Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'll start by reading our opening statement, for our planning commission, meeting and hearing for 03/07/2026. This is the regular public hearing of the Louisville Metro Planning Commission to hear cases as advertised and documented for hearing today. Please notice, public notice have been provided and materials have been available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's hearing.

Please silence all cell phones. Please be courteous and respectful to the commission and your fellow citizens. For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the commission must do so from the podium or virtually. There are time limits in effect for today's hearing. The applicant or their representative should have no more than fifteen minutes for their presentation. Other persons in favor of the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person.

The opposition representative shall have a total of no more than fifteen minutes for their presentation. Other persons opposed to the application shall have a total of no more than three minutes per person. Rebuttal by the applicant or their representative shall be no more than five minutes. If you plan on speaking, please fill fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Party shall be given to the speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. Procedures shall be as follows. Staff will present a summary of the request. The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation given reasons reasons for the request.

Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or their representative will then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal.

If there are questions by the opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The commission may ask questions of the applicant representatives or opposition at any time. Pursuant to KRS chapter 61 and commission's bylaws, the commission's deliberation and voting today will be held immediately following the public hearing for each case. No party will be allowed to speak during the deliberations of this commission. Roll call, please.

Benitez.

Here.

Bond?

Here.

Leonard? Present. Lohan?

Here.

Mims? Here. Steph?

Here.

Stuber?

Here.

Fisher?

Here.

Sistran?

Here. I'm a ask the staff to stand up so I can swear you in. You swear affirm that the testimony that you're gonna give to this commission is the truth. Alright. Next, I'm going to Julia, are we okay on the April 23 minutes?

Okay. We can approve them at the end. Right? If they're right okay. The first thing or the next thing that we'll do is to approve, some changes or corrections to the minutes for 24 Zone 0098, which were put on the agenda from 03/19/2026.

Commissioners, the change that was made, to the minutes was for binding element number one and binding element number one of both the detailed district development plan as well as the general, district development plan. And those changes were just, in general in nature to clean up the language from, the old language we used to use to the new language, but the, content remained the same. So with that, any questions? Or I'm looking for a motion to

Well, just one question. I'm trying

is the new language related to council approval of the plan? What what is that?

No. It's changes in the first binding element that deal with any changes made to the development plan. There's some mixed language. That general plan was added on one, and so it just needed to be removed from one and added to another. It was

Okay. This is related to general plan versus detailed plans and things like that.

Yeah. It wasn't anything to do with council.

Cool. Thank you. Any other questions? Alright. I'm looking for a motion to approve the changes in those minutes.

I make a a motion that we approve the corrections to 24 Zone 0098. The the meeting minutes for was it April 19?

No. It was March 19.

March 19, I mean. And I make the motion based on our testimony today.

Second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Mims?

Yes.

Lohan?

Absteen.

Steph? Yes. Kennert?

Yes.

Bond? Yes.

Thank you.

Fisher?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Benitez? Yes. Systrunk?

Yes. Also, I skipped the April 23, planning commission minutes approval. We'll come back to that at the end. Moving into our public hearing, first case on the agenda is 260002 with the request for a new cellular tower located at 6406 Mormon Road, and our case manager is oh, not Tyler. I'm gonna turn it over to you.

Tyler's on military leave, so I will be filling in for him. Joe Haberman, office of planning, 444 South 5th Street. So this is an application for a new cell tower at 6406 Mormon Road. So the property zoned r four with a neighborhood form. They're proposing a tower compound that's about 10,000 square feet in area.

The, the cell tower will be about a 185 feet topped with a five foot lightning rod, and that will give a total height of a 190 feet. The facility will have an eight foot fence around it and compliant landscaping and buffering. So the procedure, the commission has seen these before, but this is more of a reminder that you're gonna review the plan in light of the comprehensive plan, and you make a final decision on whether to approve or deny the uniform application. If you choose to make a decision, you're gonna advise the applicant within sixty days, from the date that the application is submitted. You can go to the next slide.

So these are the additional considerations that the commission can make. If you disapprove of the proposed tower or construction, you need to state the reasons why you're making that disapproval or denial in writing, and you're gonna have to relate those to the comprehensive plan, as to why. You may require the applicant to make a reasonable attempt to colocate in their application. I think they illustrated how they did look into colocations and found that this new tower would be necessary to provide the service in this area. And then finally, you can deny the tower based on the applicant's unwillingness to co locate, but, again, they address that.

Next slide. So just as some more reminders, state law precludes the commission from denying the cell tower based on concerns from the electromagnetic field issues, so long as the the provider meets the standards put into place by the FCC. And, also, the Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits citing the decision based solely on the existing of other cell services in the area. This is the property. Again, it's R four, so it's that larger property, but it won't be impacting the entire parcel.

You can go to the next slide. This is an aerial that kinda shows what's there. It's developed with some other uses, but it will only take place in the corner, which I think the next slide will show. Here is the subject property that shows the property. Next slide. Here is some adjacent properties on Tierney Avenue. Here are some adjacent properties on North Drive. Here is the site plan that shows where that compound will go. Again, it's around 10,000 square feet with a new tower. It'll be fenced in and screened.

Next slide. Here's a close-up of that that shows a little bit more detail with the landscaping. Next slide. Here is an elevation of the tower. Again, it's a 190 feet with that five foot lightning rod at the top. Here's the staff findings. They submitted a complete application. The new tower meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The eight foot fence and 35 foot landscape buffer area would provide screening from the neighboring uses and ensure compatibility on the ground level. They have not requested any variances or waivers.

Next slide. So the action today by the planning commission is to approve or deny the application for the new cell tower. I'd be happy to answer any questions, that the commission may have.

Yes, sir.

I have two, Joe. The this is a private property?

Yes.

Oh, the whole thing? Okay. And the second one, did you say that it was or was not a colocation tower?

It's a new tower, and they looked in the colocation. I'll allow the applicant to go into that in a little bit more detail. I think that's in their presentation.

Okay. Like

A couple questions, Joe, relative to the comp plan. And this is guess, remind me, the comp plan really doesn't say much about cell towers. I mean, there any specific guidelines that you

can reference? So there's several policies that speak to cell towers and their necessity. So we do need cell service throughout the the county. So a lot of the policies just wanna ensure that when we do need a cell tower that it's sited in an area where a new tower is actually needed, that they made attempts to try to colocate so that we don't have too many towers in an area, you know, causing some visual issues. But it doesn't really get into the detail.

That's more in the code, which is before you today. It kinda sets the stage for the code. So that's why we found them in compliance and made attempts to co locate, and then they met all the design requirements, surrounding the new tower. Okay. Thank you.

Joe, I might have missed this, is there any service building associated with this?

That's a good question. So I don't have that detail. I believe there is a building there typically is a building associated with it. I'll allow the applicant to answer that. If not, I'll look at the plans, but I don't think it's a significant structure if

Thank there is

you. Anyone else? Alright. Thank you, Joe. I'm going to ask Steven Lentz, Glenn Gatz, and Keith Brown to stand up for me. Raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're gonna give to this commission is the truth? Alright. Since you're all part of the applicant, the first person I have is Steven Lentz. If you're gonna start off who's gonna start off? Okay. Mister Brown, I'll, allow you to start off for each person that come up. If you could just state your full name, address along with your ZIP code, since you've already been sworn in, and you can just continue on. You have a total of fifteen minutes for your presentation.

Thank you, mister chairman. I'm Keith Brown with Pike Legal Group located in Shepherdsville, Kentucky. But I can also tell you I'm a proud graduate of Kenwood Elementary School and Doss Junior High School in Jefferson County as well.

