Aug 15, 2023 Planning and Zoning Committee

[00:23:19]

METRO TV. WE WILL BEGIN IN APPROXIMATELY 45 SECONDS.

[00:23:58]

[00:24:16]

[00:24:21]

[Call to Order]

[Roll Call]

[00:24:26]

[Pending Legislation]

[00:25:04]

SPECIAL HAS A QUESTION. JUST JUST FOLLOW. SO WE'RE GOING FROM OUR SIX TO SEE TO, UM AND IT LOOKS LIKE ARE THEY DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ALSO MULTI FAMILY ON THERE AS WELL? LIKE THE COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM, OR IS IT JUST GOING TO BE FULLY SEE TO THINK IT WAS A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE? SO, UM YEAH, THERE WOULD NOT BE LIKE ADDITIONAL FOOTPRINT AND CERTAINLY NO ADDITIONAL FOOTPRINT. NO ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE BUILDING.

SO, YEAH, THEY WOULD JUST CONTINUE TO USE IT. UH, RESIDENTIAL NOW, POTENTIALLY CHANGING THAT TO COMMERCIAL AT SOME POINT, SO. SEE NO ONE ELSE IN THE KEY. WE'RE READY TO VOTE.

CHERYL. WITHOUT OBJECTION, VOTING IS CLOSING. UM AND DID YOU. YOU HAVE A COUNCILMAN ARTHUR AND MEMBERS. JUST GET YOUR NAME. I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER ARTHUR PRESIDENT. YES OR NO, I'M SORRY. OH, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE GONNA VOTE PRESENT, OKAY? THERE ARE FIVE YES VOTES AND ONE PRESENT VOTE IN THIS AGO. TOO OLD BUSINESS AND THIS IS IN COUNCIL. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME. WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.

WE'VE BEEN JOINED BACK COUNCILMAN KEVIN CRAMER AND WE'LL GO BACK TO THAT ITEM.

WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE, AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 15 25 TO 17 11 TUCKER STATION ROAD. 1000 EXCUSE ME, 12,857 107 1704 SOUTH PUBLIC ROAD PARCEL NUMBER ID NUMBER 36 17 00070000. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 73.43 ACRES AND BEING A LITTLE METRO CASE NUMBER 22 ZONE. 098. PROBABLY WENT BACK. COUNCILWOMAN RUINED SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. BRIAN DAVIS LITTLE METRO OFFICER PLANNING THIS IS PLAYING COMMISSION. DOCKET NUMBER 22 ZONE 98, THE NAME OF THE PROJECT Z BACK TUCKER STATION PROJECTS LOCATED 15 25 TO 17 11 TUCKER STATION ROAD. 12 8 50 17 04 SOUTH POPE LICK ROAD.

AND THEN THERE'S ONE UNADDRESSED PARCEL AND THOSE INCLUDED IN THAT, AS PARCEL IS LOCATED.

METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 11 SO THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ISN'T THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USE THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING. IT'S NOT UP THERE. SORRY. THE ONLY THING HE REALLY MISSED WAS THE METRO COUNCIL MAP. SO HERE IS THE PROJECT OUTLINED IN RED, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES. THE AFRICAN IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE SITE AND USED FOR INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE USES. THIS IS THE EXISTING ZONING. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED R FOUR, LOCATED IN THE SUBURBAN WORKPLACE FORM DISTRICT THAT AFRICANS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO P SCENES WITH PLANNED EMPLOYMENT CENTER. SO THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE FROM OUR FOUR PC ON 71 ACRES OF THAT YOU HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. UM THE SITE IS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED WITH SIGNIFYING FAMILY RESIDENCES, WHICH ARE NOT TO BE PRESERVED. THEY'RE PROPOSING

[00:30:04]

[00:35:04]

I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. UM BUT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A SEPARATE FUNDING FACT I'M GOING TO ASK THE PAST, I'M GONNA OFFER AN IMPORT SUBSTITUTION. HAPPY PAST, UM, TO REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, MADAM CHAIR, APPRECIATIVE TRAVIS EASTER WOULD SPEND A FEW MOMENTS. UM EXPLAINING HOW IT IS THAT WE END UP WITH A PROPOSAL.

THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH ZOOM. PROPER APPROPRIATE ONLY. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I JUST NOTICED THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMAN BAKER, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. SOME WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT HE IS IN CHAMBERS.

GO AHEAD, TRAVIS. THANK YOU. TRAVIS FEASTER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, SO THERE IS AN AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION ON THE SYSTEM. IT'S BEEN ON FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS. NOW. I HOPE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. UM IF IT WAS JUST BEING INTRODUCED FRESH, I WOULD GO THROUGH AND READ EVERY LINE, BUT I'LL TRY TO BE, UH AWARE OF THAT THE COMMITTEE'S TIME AND SKIP THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT GENERALLY THE TWO LARGEST CONCERNS HERE ARE ONE THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT. THIS IS NEARLY A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSES ON 70, PLUS ACRES. IT'S A VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENT ON ONTO COLLECTOR LEVEL ROADS AND TUCKER STATION IN PUBLIC, UM THAT LOOKS TO HAVE VERY SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS. I THINK THE APPLICANTS TRAFFIC STUDY REFLECTS THAT AS WELL AS SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ATTEMPTED BY THE ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE, UM BUT THEN BY SUBSTITUTION ARGUES, BASICALLY, THOSE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT THAT THIS IS SIMPLY TOO LARGE DEVELOPMENT ONTO, UM TWO SMALLER ROADS AND REQUIRES TOO MANY FACTORS TO GET IT UP TO ANYTHING RESEMBLING APPROPRIATE STANDARD. I THINK THE OTHER PORTION TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT ON FLOYDS FORK OR ANYTHING AT THAT EXTENSIVE WATERWAYS, BUT THERE ARE SOME. THERE'S SOME CARS, TERRAIN AND OTHER FEATURES THAT COULD BE MUCH BETTER AVOIDED BY A COMMERCIAL OR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHEREAS GIANT RECTANGULAR BUILDINGS JUST CAN'T DO THAT. SO UM, THOSE ARE REALLY THE TWO MAIN CONCERNS THE TRAFFIC NETWORK THOSE IMPACTS AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. THAT ARE COVERED IN THIS AGAIN.

I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO ANY SPECIFIC DETAIL THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, UM, BUT THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT REMEMBER THAT SUBSTITUTION CONSISTS OF. BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. DID ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION? I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE QUEUE.

OKAY THERE'S AN AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION AND KEVIN YOUTH SINCE IT IS IN YOUR DISTRICT.

YOU CAN MAKE EMOTION IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. UM, I'D LIKE TO OFFER THIS MEMBER SUBSTITUTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT BEFORE. SECOND PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED BACK.

COUNCILMAN BAKER. UM ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION ONE MORE TIME. SEE NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE, CHERYL. SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION TO OVERTURN WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SENT FORWARD TO US.

AND JUST TO MAKE SURE MADAM CHAIR YES VOTE. HMM IS UPHOLDING THE AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTION.

OKAY? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. OKAY? COUNCIL MEMBER COUNT CLIMBER. YES. THERE ARE EIGHT YES VOTES. SO THE MINUTE BY SUBSTITUTION PASSES, SO NOW WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION ITSELF.

[00:40:08]

THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. SO THE SOUTHERN MOST OF THE TWO CUTS ON NEW CUT ROAD IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE DOING SOME WORK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS. UM BETWEEN THE THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS IS THE SITE PHOTO SO YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO DRIVEWAY, ENTRANCE LOCATIONS AND AGAIN, THIS ONE HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S BEING REMOVED. THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. JASON PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. ACROSS THE STREET, THE AIRPORT PARK. UM SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 8 2023 LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HEATHER MEETING ON JUNE 8TH 2023 IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ON JULY 20TH 2023 THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE CHANGES ZONING FROM R FOUR R SIX AND THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1. SO IT'S ALL THAT I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. BEFORE WE GET STARTED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AWARE THAT ONE OF THE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION FEELS INTO MY OFFICE FROM TIME TO TIME. IN FACT, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HER IN MONTHS, BUT I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THIS CASE WITH HER OR ANY OTHER CASE WITH HER. BUT IN CASE SOMEONE NOTICES HER NAME IS, UM, ON THE ON THEIR SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. SHE WAS SPEAKING IN REFERENCE TO HER OWN PERSONAL VIEWS BECAUSE SHE LIVES THERE.

