040 guidelines, and it has been preliminary approved by MSD and Transportation. Staff recommends that the revised development plan is justified and is adequate and recommends that DRC approve the request. And so your required action for today is to approve or deny the revised detailed district development plan. Questions for staff?

I have a question. I think I remember this case because it was a rezoning request from, I don't know, two or three years ago, maybe longer. and um but then it kind of i believe got embroiled in a code enforcement matter and maybe sophia can enlighten us on this but there i don't think anything has been done here relative to making this property compliant with the original uh the original plan that we approved three or four years ago.

And I can let Sophia elaborate more, but from my understanding, you know, the plan that is being developed today wasn't the plan that was approved. So that's why they came in with a revised plan to come into compliance.

Okay.

You may be thinking of, there was a binding element enforcement case that came before the planning commission came And that was one of those where they upheld the citation, the Planning Commission upheld the citation and continued it, I think, to see because a revised development plan could bring it into compliance. There was no progress at the time that was checked in, so the fine was upheld at that time. So in theory, this would, if approved and complied with, would forestall, you know, would prevent future violations that would resolve it.

Okay. And I think the big issue, and Beth wanted to chime in to this discussion, is that, you know, there's two answers. I mean, maybe I guess our better judgment, but, you know, we approve this because it's a big old house on a big old lot, you know, and it was probably being used for, you know, multiple purposes. uh you know residences uh but there were some important things that were and that were a part of our consideration three or four years ago and one was you know removal of a one an entrance there i don't think that's been done and it needs to get done and uh so i guess i want to you know kind of understand that it's going to finally get done

Yeah, the only other thing I'll say is that this, I believe, and Sophia can confirm, that this property has transferred ownership since the original rezoning. And so part of the issues that are coming into compliance is that the new owner wasn't aware of, you know, and so we've been going through that process of, I just wanted to establish that it's not the original owner that went through the rezoning who knew those things. And so the new owner, I believe, is trying to come up to speed with what needs to be done.

I would I would hope so I mean we we hear that a lot in in it's disappointing and the public looks upon us to try to make sure that we're doing everything we can to enforce these binding conditions or otherwise why don't we have it so yeah and it's it just I mean we always have a binding element that says they're supposed to provide copies to tenants purchasers but then it

that there's usually a land use restriction filed of record with the clerk that says, hey, there's these land use restrictions. Here's where you can go to look them up. So there's a way to find out as part of your due diligence.

Yeah, sure. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Sophia, can you clear, put a light on this?

Yes, Sophia Mazzocco, 108 Daventry Lane, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223. I do have a presentation, but I think it would just be helpful to start with the timeline of events. So back, well, before we were ever involved, this property was being used as multifamily housing. in 2023 or 2022 we were asked to put together a development plan to rezone the property to bring it into compliance the reason the owner found out it was not zoned correctly is because he went to pull a building permit to renovate the interior and they saw hey this is single family zoning i don't know how these units were ever in this building now's the time to bring it into compliance We worked with John Talbot on that original rezoning and brought that plan through and it was approved in about September of 2023. That owner, from the previous owner, I think finished his interior renovations, did not do anything outside of the building, and then sold the property. I do agree with your assessment that as part of due diligence, you can find these approved development plans and there's land use restrictions and things of that nature. When this new owner bought the property, he received a citation from code enforcement saying he did not comply with the binding elements. he thought that you had to come before the board and get that binding element amendment amended to be able to comply when in reality the originally approved development plan had then expired so he couldn't be in compliance anyways because there was no development plan to take to the building department alongside construction plans so he came back to us because our name was on the original plan hired us and asked us to help him bring this site into compliance At that initial meeting, we noticed that or he pointed out the originally approved ADA access at the rear of the building had maybe been modified or always been that way that it does not actually connect to any of the interior units. So you cannot enter the building through that space. so we moved the ada parking space to the front that's the reason for that change everything else is still the same we still are removing that secondary access point we're still providing the same amount of parking we just have to reconfigure it a little bit to provide ada access and if you can just slip skip through to slide eight maybe i think that that can start us off here yeah so here's our plan you'll see you'll see the ADA spaces at the front and you'll go to the next slide. Um, it's in color. This is the, I guess, proposed finished condition of the site where that secondary access to new cut road is removed. We're widening the Northern most access to 24 feet to allow for two way traffic since this is going from one way to two way. Um, and again providing the same amount of parking as before. Next slide please. Just slightly larger. Next slide please. Okay, so on the left, that's the current site. You can see nothing's changed. That's what was here in the beginning. It's still that way today. And then on the right is the proposed change. We are leaving some of that concrete area in the front. It's not for parking. It's for patio space for residents to enjoy to overlook the park that's directly across the street.