Full address.

Full address is is Post Office Box 369 Shepherdsville, Kentucky. That's Pike Legal Group.

The ZIP code?

ZIP code 40165.

Thank you. You can continue.

Sure. Okay. Well, we're glad to be here today on this application, and I'll be moving through these these slides. And as you've seen, mister Lance is here as my co counsel, Steve Lance. I also have a expert appraisal witness here, Glenn Katz, who we'll hear from him a little bit later on.

Verizon and APC Towers are excited to propose this tower to improve service in the Valley Station area of Jeff Jefferson County. APC Towers is a company that builds towers for Verizon Wireless all and other companies all over the country. Verizon Wireless as the actual wireless carrier will be locating its antennas on that tower. And I'll be going through these slides as my presentation. We think we've produced all the voluminous exhibits that the Kentucky revised statutes require.

As you all know, the Kentucky statutes provide more detailed exhibits for cell towers really than anything else. We think we've followed all the procedural guidelines of the statutes as far as notice publication, etcetera. And it complies with the local zoning ordinance. The copy of this presentation has been filed today. And we have a binder that I would like to go ahead and submit to the commission, which has materials in it that have already been filed of record in this matter.

And I would like to incorporate the entire administrative record of this case into the hearing evidence record today. I believe the only item that was not previously in the record was the wireless substitution study, which shows the amount of cell service that's used that is part of these binders. So we'll get those passed out. This shows the proposed site location basically just sort of South of the Jean Snyder and to the West of Dixie Highway down there in that that corner. So that's where basically it is.

Next slide, please. And we get more of a close-up to show where the site is. Clearly, this is called the LV Madora site but it might as well be called the Valley Station site because that's the area it's serving. Next slide. Now these are the RF plots here that show the coverage that exists now.

Basically, red is the very good coverage. And this plot is prepared by the Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency engineering team. So what you see where this site is to be located is you see that there's a big gap between the red areas. So this site is designed according to the Radio Frequency Engineer Report, it's designed to solve a significant gap in coverage that's in that area of Valley Station. Next slide, please.

This shows what the coverage will be like if this tower is approved and built. And you can see substantial improvement in this area, a lot of improvement along Dixie Highway there going north south. You see the Gene Snyder off to the east there. So we're hoping to get significant improvement with this one. Next slide.

The tower design, we've got a 185 foot monopole as the planner indicated. Typical size fence compound, typical size lease area, 100 by 100 foot, follows all building codes. Importantly, it's engineered to a zero foot fall zone standard. And we have a letter of record from a Kentucky licensed professional engineer reaching that conclusion. From my layperson's understanding of it, basically, in the very unlikely event that a cell tower whatever like this one, whatever collapse, it would collapse within itself.

It wouldn't fall over like a giant baseball bat or something. I it would collapse within itself. But again, that is extremely rare and the engineers concluded there's a zero foot fall zone standard on this tower. Importantly, for those non Verizon customers, this tower is engineered to support the colocation of additional equipment. You'll see the antenna arrays.

Verizon will be the anchor tenant, so they will be at the top. And then APC Towers as the owner of the tower has a tremendous incentive to market those two other spaces for two, two other wireless carriers. It usually takes a while for that to happen. The other carriers, they want to see the tower actually being built before they sign a sublease. Next slide.

Here's our site plan, which shows the proposed tower and the, where the equipment goes inside the compound. And then if there are other carriers co locating later, their equipment will also go in that compound and there's sufficient space for other co locating carriers. Next slide. Oh, go back to that one, please. One more thing, one very important thing.

The Louisville Metro Development Code requires towers meet a setback of 50 feet from residential zoned areas. We have gone beyond that, and it's it's on a couple of dimensions, it's around a 100 feet from any residential property lines. So we meet the requirements of the Louisville development code that this local government has adopted. Next slide. Radio frequency need.

Verizon is wanting to have antennas here and has retained APC towers to build this tower because of the radio frequency need identified by the Gordon Schneider radio frequency engineer report. It's filed as part of our uniform application for this site. There's just no other place to put a tower in this particular search ring and that's where the tower needs to be to provide the coverage. The key is that, the tower has to be located in the search area, and it also needs to be built at the specified elevation, the one eighty five feet. We can't just put an antenna on a fire hydrant or on a 30 foot wooden pole or something and have it cover this large area, which is you could see is much larger than our search area.

Our search area is about point five mile radius each way, north, south, east, and west. The coverage, as you could see from those colored plots that I submitted, covers a a much broader area as far as the signals. But the search area is where it had to be located. Next slide. This is this is the drawing of the search area.

You'll see there are a lot of residents in that overall area. And Verizon wants every one of them to be customer and to have multiple people signing phone contracts for everybody living in their homes. So that created sort of a limited area that was was even potentially suitable for a cell tower to be located. Fortunately, mister mister Anderson was able to make his property available, and we were able to obtain an option lease with him. Next slide.

We filed a record a site selection report showing the efforts that were made, the good faith efforts that were made by, the the people for APC Towers to find an actual site. If there was a colocation tower available in that search area, it is likely that that there there would be no proposal for a new tower. Verizon Wireless has agreements with most all of its competitors like AT and T, T Mobile, etcetera, to colocate on other towers, but there's just no other tower in this search area to colocate on. Also, perhaps, unfortunately, for Valley Station, there is no 15 story hotel there in that area of Valley Station that would allow us to put a rooftop antenna system on it as a colocation option. So in in, you know, sort of a suburban area like this that is mostly has residential lots and then some commercial along Dixie Highway, etcetera, There's there's just not a lot lot of other options.

So, APC is hoping they provided a good place for Verizon to locate, but maybe other carriers that need coverage in that area will colocate their on their tower as well. Antennas placed on any tower that's outside of this search area, up and down Dixie Highway would not call would not resolve the significant gap in coverage that exists as described in the report of radio frequency engineer Gordon Snyder. Obviously, that is expert testimony in the form of his report. Next page. Next.

We yeah. Proper property values. We don't think this is a basis to turn down a cell tower. And more importantly, we don't think that it's going to reduce property values in the area. I would like to call Glenn Katz up just for a minute. He filed a very detailed report on property valuation considerations. Hello, Glenn. Do you want to state your office address for your record?

Glenn Katz with Realty Solutions. Address is 3815 Stoney Run Circle, Louisville 40220.

And could you just quickly summarize the conclusion of the property valuation report you prepared?

I've been studying this property type for several years. And to this point, I have not found a negative value impact from towers on of this type of tower on surrounding residential properties. And I I think it is just because they people live where they live because they need infrastructure of of roads and streets and and towers, phone poles, traffic lights, and they that's what they expect.

Thank you, mister Katz. And Glenn is available for questioning if there are questions for him later. Next slide. We think we have complied with local regulations and certainly state statute requirements are very significant and also the Louisville Metro notice requirements are very robust. I want to read just one sentence from Tyler's staff staff report in which he said, the proposed cell tower meets the requirements of the land development code.

We agree. Next slide. We've complied with local regulations step by step by step with all the detail. Next slide. We've complied with all of these notice requirements as well. Next slide. Federal telecommunications law. You know, I've been doing this for decades and if I had time, I could go on for an hour on this, but I will not. I will not. Let's just suffice it to say that, this is not like a rezoning for a dollar store or Taco Bell or whatever.

There is very specific federal law under the Telecommunications Act that put certain limits on the discretion of a local planning unit, whether it's in Louisville or anywhere in the country. Next slide. There are limitations like expert testimony is very important. The federal courts have rejected that lay testimony can be a basis to turn down a cell tower. All kinds of other doctrines that apply.