SO I JUST WANT TO DISCLOSE THAT, UM, FULLY UM DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I CALL ON COUNCILWOMAN RUI? COUNCILWOMAN RUI. OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THEIR DISTRICT, AND IT'S GOT KIND OF A COMPLICATED HISTORY. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS OVER THE INSTABILITY OF THAT HILL. AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS DOWN ZONED BECAUSE OF THE FEAR THAT IF YOU PUT LARGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THERE, THINGS ARE GOING TO COLLAPSE. IN FACT, I CAN. I CAN SPEAK TO A SPACE THAT'S ALREADY HAD SOME DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY PUT IT IN GROUND POOL IN THE BACK THE BACK WALLS ALREADY SLIDING IN THAT'S HOW UNSTABLE THAT HILL IS. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS DOWN ZONE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS WAS BUILT AS AN APARTMENT BUILDING, BUT IT WAS NOT ZONED AS ONE AND ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR AT THIS POINT. THE ONLY CHANGES LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THAT U SHAPED DRIVEWAY AND TYPE OF SINGLE ENTRANCE AND THEY'RE GOING TO RESHAPE. THE PARKING PAD. SO BASED ON ALL OF THAT. I HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THE

[00:45:07]

[00:50:02]

OBJECTIONS TRAFFIC DRAINAGE. AND I THINK SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING WAS ADJUSTED WITH. BUT PLANNING OF CONIFERS, TOO. SCREEN THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO COUNCILMAN MOBILE IS OKAY WITH THIS PROJECT. ARE YOU? I THINK YOU MAY HAVEN'T DONE ONE IN HERE. I'M NOT REALLY POSITIVE.

SO IF YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND FOR JUST A SECOND AFTER THIS, OKAY, ALRIGHT, THANKS. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THAT SEEMS LIKE COUNSELING? MARBLE HILL IS OKAY WITH THIS CHANGE IN ZONING. I SEE NO ONE IN THE CUBE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. WITHOUT OBJECTION. VOTING IS CLOSING THESE THERE ARE SEVEN YES VOTES, AND THIS WILL GO TO OUR BUSINESS AND OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. I'M GONNA SKIP TO NUMBER SIX BECAUSE THAT'S IN COUNSELING MOLEHILLS DISTRICT JUST IN CASE THEY NEED TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT. IS THAT OKAY, BRIAN, WE DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. I'M READY WHENEVER, OKAY. I DON'T NUMBER SIX AND HORNETS RELATED TO ZONING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 18 LINCOLN AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1041 ACRES AND BEING A LOCAL METRO CASE NUMBER 23 ZONES 0033. PROPERTY MOVED BY COUNCILMAN RUI 2ND 2ND BY COUNSELING ABOUT SEAN, WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY THIS IS PLAYING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 23 ZONE 33 FOR 16 18 LINCOLN AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 16 18 LINCOLN AVENUE, LOCATED METRO COUNCIL COUNCIL DISTRICT, 10. THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY IT'S CURRENTLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL USE ON THE PROPERTY THERE. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS LINCOLN AVENUE. THIS IS POPULAR LEVEL ROAD AND THIS IS AN ENTRANCE TO THE WATERS. AN EXSW UM SO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SPLIT ZONED. THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ZONE C ONE AND THE FRONT CORNER ZONED R FIVE APPEARS TO JUST BE KIND OF LIKE A LINE DRAWN ON THE ORIGINAL ZONING MAP THAT WAS IN THE AREA FOR WHATEVER REASON SPLIT THIS PARCEL. SO THE APPLE IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT.