Next slide, please.

And then here's the previous plan. You can see it was all one row with the ADA spaces at the back. It was only placed there because that was where we were told the best access to the building would be. And then now the plan is being revised to actually put it where it needs to be closest to the first story entrance. Next slide, please. And that's just showing you the relocation. And then Catherine already had these slides so you can just power through them. But this is just what the site looks like today. I knew you would remember this one because I remember this one vividly. It was one of my very first cases that I got to do without my boss here. It was really important to us that we put together a plan that satisfied everyone's comments KYTC Public Works MSD have all looked at the plan they agree with the change in the parking space and Like I said this client It's trying to bring the site into compliance. We have to move this parking space in order to do that And this revised development plan will hopefully be the catalyst to help him make these changes and I would be happy to answer any questions you guys may have.

So how many units are going to be there?

There's four existing units. They have been there for a long time, but we're not proposing to decrease or increase that.

So we're changing the zoning?

No, we are just asking for a revised development plan. The zoning was changed in 2023 to bring the site into compliance from a zoning standpoint.

So your view was?

It was a little bit controversial back in 2023. There were some folks that showed up in opposition. And, you know, again, you never want to. We're going from R4 to R5A. But, you know, we were in turn getting, you know, the closure of the access point, we thought. you know, with some of the, you know, binding elements and parts of the planet was probably a good trade-off.

So in proving what they're talking about,

going forward would you be satisfied with what i would i mean there's there's no guarantees still and uh and uh i would hate to think i mean this is that this is a logical step we have to approve the revised plan i like the plan you've put together sophia uh they have to at this point you know, do what they said they're going to do. Otherwise, we're going to be back, you know, with code enforcement, you know, and I hope to goodness we're not back here with a code enforcement case. I'll go nuts. And so hopefully that won't be the case. I trust that it won't.

Thanks. I agree. The owner is aware. We've talked him through this process. And I will say a lot of the opposition from the beginning case was purely about density and having other units here. And that was at the very beginning of this middle housing initiative. So that's kind of where a lot of the opposition was.

I didn't remember from what I read, but now that you're discussing it, I do. And... You know, I see the problem was the old plan basically not enacted. So he's come up with a new plan to make this squared away. So he'd be non-compliant. But he needs the plan approved before he can do it. I understand that.

Yeah, to pull a permit, he needs an approved development plan.

Any other? So the south driveway is going away. South entrance is going away. Curb cut's going back.

Correct. That'll be restored in this side.

Yeah, the sidewalks will be built. All right. Sounds good. And just to be clear, the binding element remains on the property that limits it to four units. That was included as part of the concern in the original rezoning, so that binding element's not being altered.

Sure.

If four couples live in four apartments and everyone drives, Where do you park eight vehicles if you only have four spots?

I will say the original iteration of this development plan was to kind of reuse the existing parking area to the north of the building, which was only four spots. At the neighborhood meeting in 2023, the attorney and the neighbors discussed and everyone felt six spots was more appropriate. So that required us to revise our plan to a much larger parking lot. Um, and I will also say that this is located on a TARC route with a TARC stop just up the way. And the current owner has indicated that most of his residents do not own a car. But this does meet the requirements of the land development code.

Well, they parked in right in the driveway, right?

The requirement of the land development code is one and a half spaces per unit.

There should be six.

For a fourplex? Is it one, minimum one, and then maximum two? In neighborhood form? I think so. We'll check. I think it's one and a half.

I think it's one.

The old version was one and a half.

My concern is people are going to end up parking in the grass, in the front yard, in the backyard, because there's not adequate parking at this location.

I don't know the answer. The owner is supposed to be online. He could answer maybe more about the details of the units. Is there someone named Joe Worth? Okay.

So, just so I'm clear on this, there's six available parking places, right?

Correct.

And what is the correct standard by, you know, is it six or is it eight?