But I believe this commission has seen enough cell tower applications that we know it's a bit of a different animal where some discretion is a bit limited. Next slide. Next slide, please. I mentioned the National Health Interview Study, which shows the massive use of cell phones only in homes. That's a reason for this application.

Next. So I appreciate you listening and your patience in sitting here and listening to me for a while. We think we've got a good proposal to improve wireless service, which is essential and improve it in Southwest Jefferson County. Thank you for listening, and I ask that you approve the application.

Questions, commissioners, of the applicant? Yep. We'll let mister Mims go first, and then he

Keith, maybe my memory is a little short, but weren't you here a couple years ago for cell tower on Blevins Camp Road? Well, I I was here last year for two different ones, and we were fortunate that they were both approved. It was for a different carrier, and actually both of them are built. And we still have this gap in services. Am I I mean, does that when your company analyzes, you know, these service areas, do they account for other tower companies such as Crown Castle and and the services that they provide from their facility or not?

Well, they do we've done a full colocation analysis. And Verizon is located on thousands of Crown Castle towers around the country. So, you know, they do colocate, but there's not there's no tower in the search area for this site. And those those other sites from last year were more in the sort of South End of the old Louisville city limits. So, know, they're not options for this site. Very far, far away for this

And again, my memory is not that good. I thought we had one for Plevins Gap Road and it would seem like that would have also served this area or part

of Well, it

we've we've been myself and certainly David Pike, my boss, has been here a number of times for different different towers, and we do our clients do a colocation analysis on each one of them. This one, there's just no option in this area. If Verizon could colocate, they would because it's way cheaper, way cheaper than building than contracting with somebody like APC.

Okay. And one other question. Why why is the tower located so close to the homes on Tierney? I mean, if if you have a lease from the Andersons, why not put it right next to the Anderson's house?

Well, you know, those kind of issues come up. I think it's important to remember that the wireless carriers like Verizon and certainly APC do not have condemnation power. So they have to sort of reach an arm's length agreement. And, you know, this is where mister Anderson wanted to lease it. There's a pond in the middle of that property that's Anderson's property.

He may have some other development goals. So we're just looking for an option to provide service. And we also remember that your setback from residential property lines is 50 feet, and we've our tower is a 100 feet and away. So, you know, the the local regulations, those are viewed as substantial evidence. Basically, when we're looking at a site, we start with the local jurisdictions regulations and say, can we fit it, a proposed site into the regulations because we really don't like to have to ask for variances and we're not asking for any variance here today.

Okay? It's just it's a monopole tower and it's an unlit tower. Remember, it's unlit. We've had, you know, FAA clearance, no hazard to aviation letter has been obtained. So we we've we've got a good side, I think, but we're not we don't have unlimited options. This was our option.

Okay. I mean, I'm I'm just thinking, you know, if I if I was a homeowner on tyranny, You know, I mean, obvi that you you provided evidence that the tower is not gonna fall and stuff like that. But living next to a big tower and and and thinking about the what ifs, you know, would would be a little bit distressing. But we'll leave it at that. Thank you. Commissioner

Leonard, did you have something? You're good? Okay. Anyone else?

On your equipment, sir, is that just a canopy? Is it gonna be open?

On on

The base. It's showing on d three on your your drawings here mechanical equipment at the bottom.

Okay.

Is it gonna be enclosed, or is it just gonna have a canopy over the top of it?

Okay. Steve may be able to to assist on on that one.

Steven Lenz, Pike Legal Group, PO Box 369 Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165. The the the plan drawings on sheet e three do show details for a canopy.

Just a canopy only?

Yes. Over over cabinets.

Alright. So it's not enclosed. And you've got future here. What on drawing c three, do you just put that in there for something you might wanna put in in the future?

I I believe the future is is for colocating carriers equipment, like air transmission equipment, and we we're following the building code. You know? I when you say that, we follow all building codes. Oh, sure. Sure.

Just curious. And I I have one more question. You said this tire is gonna be unlit. There'll be no lights on it.

That that is true. When you get into the taller towers up above 200 feet, that's when you get in into lighting quite often. But there's there's no FAA requirement for under 200 feet towers under the current regulations, and this tower location did not have to go through Kentucky Airport zoning commission.

Okay. I'm just worried about our our lovely Jefferson County our Metro Police Department helicopters. I just didn't didn't want them to run into

that. Well, I'm I'm sure they're very ex excellent pilots. But but at the same time, what we find is if if we were to propose lighting for a shorter tower, neighborhood people don't like that.

So

Alright. Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it. Other questions? K. Thank you. We have no one else signed up to speak. We have anyone online, Joe? Alright. No one signed up to speak, so I'll close the public hearing. Once again, commissioners, our, responsibility is to approve or deny, the, new cell tower. With that, I'll take any questions, comments, or a motion. Anyone wanna make a comment?

I think we need to have cell coverage all over the area because that's what we're going to cell phones. Don't like the idea that there's no type of marking on it for our helicopters because you never know where the police is gonna run. But if that's the rule, that's the rule. So I have no problem with it.

Anyone else wanna make a motion?

Sure. I can I can make the motion? First of all, it's an acknowledgment that cell towers do kinda have a free pass, you know, for good reasons, and we've done our job here. So but in the case of 26 Cell 0002, I I make a motion that we approve the application for the cell tower. And I make the motion based on our staff report and the testimony we've heard this afternoon.

I second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Stuber? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

Leonard?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

Steph?

Yes.

Systrunk?

Yes. Thank you. The tower is approved. Our next case is, 26 Zone 0019, which is a change in zoning from urban neighborhood and commercial to RAA a multifamily residential and a detailed district development plan with associated waivers variances and binding elements. The location is 820 South Clay Street, and our case manager is Mark Pinto. Mark, I'll turn it over to you.

Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. Mark Pinto, office of planning staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. This is 26 Zone 0019 for Grace Hope Senior Apartments at 820 South Clay Street. The change in zoning request consists of a change in zoning from UN, which is urban neighborhood.

That is a single family residential zoning district and c one commercial. The site is split zoned to r eight a multifamily residential. There is also a variance and waiver request, one being a variance from land development code section five thousand one twelve to allow the proposed building to exceed the maximum building height as permitted by infill. The infill permitted building height is two story along this block or roughly 30 feet. The proposed is three story for roughly 42 feet shown on the plan, making it a variance of 12 feet.

And then also a waiver from chapter five nine two to allow vehicular circulation in front of the building facade between the building and the street, with a detailed district development plan with binding elements. The site is located in the traditional neighborhood forum district. It's about point six acres. It's developed currently with an existing one story nonresidential building, which appears to have probably at one point been an auto service related use, telling from the size of the garage on the building and where the building is located. And, again, the site is split zone currently C 1 and u N.

The r eight a multifamily residential zoning is to allow a 22 unit senior living apartment building. All MSD and transportation comments have been addressed prior to this hearing. There are no outstanding technical comments. The site is also located within the Shelby Park Smokestown neighborhood plan from 2002. The neighborhood plan does outline specific areas for higher intensity land uses such as neighborhood serving commercial and residential are to be located.

And this property is one of those locations that it calls out being that it is on the it's at the intersection of two major streets. They have a variety of existing zoning districts throughout. The staff report does outline that. The staff report does also state that the neighborhood plan recommends to keep the commercial zoning on certain properties on corners in place, which although this site is being rezoned out of C 1 Commercial because it is split zoned, it makes sense for the current proposal to do so based on the fact it's for multifamily residential. There's no commercial proposed.