THAT CORNER THAT YOU SEE THERE THAT THE YELLOW CORN THAT'S OUR FIVE TO SEE ONE TO MATCH THE REST OF PROPERTY. SO THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE FROM OUR FANTASY ONE PREVIOUSLY USES A DAYCARE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY A RETAIL USE MOST. AS I'VE PLAID, MOST OF THE SITE IS ZONC ON B T SM P TH FBS,ROSING KERY. EXISTINGARKINGILLD A REMAIN IN THE EIGHTIES AND THEN 88 SPACE HAS BEEN ADDED. TO THE TO THE PROPOSED PARKING AREAS.

SO THIS IS THE DEVELOPED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. JUST SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARKING THAT THAT YOU SEE THERE DON'T KNOW REAL CHANGES TO THE BUILDING THIS RED LINE THAT YOU SEE HERE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF PROPERTY. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE EXISTING ZONING LINES. SO TO THE LEFT, YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL PART TO THE RIGHTS TO COMMERCIAL PART. THIS IS A PHOTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO AGAIN, VERY COMMERCIAL LOOKING. SO YOU KNOW THEY'RE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO USE IT THAT WAY. THIS YEAR. JASON SIDES, UH, LOCATED TO THE TO THE WEST.

ACROSS THE STREET. THE AFRICAN CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27 2023 AND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON JUNE 22ND 2023 AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC AREAS ON JULY 20TH. THEIR MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CHANGING ZONING FROM OUR FIVE TO SEE ONE AND THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. UM JEFF DID COUNSELOR MOBILE HILL HAVE ANYTHING HE WANTED TO ADD ON THIS? AGAIN. WE WERE PRESENT. THERE WAS NO ONE THAT SPOKE AGAINST THIS. THIS PROPERTY, I THINK MOST RECENTLY BEEN USED AS A DAYCARE AND THEN A VACANT PROPERTY. AND THESE FOLKS INTEND TO PUT, I THINK A LAW OFFICE AND A PORTION OF IT. IN A SERVICE SPECIALTY BAKERY, SO IT WON'T BE HOSTING WALK IN TRAFFIC. THIS WILL BE SPECIALTY ITEMS LIKE ONE CUSTOMER AT A TIME WORKER IN WEDDING CAKE, ETCETERA. CANNOT THREE. SO WE'RE PETS GOOD WITH THIS PROPOSAL TO THANK YOU, JEFF. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CHANGE IN

[00:55:06]

PROBABLY MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN RUINING SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BAKER. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. THE QUESTION DOCKET NUMBER 23 ZONE 0006 FOR 701 EAST KENTUCKY STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. UH THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY HERE. YOU SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PARKING EXISTS ON THE SITE APPARENTLY USED AS AS MIXED USE, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO USE IT FOR MIXED USE ON THE SIDE. THE EXISTING ZONING IS YOU IN NUTRITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THEY'RE MAKING A REQUEST TO CHANGE THAT TO SEE ONE. SO THAT AGAIN, THEY REQUESTED FOR ONE. THEY'RE RENOVATING THE EXISTING MISS MIXED USE STRUCTURE. THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED NONCONFORMING RIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL USES. UM AND THEN THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM EITHER OF THE ROADS. SO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN YOU REALLY JUST GET WHAT IS THERE ON THE SITE, THE EXISTING BUILDING IN THE EXISTING PARKING THAT EXISTS WITH ACCESS COMING FROM THE ALLEY. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT SITES SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S A VERY MUCH LIKE A HISTORIC CORNER. COMMERCIAL MIXED USE TYPE OF BUILDING AND SO THIS ZONING CHANGE PROPOSALS TO CHANGE IT BACK TO, UH, BE MORE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE BUILDING WITH THE BUILDING THAT IS THERE. THIS IS THE SAD PHOTO LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE ADJACENT SIDE. ANOTHER ADJACENT SITES. SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CORNER COMMERCIAL IN NATURE WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL AS YOU GO AWAY FROM THE FROM THE INTERSECTION THERE. THE ATHLETE CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON MAY 25TH 2022 LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITIES ON JUNE 22ND 2023 AND IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 20TH 2023 PLAYING COMMISSIONS MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CHANGES OWNING FROM YOU IN THE C ONE THAT PASSED BY VOTERS 9 TO 0. THAT'S ALL ABOUT HAVING CHEVY QUESTIONS FOR ME. THIS ISN'T COUNCILMAN OUR THIRST. RESTRICT MR. COUNSELING OXYGEN. YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD. WE WERE JUST TALKING EARLIER. I WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE SECOND FLOOR WAS OCCUPIED, BUT I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS AND I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE RECORD. DID YOU SAY THAT WAS OR WAS NOT OCCUPIED? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION THE STATUS OF THE OCCUPATION, SO I THINK THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED OR NOT HERE. I DON'T REMEMBER. YEAH BUT BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE ON THAT SECOND FLOOR. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. YES. IT IS OCCUPIED. YES. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SAYING THAT WILL ENTERTAIN A VOTE AND COUNSELING. ARTHUR DOES HAVE A VOTE ON THIS. COUNCIL MEMBER, ARTHUR YES. COUNCILOR, MEMORY OR WHATEVER.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, VOTING IS CLOSING THEIR EIGHT YES VOTES, AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS THAT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