I think it's a minimum of four, a maximum of eight, and we're right in the middle. And we're also on a TARC route, which allows us to reduce that minimum by 10%. So that captures additional traffic.

It's allowable. We're not making any special.

No, this is right in the middle.

Sophia was correct. The minimum requirement is for multifamily three or more units, which this is one space per unit. So the minimum parking required here would be four spaces.

We have six.

Another concern from the neighbors was going too far to the rear of the property. They really did not want that. So six spaces seemed to be the happy medium for everybody, including the neighbors nearby. They didn't want it to go too far behind the house. That's the reason for that number. We also feel like it is sufficient for the number of residents there and it meets the requirements of the land development code.

And to add to what Sophia said, I think the concern of the neighbors was there's That beginning of that steeper slow that was that the further back the parking when the more you start cutting into that slope and that became a concern.

And Jay do we let's move forward and we'll put this in discussion do we have anything else for Sophia.

I think the one question we have for Mister was this with whether these were one or we go to Mister worse he's the only.

I'm online.

All right, he submitted a speaker card online too, so he's good to go.

Okay, we're asking and the unit, the mix in terms of better Joe.

Wait, hold on a minute. Can you identify your full name and your address?

Yes, sir. My name is Joe worth. My address is 12 0 East record street. Little Kentucky.

Okay, you can proceed with what you're going to say.

Um, so I, I had heard that you guys were wondering what the, uh. The bedroom count is for each of the units. We have 3 of the units on the right side of the. At the park, looking at the property across. Those are all 1 bedroom 1 bath. And, um. Yes, all 3 of those tenants do not have vehicles. They take. The bus is being right on the tarp route and then we have a. The other side has a 3 bedroom unit. We have. The Mormon church is our tenant and so they have. 2. two young men that rotate out every six months, and they're here for their missionary work. And so we have a corporate lease with the church. And they have one vehicle.

Okay. Any questions to Joe from Christianers?

None here.

All right. Thank you very much, Joe. You're welcome. Do we have anyone else speaking in favor of it? Jonathan, is that you? You wrote neutral here. Well, come on down. I think there's no one else here wanting to speak. You want to address us? First, full name and what your address is.

Yeah, Jonathan Glowocki, address is 5327 New Cut Road, 40214. Okay. I'm the adjoining homeowner just to the south of the property. And I want to start by saying that we're not here to oppose the four units in any way, shape, or form. We participated in the process before. What we want to do is just aim for a well-maintained unit and good neighbors. We want to be good neighbors. That's important to us. But I just have a few questions that I wanted to ask you guys today. One, can the staff confirm uh that the binding elements uh will continue to limit the property to just four units yes okay so in the future if uh i'm sorry who answered for that laura shook her head but yeah yes yes i nodded but we also had justified yeah in the future just to be laura was responding on that but we're on a recording so i want to make sure Absolutely. So just to be clear, if a future owner wanted to create a fifth unit inside, they would have to formally go back?

Correct. They would have to go through a process to amend the binding elements.

Perfect. The next question I had, there's a proposed patio shown along the front of the property, close to our property line. Would it be all right to ask what the intended use and the approximate size of that is?

And the applicant can answer that in rebuttal.

Okay. Um, 1 of our concerns is there's a lot of foot traffic on on new cut road. Just a lot of food traffic foot traffic. We've had issues in the past with safety with people squatting coming up under our carport. We've had issues with theft and there are a lot of there are a lot of homeless individuals that come up and down the street that squat in the park and our, our concern with a patio area. Is that it would become a hosting area for for people to come unintentionally just becoming an unintentionally inviting space for them open fences. You know, it makes it harder for people to hide having clean sidelines is a good thing. That's 1 thing that we would request, but I'd also love to hear. Um, what the plans are for, um, just just for along our property line, there's plan for fencing. If the fencing is only going to the end of the building, if it's going to be, uh, you know, go across the whole front yard. Those are questions that I have that that we would like to know about. Um. But really, those are the only things that we had to say. We just would love to see. We've been looking at the property. It's been an eyesore the past several years. When we moved in the house, it was a single family residence. There was one family that lived there with their whole extended large family. And as it's changed hands a couple times, appreciate the and I do, I do want to say that I appreciate the work that Joe has been trying to do in the property. They've been very intentional and done a great job choosing neighbors. We've appreciated all of our neighbors who have lived there and that's that's all I had to say. Thank you.