And there are several other properties across the street from this one, as you'll see in the coming zoning maps, that are currently zoned C 1 Commercial, which could in the future be used for neighborhood serving commercial uses. Next slide. Here is the site plan of the development. As you can see in the middle, that proposed three story 22 unit apartment building. It is located on the corner.

It's meeting all required setbacks from the roadways and meeting all required landscape for areas. The main parking for the development is to the east off of Russell Alley. So that follows that traditional neighborhood form pattern that we like to see, the parking in the back, not the parking in the front, with some private, yard area slash, like, a, like, a community walking trail with a patio there with a detention basin. And then, the applicant can go into more detail on the specifications of the units. But it's my understanding that the majority of them are to have balconies and patios, which are also shown on the site plan, which were used to meet the open space requirements in the land development code, which this plan is in compliance of.

Next slide. Here is an aerial showing the existing site conditions. Again, that one story nonresidential building looks to be a old auto related use. And here is just the subject property from the corner of South Clay and East Breckenridge Street. That building is to be removed.

And then here is across the street on South Clay looking at some, neighboring residential uses. And here is looking down East Breckenridge. And here here are some elevations of the proposed structure. So this is facing East Breckenridge and then South Clay. And then the rear elevation and facing the, Russell Alley.

Here's the waiver exhibit. The variances for the height, which the plan calls out. It's three stories, 42 feet. So that's the variance. The waiver is to allow that area highlighted in yellow to be located between the building and the road.

The land development code in this specific form district does not allow any vehicular circulation between the building and the road. However, they have this to serve as a pickup and drop off area for their residents, which is in line with it being a senior living facility. Next slide. So staff does find the proposal meets the guidelines and development policies of comprehensive plan, which are found in the staff report. The proposal would permit this additional residential density in an established neighborhood that has the capability to serve the proposal and that is well connected with a mix of zoning districts in the immediate area.

The requested waiver and variants are adequately justified for approval. And the detailed district development plan meets the land development code and comprehensive plan except for the waiver and variants. And therefore your required actions today are to recommend to Louisville Metro Council to approve or deny the change in zoning from c one commercial and UN urban neighborhood to r eight a multifamily residential, to approve or deny the variance, approve or deny the waiver, and to approve or deny the detailed plan with binding elements. Are there any questions for staff?

Questions, commissioners?

Thanks, Mark.

No questions. Thank you all. Mhmm.

So I see we have, Sabac Wilson in Lingo as the representative. Alright. And what's your name again? Michael. Okay. Perfect. Michael, if you could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're gonna give to this commission is the truth? Yes. Alright. And you state your full name, address, and ZIP code?

Michael Whelan. 301 East Main Street, Suite 201, Louisville, Kentucky 40202.

Continue. You have fifteen minutes.

Alrighty. So, again, Michael Whelan, say back with some lingo here on behalf of the owner applicant at Grace Hope Presbyterian Church led by doctor reverend Angela Johnson here in attendance with us. The developer on the project is Rebound Inc, Portable Housing, architect, Bayes Design Works, Tony Bayes, is also here with us. Next slide, please. Again, site is on the corner of, South Clay Street, East Breckenridge, and Smoketown neighborhood.

Got Lampden Street to the North, South Hancock to the West, and, South Shelby to the East. Next slide, please. Here's a little bird's eye view that offers a little more context. To the far north, the Lampkin Street, you'll see the Shepherd Square multifamily affordable residential community. The northern half of that block face is primarily occupied by Bates Memorial Baptist Church with Russell Alley separating it and the subject site.

There's some various residential uses, commercial retail, vacant lots, and parking surrounding in the surrounding area. You'll see in that catty corner, southeast corner is the Grace Hope Presbyterian Church. Next slide, please. And then, again, that enlargement, can you see the existing building on the site? It is owned by the church. It was previously used for various church purposes, classroom storage, etcetera. And then most of the site is primarily just a large lot, a little bit of green space. Next slide, please. Alright. Then we have, views from both East Breckenridge and South Clay Street looking both directions.

Just kinda wanna note the existing curb cut condition there where you could see most much of the South Clay Street has there's two two curb cuts in Berrywood and another one on, East Breckenridge. Next slide, please. Again, the whole, the divided, zoning existing zoning on the side made the the applicant's goal to develop this property into affordable senior apartment community pretty infeasible given that zoning. Early on in the planning process, we did explore the c one option, and we found that relative to the goals and and the existing conditions of the site and fill regulations and constraints, posed by detention requirements, and then also the floor area, restrictions with the c one zoning extensively restrained constrained the the efficient use of the site. So the r eight a designation was decided upon, which allowed for additional density up to 35 units, although we're only proposing 22, which is just one more than the maximum in C 1.

But it does free up that floor area constraint, which allowed for the incorporation of community space and other community features, which we consider, pretty essential to, a successful, healthy, senior living community or community in general. Next slide, please. And, again, here's our our, development plan. Existing building and lot will be removed, make way for the proposed three story building. And then, right, the 22 unit building just under 9,800 square feet, front of East Breckenridge Street with accessible entry there.

The whole entire entirety of the East Breckenridge, walk will be replaced, along with majority of the South Clay Street sidewalk with significantly improved pedestrian conditions. The the proposed curb cuts and drop off lane are that is the what is Mark spoke of is subject of that waiver, and, again, essential feature of a senior living community. We did explore several different options for where we could put it, but that was really the only feasible. It does benefit by the fact that there are already existing curb cuts there, but, the proposed condition is drastically improved along with the proposed demographic of the community. We don't anticipate a ton of, traffic and parking in in in and out, around the site, in general.

Then parking again will be served from Russell Alley. The off street parking will be with the 12 spaces, two ADA. Those streetscape improvements do also increase the street parking to 10 proper spaces. Again, we have our required detention area between the parking and building along with the community opens open space patio, and then our required six foot wood privacy screen fence along the west boundary boundary against the single family residential and then the associated required plantings. In this rendering, you can also see that the HVAC system will be located on the roof to further reduce any noise or visual nuisance.

Next slide, please. And, again, here's our our proposed building, elevations, from East Breckenridge Street, which should be the frontage. Again, that will have the, drastically improved streetscape in front of it. And then from South Clay Street, which is the side that the drop off drive would be. Next slide, please. And then from the rear, which is essentially just a mirror in the front, same thing with the west side. Next slide, please. Alright. And then a quick floor plan just to give you a breakdown, and and I I won't go into too much detail here. But we got six units.

Let's see. Six on the on the 1st Floor with some community space, meeting rooms, multiuse spaces, again, which was benefited from the relief of not having those four area constraints. And then there'd be elevator within as well. Next slide. 2nd And 3rd Floors, again, very similar layout. The following next slide. And then a quick example of the pilot unit. You know, these are all one bedroom units for senior demographic. Next slide, please. Alright.

And then, this slide just shows some contextual imagery from, surrounding architecture within the area of the neighborhood just to illustrate how the proposed building will be cohesive in in in form, scale, and character, with with what's around on the top. You see examples from Shepherd Square, the commercial retail that's across the corner of Clay Street, Grace Hope Church, some of the adjacent townhomes, and then Debates Church. Next slide, please. Here's here's some additional renderings for some little more perspective from the corner, from the rear. Next slide.

And, again, from Breckridge and Clay. Next slide, please. Alright. And that concludes. I I will go ahead and mention that reverend doctor Angela Johnson is here to speak, and I'm sure you have those notes as well as some other representatives of Grace Hope Church and then Tony Baez, the Baez Design Works, project architect for any architectural specific questions.

Okay. What I'll do is I'll lump the architect in with you, and then I'll give the other ones three minutes to spare. So with that, commissioners, any questions of the applicant?

Yeah. Sure you have adequate enough parking.

Yeah. And and it was explored. We've we've got as much in there as we can. And, again, with the senior demographic, we don't anticipate it being as much like a typical, apartment community where you can expect every single resident to have a vehicle, and and, we anticipate residents to utilize transportation systems, furthermore, increase for the reason for the drop off lane. So

Okay.

Yes. And and with the street with on street and off street, we still do reach that 22 number if and that would be but for far more in excess of what we anticipate would be needed.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else? Thank you. There's no other questions. Thank you. With that, I'll call, reverend doctor Angela Johnson.

Reverend Johnson, if you could, state your full name, address, and ZIP code, then raise your right hand for me, and I'll swear you in.

Mary Angela Johnson. 11012 Eagles Cove Drive, Louisville, Kentucky 40241.

And can you raise your right hand? Mhmm. Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're gonna give to this, commission is the truth? Yes. Thank you. You have three minutes.

No. Thank you. So as I said, I'm reverend Doctor. Angela Johnson. I'm the pastor of Grace Hope Presbyterian Church.

And, our 100 our congregation's a 128 years old, and we've been in Smok Town ever since its inception. And we are striving to create an affordable housing living community for seniors 55 years old and above. And as you saw, the property is located direct, diagonally across from our church sanctuary. But as in essence, we wanna provide a safe living space where residents have the option to experience life in community, where they can mingle and develop friendships and reduce the isolation that so many of our older adults experience as they age. And, of course, we all remember COVID when we were in our homes, and I could see the difference in some of our octogenarians.

When they came back after COVID, they were moving slower. Things had happened. So we want to create a living space where they have the option of coming out of their apartments and then maybe watching TV or doing something with folks, and then you can go back into your apartment. This is not going to be assisted living, but it will be a place where we can, have other programs, Dare to Care, which we run, the mobile food pantry with them. We do a lot with Norton Faith and Health Ministries, Central Louisville Community Ministries, and also with seven counties.

We have an MOU with them. So anything that would be, useful for seniors so that they can age in place with dignity and in a secure place. My own mom is 88 years old, lives in a regular apartment complex, and that is sometimes problematic because she you know, there's anxiety with that. But we're trying to create a space. They're one bedrooms because we don't really want other adult relatives living with folks and leaving doors open and doing things like that. So we're trying to create a living community, not just your regular apartment building. So we thank you all for listening to our case today.

Thank you.

Mhmm.

Next, we have Bridgette Lewis. And then, likewise, if you could, give me your full name, address, and ZIP code, then I'll swear you in.

Sure. Thank you. My name is Bridget Dudley Lewis. 307 East Kentucky Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203.

Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're gonna give to this commission is the truth?

Yes. Alright. Thank you.

Go ahead. Thank you all so much for hearing me. Good afternoon. My name is Bridget Lewis. I'm a longtime member of the Smokestown community. I am third generation member of Grace Hope Presbyterian Church. Growing up in the Grace Hope excuse me. Growing up in the Grace Hope Presbyterian Church, the three core values were woven into my life in the very beginning, faith in God, the importance of family, and service to the community. I was raised at Winslow and East Jefferson alongside my family before we moved to Clorstell housing projects on South Clay. After the passing of our father, our mother, Roberta Dudley, became a single parent and was given the opportunity to move into affordable housing for working families.

In the early nineteen seventies, we re re we relocated to Smoketown Community Apartments on Preston And Saint Catherine. This complex was thoroughly designed and built through the leadership of reverend doctor Terrence Davis, pastor Grace Hope Presbyterian Church, and New Directions Housing Corporation with a vision rooted in dignity and opportunity for family like ours. Some of our relatives and previous had lived in Shepherd's Square housing named after the reverend William Henry Shepherd, a pioneer African American Presbyterian missionary pastor and human rights advocate who served in The Congo through the Presbyterian Church USA. His legacy reflects a commitment not only to faith, but to justice uplift values through us today. Following that same call calling, I dedicated twenty seven years to the Presbyterian Church USA World Mission with young adult volunteers.

My focus was to walk along with families, not just alongside them, but sought to improve living conditions, sustainable housings within their communities. While many have witnessed poverty and hardships in other communities, I stand here to remind us that similar conditions exist right here in our own neighborhoods. Our community members are not asking for luxury. They are asking for dignity. They want safe, affordable housing where they can live in a community rather than isolation.

Many do not have jobs to allow them to afford or maintain a home. Many lack resources for the upkeep of financial stability to sustain home ownership. These are not personal failures. They are the systemic challenges that require collective solutions. Sorry.

I was looking at that. Grace Hope Presbyterian Church, under the leadership of reverend doctor Angela Johnson, along with the congregation community partners, hold a vision for our property to create affordable housing, income based housing that serves individuals and families. This is our vision deeply assigned with our mission. We come this far by faith, striving to be a beacon of hope and a place that tells the full and challenging truth of Christ's message. We believe that this develop development is not only about buildings, but it is about restoring dignity, strengthening community, and living out our faith actions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up to speak online, Joe? Alright. That's all the people we have signed up to speak. And since we didn't have any opposition, do you need a rebuttal? No? Alright. Perfect. With that, commissioners, I, any last questions of the applicant before I close the public hearing? None?

Alright. With that, we'll close the public hearing. And once again, our responsibility are to recommend the Louisville Metro Council approve or deny the change in zoning as outlined in the report. And then to approve, well, recommended Louisville Metro Council approve or deny. And then, to approve or deny the variances, as described in the report and is prove or deny the waivers, and then approve or deny the detailed district development plan with the binding elements. With that, commissioners, any comments?

Yeah. I have one. I think, this is a a great proposal, although I don't concur with the reverend's age of elderly. It's 55 and up. But

Got me nervous too. Got me nervous.

It's neither here nor there, but, I think it's a great, great project.

And I would agree with that, and I think it fits well with the character of the neighborhood.

Yeah. I agree.

I agree.

I think it's a good plan. 22 units towards the 35 affordable 5,000 affordable housing units that are needed. It's small, but it's a start.

It's a start.

Mhmm. And, I think it would be good for the community because you're refurbishing property that's already there. Yeah. Bringing it up.

Yeah. I've I've driven past it for years on and off for decades now, and it seems like they are trying to improve that little corner of the world. And this is probably an excellent project to help with that. It's a good fit.

I agree. Anyone wanna make a motion?

I will. I'll try at

it. Okay.

Case number 26Zone0019. I recommend that Louisville Metro Council approve the zoning from UN and C 1 to R 8 a multifamily residential based on staff report and testimony heard today.

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

Benitez?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Mims?

Yes.

Leonard?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Fischer?

Yes.

Lohan? Yes. Steph? Yes. Systrom? Yes.

And on 26 Zone 0019, make a motion we approve the variance from the land development code five point one point one two point a two e I I to allow the proposed building to exceed the maximum permitted infill building height. Maximum height permitted two story proposed three story for a total of 42 foot. Variant 26 variance zero zero three two based on staff reported testimony heard today.

Second.

Properly made motion is second. Roll call, please.

Stuber? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Fischer?

Yes.

Leonard?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Lohan? Yes. Steph? Yes. Systrom?

Yes.

And on 26 Zone 0019 that we approve the waiver of land development code five point nine point two c point 4 to allow vehicle circulation in the front of the building between the building facade and street. 26 waiver zero zero three two based on staff report and testimony heard today.

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

Stuber? Yes. Steph?

Yes.

Benitez? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Fisher? Yes. Leonard? Yes. Systrom?