All right, Sophia, you want to address this on your rebuttal?

Sure would be happy to we'll start with the patio so the existing parking pad that is there that was just going to be converted into the patio with some of it being removed to be removed from the landscape buffer area that landscape buffer area to answer his next question requires a 6 foot would fence along that property line which would extend from the building line to the rear of the property. um and again the the patio was just intended as outdoor space for the residents uh to bring a chair there overlook the park i mean it's directly across from eric or park so um very nice view shed there um there's there's not going to be anything i guess covered or enclosing it that someone could necessarily hide behind if if that answers this question And I think I think that was all that he brought up as far as maintaining. Normally there's a binding element about keeping the property maintained from a code invoice enforcement standpoint. I'm sure we have a note on the plan somewhere about keeping parking areas free from debris and and stuff like that. But I'm sure the applicant would be willing to incorporate a binding element about property maintenance if that's something that interests you all.

Okay.

I mean, that would be normal code enforcement. I mean, you've got to maintain your property. Otherwise, you notice a violation.

It would just be reiterating ordinance. Yeah. So.

Any other questions? Different code.

Yeah.

Any other questions for Sophia? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, guys.

And Jonathan, I guess you want to come back up and I just wanted to verify that you felt like your questions were answered or at least addressed.

The biggest concern is whether or not something is necessary. a place for somebody to hide up under a patio, just creating an environment where there's tables or seating. I mean, you can walk around Iroquois Park and find people held up on benches. And I've found people between our properties, between the fence, hiding out, sleeping there. It's just having areas that are inviting and have seating can cause issues for us. And that's just part of living on New Cut Road.

And I really sympathize with what you're saying, but then again, you're penalizing. I mean, I don't know what we could go on to say. You can't improve your property because it's so bad that, um. I mean, I just don't.

I mean, I think the thing, it's just common sense. I mean, you don't create these, you know, these overgrown areas that folks can just kind of hang out undetected. And, I mean, it's a problem along the highways where you have all this, you know, Asian honeysuckle and, you know, people just kind of hang out in that, you know, that area. And, you know, we would encourage the owner to probably... be you know kind of smart about how he does that and they certainly have a good team working for them so hopefully that won't occur

In many subdivisions have been involved with. You see nice amenities turn into problem areas in communities, but you know it always boils down to the rights of the people that live there. You know it's a tough question it's it's not fully answerable, but eventually You know, it just resolves the people that live there if they tolerate it or not. And you obviously don't. And hopefully that's the direction that these new people would take because they don't approve their property to have a nice sitting place overview in the park. So it's a delicate question for us to resolve.

Yeah, absolutely. I understand that.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

now the owner would like to address some of the comments that were just made so we need to give them the right to do that joe hey yes this is joe um in response to the um the patio i mean really it's what's already there is essentially a patio with a driveway that connects to it so you know getting rid of that driveway that that connects the new cut and closing that off i think to address your concerns i think if anything that's going to prevent people from walking up that to think that the patio is there to use since we've had the that now uh since we've owned it so i foresee if anything getting travel there is going to prevent that even further from ever happening like we haven't had that happen even owned it so um i think like i said the patio is really just for our our tenants to enjoy the outdoor space there in the front with the beautiful park in front of them and uh you know grill out enjoy the weather. So that's pretty much what it is. Because the backyard is sloped at a 45-degree angle. So it's not as feasible to enjoy that backyard space as it is the front yard space that's more flat. So I hope that helps.

Yeah, I think it does. I appreciate your candor with this. And I think that's what the next-door neighbor is looking for is someone that's concerned and going to look after their property more than anything. Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move back into deliberation. Remarks. Commissioners.

yeah i first of all i'm glad sophie is back on the case and i like the plan um that has been submitted um i i just hope it has a a more intentional outcome and that we're not back here with code enforcement and i'm prepared to make a motion if you're prepared to any other remarks go ahead All right, so in the case of 26 DDP 0033, I make a motion that we approve the revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. I make the motion based on Catherine's staff report in the testimony that we've heard today.

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

Lannert? Yes.

Yes.

staff yes mems yes fisher yes make a motion with your