Yes. And finally, on, 26 Zone 0019, I make a motion we approve the detailed district development plan with binding elements based on staff report and testimony heard today.

Second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Suber? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

Leonard?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Lohan? Yes. Steph? Yes. Systrom?

Yes. The variances waivers and detailed district development plan have been approved, and then the change in zoning has been recommended to Louisville Metro Council to be approved. And good luck with your project. Yep. Yes. Alright. With good luck. With that, we will, move to our next next case, case number 525Zone0097, which is a change in zoning from m two industrial and c one commercial to c two commercial and the detailed district development plan with binding elements, and the location is 524 Baxter Avenue, and our case manager is Jude Mattingly. Jude, I'll turn it over to you.

Good afternoon. Jude Mattingly, office planning staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Yes. And if you go to the next slide, please. Before you today is a change in zoning from both m two and c one to c two and a detailed district development plan with associated binding elements. Next slide, please. So currently, the properties contain split zoning of M2 and C1. The applicant is proposing to change it all to C2. It falls within the traditional neighborhood form district, and no form district change is proposed. The entirety of the site contains 0.36 acres.

Right now, the the proposal is to convert the existing structure into, dwelling units and then a c two use. I think right now they're proposing, a bar tavern type situation. So with that being the case, there is no new construction associated with this request. And just as a reminder, any kind of future construction would require a revised detailed district development plan that would come back to the planning commission. So the change in zoning from m two and c one to c two does not violate any of the goals or objectives of the comprehensive plan and by our analysis is appropriate at this location.

Both MSD and Transportation Planning have reviewed the project and have provided preliminary approval. Next slide, please. Here's our site plan, and I always like to try to get zoomed in version. So if you go to the next slide, you'll have a more zoomed in version where you can actually see the development area and then some site project data info. And whenever you feel appropriate, if you go to the next slide.

Here's our zoning map. You can see the split zoning between m two and c one and then the context around the surrounding areas with Centimeters, other industrial, and even up in the corner, you can see e z one and additional c two, and then, obviously, multifamily residential all in the general vicinity. If you go to the next slide, we'll see an aerial of the project. As noted on the site plan, they're separate lots right now, but they'll be consolidated into one lot should everything be approved. Next slide, please.

So here is the subject property facing the front if you were standing on Baxter Avenue. And I've got quite a few images just showing the site in various context. This is like if you're on the corner of Baxter Avenue and Hole Street. And the next slide is if you're on the corner of Hole and what is an unnamed alley. And the next slide. This is the rear of the property. And, again, it's just along an unnamed alley. Next slide, please. This is what is directly across the front of the property on Baxter Avenue, directly on the side of that corner of Hole And Baxter, private institutional use. Next slide, please.

And then this is directly across the rear on Whole Street, so just additional dwelling units. Next slide, please. Some site context. This is shortly, you know, 0.05 miles southeast at what's known as the Baxter Avenue and Payne Street intersection. The next one is Baxter Avenue and Barrett Avenue intersection.

And then lastly, this is just what you can see some of the land uses in the adjacent area. So in addition to those dwellings, you have a myriad of entertainment and other commercial uses. So again, this proposal conforms to the land use and development policies and guidelines of the comprehensive plan. C two zoning and its associated land uses are compatible with the surrounding area. There's an adequate population in the existing infrastructure in the area to serve this proposal.

And based on our analysis, this is compliant with the land development code, and this project did not, at this time, require any variances or waivers. So your required actions will be to recommend, that the Louisville Metro Council approve the change in zoning from m two and c one to c two and to approve or deny the detailed district development plan with those associated binding elements. And if you have any questions for me, I'm more than happy.

Questions, commissioners?

Well, I did have a question about I think and I'm I probably misunderstood. But what the is the plan? Is this a general plan? I or a detailed plan? Or

It's a detailed plan that it would be subject to change. I'll let the applicant speak. But the way we understand it, it is for dwelling units and a bar tavern type situation.

Okay. And they they really haven't designated what's what within that building in terms of the uses and so forth.

I'm sorry. I don't think I heard you, actually.

Well, I mean, I guess all I'm seeing is one big kind of l shaped building there and, you know, where the residential piece of it is and where the commercial

Oh, the specifics. And, I mean, the applicant has their architect and their contractor and their designer with them. Perhaps they could give you some idea of, like, exactly what portions of the building are gonna be used for what, but I I don't I don't have that right now on Do

have any idea about their hours of operation and things like that in terms of a

So I I received public comment that was concerned about hours of operation. Sure. We did not include a binding element for hour hours of operation. However, the planning commission or metro council have that right to do that. I've spoken to the applicant that that might be a possibility, so they should be ready to discuss it with you all.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? And then, currently, Jude, there's no, plans to make any changes to the building?

Not with this plan. They may seek out a tenant or sell the property. And if that happens with new construction, it 'll have to be reviewed as a revised detailed district development plan. But right now, no. We are looking solely at the existing structure.

Thank you. Alright. No more comments, then I will move to the applicant. And

Thank you.

For the applicant, I have Scott Heath.

Oh, I have,

before we get going here and I'll get you to state your full name and swear you in, I have several other people signed up to speak, and I wanna know if they're with you or they're gonna need three minutes. I have Wayne Gallivan. Is he with you? Owner. Owner. Yes. Owner? Yeah. Okay. And then I have Robert Brogue. Builder. Builder? Okay. And then Eric Claypool? Architect. Alright. Perfect. If all of you can raise your right hand, everybody at the same time, do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're gonna give to this commission is the truth?

Yes.

Alright. And before each one of you speak, if you could just give me your full name, address, and ZIP code? That way, you can just use your fifteen minutes as you see fit.

Hello, counsel. My name is Scott Heath. My address is PO Box 69375 Normandy Heights Road, Taylorsville, Kentucky 40071. At this time, Jude presented very well. We're we're we've went back and forth with different concept plans, and we've ended on this just to get the building and the structure.

The plan is to keep the existing structure. There's a portion of the structure to be removed, and that's not an historic structure. It's a different post frame type structure that was gonna be removed partially to add parking. And then just because of the curb cut in the loading dock area, transportation had concerns that they wanted to eliminate that curb cut. So we were gonna eliminate that, and that may be filled back in with new structure depending on the tenant.

So it was decided to clean this plan up and just have the shell of the building and try to or in a in a in a get the zoning approved so that the owners could seek a tenant for this space. There is concept plan that Jude talked about of having residential short term and long term Airbnb rentals, and it may be some community space so that would turn into a multistory structure. And we can have the the construction side and the architect speak more about that if if you'd like to ask questions specific to that.

Is that all you have?

That's about it.

Yep. Commissioners, any specific questions? I think I do wanna hear a little bit more about the plan. It it seems as if we're almost approving a general back to commissioner Mim's point, a general plan concept here. So I'd like to hear a little bit more about the plan and how firm you are on it and those kind of things. Okay. The architect could

Alright.

Let me know about that. And, also, I heard a two story happening. Will you have to raise the roof, or would you do it under the existing footprint?

Right now, the plan and I'll let them speak more to that. But right now, the plan is to use the existing footprint and build within and up. Okay.

Yes. Eric Claypool.

Maybe Give me your, addresses.

Address is 8801 Hermitage Court, Louisville 40242. We've been working on several years, and so we like the idea of a restaurant type bar situation. We were originally maybe looking to for a brew pub type deal on the 1st Floor and another floor, maybe an event center, and then maybe some rooftop Airbnbs and all. So we we haven't really got a tenant locked down yet. So we're really just trying to get to zoning so that we can get further along with a tenant, find a tenant, and then figure out how we're how we would incorporate everything and develop this site.

So we don't really have a set plan for the building itself, but those are the kinds of things that we're looking to do with this site, some kind of entertainment and maybe some upper story Airbnbs that can take advantage of the site and look over into the downtown area and to just utilize the site, as well as we can. And so until we've got a tenant a little further along, we we can't really decide, how the building structure will play out as far as on the site. But in general, the square is pretty much what we're looking at. And we're we're looking to do a building if it's not all restaurant, but also could be some office building type commercial space as well. So a building that has multiple tenants, but we don't really have the building tied down just yet.

K. Thank you.

Mhmm.

Commissioners, anyone else have anything?

Alright. I I guess I have a question, you know, for our planning team. Since things are kind of a little unsettled here, would what what would be the normal process once they, you know, have a tenant? Would it go through an overlay review of some sort? Or

No. So it's not an overlay district. It won't have to go through an overlay district. But as a planned certain site, any new construction would require a revised detailed district development plan, which would come back to this planning commission.

So more than likely, they're they're gonna be back here with a revised Yeah. Detailed district. Got it.

Yeah. That's our understanding of it too.

Sure. Alright.

But that that's Sorry. Only

Oh, no. No. Sorry. My my question is is that any changes made to the exterior of the building that's not shown here today, or does that include any interior changes? Because what I'm concerned about is there's a lot of opportunity here. And depending on the mix, how it works, right, we would we would probably look at that a little bit different under our zoning approval. Mhmm. So I guess my question is, no matter what happens, I would like to see it again almost as if it would this was a general plan

Sure.

Just given the area and everything that's going on. So is that is that your understanding is we would see it regardless, or if it's only if exterior changes happen?

Perhaps Jay and Joe could further provide insight on that question. I'm not entirely sure about the interior, but it would be my understanding the exterior. Yes.

Yeah.

I mean, if they, you know, if they got this change and they went and found somebody who wanted to renovate it as is for a single user, I mean, they would just go pull permits on it essentially for a commercial use. I think if they if they added anything that was gonna add, you know, any kind of height or significant alteration of the structure, you know, we would review it, but it would it would likely have to come back for a revised detailed district development plan. And, you know, depending on what's proposed, maybe also variances or something. So it could end up with BOSA and, you know, back before DRC or the planning commission. It really just kinda depends on what's proposed. I mean, it's if they find users that fit in this existing shell and they're allowed by c two uses, then it would probably just be straight to

permitting. Anybody else have anything?

So if, short term rentals or Airbnb's were proposed in the future, and I know that's a ways off, would that need to come back to BOSA, for example, for no?

No. It would be If

it's owned c two, it would be permitted by Wright.

And and they're constructed as dwelling units before they're permitted as Airbnb. So, you know, there would be you know, they would have to get permits to construct legal dwelling units. And then once they're established as dwelling units, then they could go get a license or a yeah. To just operate.

Thank you.

Well, I mean, just kind of summarizing it, and I think I can get comfortable with this. But, I mean, you could be in if it's c two, it could be a you know, a club, a nightclub. There we don't have any binding elements on that, but but that's that's reality. It could be, you know, I guess, multiple short term rentals carved out of there. It could be you know, I don't know. There's probably an acre here. It could be you could have 35 or so, you know, dwelling units there. But that would obviously necessitate a change in the building. But just so we all know what we're getting into, guess it is what it is.

And I'll to circle back onto something you said earlier, commissioner Mims. You know, we do have an interested party comment that was talking about hours of operation and asking for a binding element generally to limit. What she had suggested was Sunday through Thursday, close by eleven. Friday through Saturday, close by midnight. I'm not sure what the opening time would be. But that was she was concerned about something that went till 2AM, I think.

Yeah. Close by eleven and open up at 12:12 o one. Yeah. Yeah. So well, I mean, I that may be something for the applicant to consider. Would would you be willing to subscribe to those to a binding element relative to hours of operation, say, that if it becomes a club or, you know, some type of late night use?

So knowing the the owner's possible uses for the building, it would if they do go multistory with the Airbnbs because of the view, because of the location, and because of the comments that we had from the neighboring the neighbors, There would be an open space portion of that, and that would allow for some possibly not live band music per se, but that doesn't go against what's in that corridor already. Some of the other venues that that that have live music or PA music. And I think what what Sophie was say stating in her letter that outdoor music, she would be fine with as long as the binding element limited to to a certain end time. And I believe that the owners are okay with that. Okay.

Well, that's the binding element that Jude referred to of of not allowing the outdoor music.

And just to be clear, the what I'm reading in the binding elements is number six says there shall be no outdoor music, live piped radio or amplified or outdoor PA system.

Correct. It it says that in in the proposed binding elements. But in in Sophie's letter, we would be okay with the 10:00 stop time. And I think that goes with the noise ordinance requirements as well.

So I'm I'm not exactly a 100% well versed on the noise ordinance. I'm sure Joe Haberman might be. I mean, the way that and, Jay, Joe, correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand that is that that that means no amplified outdoor music that extends beyond essentially what is your property on. It's it's

a joke. Right. I mean,

the noise ordinance applies the same to all properties regardless of zoning. You know? So, you know, LMPD can come and force on your private residential property if you're being too loud for your neighbors, the same as they can for this. That now generally, c two would generally allow for outdoor music and and bands and things like that to play within the confines of the noise ordinance. C one would not.

So that's kinda why, you know, with c one, you're not allowed to have outdoor entertainment. C two, generally would. That binding element would kind of restrict it in the way that it would as if it were c one. So if the applicant maybe doesn't want to agree to a full restriction of outdoor music because c two generally would allow it, but if they are willing to agree that any outdoor entertainment will cease by certain time, something like that, I think a lot of the bars down Bardstown Road do have some amount of outdoor music, but they they generally you know, they they tuck they turn it off and take everybody all the music off about, you know, eleven or midnight or whatever it is. So maybe they wanna discuss revising that binding element just not to say none, but that it ceases by a certain time.

Yeah. And I

think we're mixing up two different things. We're talking about the noise from an outdoor entertainment. And then the other thing is just being open after a certain time. So cease all operation after twelve, 01:00 versus the noise. Does that does that make sense?

Yes. Yeah. And and I'd

like to interject something here. I I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. I mean, honestly, they have to come back.

And they don't have to come back. That's part of the problem. It depends on what they do. They can Well,

they they they they're they don't know who the tenant is gonna be. So we're approving a a plan once they get I just don't think it's fair to them to tie their hands when they're looking for something.

Either we have to do it now. Is

the concern is if they get tenants who fit within the existing building and they're not gonna do any exterior construction and that tenant wants to operate until 04:00 in the morning, they're not gonna come back. That's the concern.

Yeah. They don't have to.

So now as they get a tenant and they have other changes, they could come back and revisit these binding elements as part of that revised detailed district development plan. I think the concern of Sofia who wrote in and and some of the commissioners is depending on the user, if they don't have to come back and want to operate until 4AM and have outdoor music until after midnight, there's no opportunity to put those restrictions in place. I think if there was a guarantee that, know, regardless of the user, it was going to come back, that would be a different scenario. But there's

a I I might be confused on this, but didn't we just go through it? And they said they they're gonna look for a tenant, and they're gonna come back to us?

If the but if that's only if the tenants require changes to the building. If they get somebody a tenant who says, I'm happy with the building as is. I just need interior improvements, and I'm gonna get up and running. Then there's no need for them to come back on a revised plan.

Well

So the answer is it's I I

table, they'll come back and not

miss

I've heard

something there because I thought the intention was to come back here.

Commissioner Fisher, I I can almost tell you with certainty that I don't think we're gonna have a tenant that's gonna operate until four in the morning. That's almost know knowing these guys and the properties that they own vastly in that quarter, that's that's not the intent. We have hours of operation of of similar businesses as to what they may attract with the zoning. This is a piece of real estate that is of high value that can improve the corridor down through there once the improvements are made, but we have to have the zoning change to be able to go out and attract that tenant. And because of the the financial aspect of it, to be able to have the construction.

And we yes. We would come back before you with a more detailed plan of what the building will look like, but essentially, it's gonna be this framework. In Sophie's letter and we agree with the hours of operations, Sunday through Thursday closing by eleven, whether it's office buildings or brew pubs or some type of restaurant, and Friday through Saturday at at midnight.

Then What time do you think you'd need to open? Usually, we spell a closing and an opening. Because otherwise, you could have closed and then open, like, two minutes later. So would it be, like, six in the morning, seven in the morning?

I would I would guess with the tenants that that I believe that that these gentlemen would attract, it would be lunchtime through dinnertime through late evening of 10:00. That's Baxter, Jack's, Agave and Rye. That's similar times to all those. I think it's gonna be very similar to to those

restaurants 9AM?

Facilities. I'm sorry?

So something like eight or 9AM so that the staff can get in and get ready?

Probably. Yeah. No. Normal whatever is normal for that type of business.

I have a question for Laura.

Uh-huh.

I completely understand their dilemma because of what it's zoned right now, m to m, whatever, two, one, whatever. And they have to change it to be able to get a tenant. It's kind of a, you know, who's dogging whatever carrot. Do we is there a way that we can say once you find the tenant to come back? I mean, I get the c two and they find somebody in there. Great.

No. Not really. I mean, once you approve it, you approve the plan. The question is, will that but but what you could do is you could put in general hours of operation, this 8AM to 11PM, 8AM to midnight. And then if a specific tenant comes in who needs that change as part of that, they could amend it then, but then you'd have a specific tenant in a specific reason. But at least you've given fairly broad Yeah. Parameters to let them move forward, because most of the tenants I think they want would be the 8AM to 11PM or 8AM to midnight. But if they sold it to somebody else, that somebody else would also be bound by it, and you you avoid that possibility of somebody saying, can make this space work, I wanna be open till 4AM.

Well, it appears that you're willing to grant those conditions to this approval. Right? I mean, is there anyone who has any argument here?

Oh, absolutely. We're willing to

Well, let's

And and, commissioners, just one last point. We Jude and I and Jay have worked on this for some time now, and and it was decided to pare

it

down to this so that we could do the simple zoning change based on the area. It makes sense. And then let the gentleman seek a a tenant and then come up with a concept and then come back with a detailed plan, but it's some detailed construction plans from the architectural group.

Okay. Well, I think what Laura proposed and what you agreed to is be a good framework to work within.

You wanna read the the potential binding element

number number eight would be the hours of operation. Sunday through Thursday would be open the from 8AM to 11PM, and then Friday and Saturday from 8AM until midnight.

Okay. Okay. With you all? Yes.

And and then would we amend binding element six to allow outdoor amplified music till 10PM?

That's consistent with our land development code for our, like, outdoor dining rules and other things. 10PM is kinda consistent with what would be consistent there. So you could say that, know, Saturday, they could be open till midnight, but if they have any music, that has to end outside by ten.

Okay. And you all are in agreement with the modifications to binding element number six and the addition of binding element number eight. Right? Yes? K. We'll we'll read binding element number eight again for your consideration. That's new

binding.

Binding element number eight would be the hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday, 8AM to 11PM, and Friday and Saturday from 8AM till midnight. And then we would amend binding element number six to allow instead of saying there's no outdoor music, it would be there's no outdoor music after 10PM.

Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Alright. With that, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, any other

Yeah. Can you

state your full name, address Yep. And ZIP code?

Wayne Gallivan. 1156 Barstow Road, Logan, Kentucky 40204. This property is consistently being vandalized, homeless. People are hanging around it. Neighborhood is on me all the time about the vandalism, the painting.

We have to consistently paint it. So all this is a little bit of an urgency to get moving, to clean the neighborhood up. We're trying to fit in with the neighborhood. So foodies, coffee stores, that is an option also to fit in with the neighborhood so they can use the resources themselves also. So we're not bound towards clubs and all that because, you know, I'm a bit frustrated being on Bastion Road about all the clubs that's been going on with the vandal, with the crime and shootings and everything that I'm getting every weekend. So I just wanna bring that up, you know, mainly about the vandalism. It's pretty bad there. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a statement before I close the public hearing? Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, anybody wanna make a comment?

Yeah. I mean, this is a good use, and, we're not trying to be difficult or anything like that. We're just we need to kinda look at the broad spectrum in terms of the fitting name of the neighborhood. And and so I'm glad you're here. And I I I think I welcome this this zoning change. It's the right it's the right it's the right zoning district. So I'm prepared to make a motion.

Yeah. Before you

I think we're kinda jumping the gun a little bit on this. I mean, constantly they're securing tenants subject to zoning changes all the time. So, I mean, if you approve this, you're approving anything that's allowable in c two.

I and so I'll just say that, I I guess, going to your point, commissioner, my concern is everything going on on Bardstown Road, all the comments that we're hearing, not only from our council people, but also Louisville Metro Police. I'm I'm also concerned about, you know, just approving this as a blanket, and then anything can fit in there. I understand we have the hours of operation, but I'm not sure we need another bar or watering hole on Bardstown Road in this especially in this area. That is my concern. If it was a general plan and we come back and see exactly what was gonna go in there and we approve it, knowing what was going in there, it'd be fine.

But I think to me, I I'm I'm very uncomfortable approving it, not knowing exactly what the business is gonna be regardless of the hours. So with that, though, we will entertain a motion.

Sure. Okay. So, I'll make a motion. In the case of 20 Zone 0097, I make a motion that we recommend to local metro council approval of the zoning from m two and c one to c two commercial. I make the motion based on our staff report and testimony that we've had this afternoon.

I'll second it.

Probably make motion and second. Roll call, please.

Stuber? Yes. Steph? Benitez?

Yes.

Lohan?

No.

Mims?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Leonard?

Yes.

Sistra?

No. K. Second matter, I make a motion that we recommend to Metro Council approve Okay. This will be taken by our okay. I make a motion that we approve the detailed district development plan with the proposed binding elements, notably changing binding element number six concerning outdoor music and adding in binding element number eight concerning hours of operations. So the motion is to approve the plan and binding elements based on our staff report in our testimony this afternoon.

Second motion. Properly made. Motion is seconded. Roll call, please.

Stuber? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Mims?

Yes.

Fischer?

Yes.

Leonard?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Lohan?

Nope. Steph? Yes.

Sistra? No. With that, it has been recommended to Louisville metro council to approve the zoning, and then the detailed, development plan has been approved by us. Thank you. With that, looking for a motion to adjourn? Oh, no.

No. Back to the minutes.

Oh, yeah.

So

Yes. Yes. But we but Julia and I have reviewed, and we think the better thing is to hold off on taking action on the four twenty three minutes today and just taking it up at the next meeting.

I make a motion we Hold on the minutes till the next Planning Commission meeting.

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

Stuber? Yes. Benitez?

Yes.

Steph?

Yes.

Lohan?

Yes.

Nims?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Leonard?

Yes.

Fisher? Yes. Systrom?

Yes. Make a motion we adjourn. So moved. Moved.