MOVING ON TO I GONNA SKIP SOME OF THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE ZONING AND ROAD CLOSURES HEARD FIRST. OH COUNSELOR. VALERIE DID YOU NEED TO HEAR YOUR LEGISLATION NEXT? BEFORE WE MOVE ON? WE HAVE SOME ROAD CLOSURES WE NEED AND WE NEED TO WORK ON. DO YOU HAVE TIME TO YES. YOU HAVE TIME TO WAIT. WELL, I CAN. YEAH DO YOU WANT TO HEAR YOURS NEXT? IT

[01:00:10]

12 IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF UNIMPROVED PORTION OF DOOR HOFFER AVENUE ADJACENT TO 7 34 AND 800 CECIL AVENUE AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 404,649 SQUARE FEET AND BEING A LITTLE METRO CASE NUMBER 23 STREET CLOSURES 0013. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BAKER AND COUNCILWOMAN RUI. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 23 STREET CLOSURE 13. IT IS FOR A PORTION OF DOOR HOFFER AVENUE, LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. UM SO THE AERIAL PHOTO HERE YOU CAN SEE, UH, DOOR HARBOR AVENUE. UM IT IT CROSSES SOUTH 42ND STREET AND THEN THE IMPROVEMENTS KIND OF GO AWAY AS YOU GET TOWARDS CECIL AVENUE, AND THEN THEY PICKED BACK UP BACK OVER TOWARDS SOUTH 41ST STREET, SO THE REQUEST HERE IS TO CLOSE A PORTION OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY ON THE ON THE CECIL AVENUE SIDE. SO, UM THIS IS THE AREA RIGHT HERE, IN WHICH THE APPLES PROPOSING TO CLOSE THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPROXIMATE AREA THAT'S 0.11 ACRES, SO THEY ARE OPPOSING THE CLOTHES THAT UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S LOCATED BETWEEN 7 34 AND 800 SEATS. 11 NEW PROPERTY PROPERTY WILL BE SPLIT BETWEEN THE PARCELS AND IT'S APPROVED. THIS IS THE STREET CLOSURE PLANT HERE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO, UH BE CLOSED AND ALLOCATED. UM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON JULY 13TH 2023 BLANK COMMISSION PUBLIC AREAS ON ON JULY 20TH 2023. THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CLOSURE THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT HAPPENED SHOULD BE QUESTIONS FOR ME. THAT'S IT. COUNCILOR DID SHE LEAVE? OR SHE. AND THIS IS IN HER DISTRICT. SO PARDON? I WAS GOING TO SEE IF SHE'S NOT RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOOR. GO AHEAD AND MOTION TABLE. WE CAN TAKE IT BACK UP IN THE COMMITTEE. IF WE HAVE TIME. OKAY? SO I'M GONNA MOTION TO TABLE JUST AS COURTESY SINCE SHE'S NOT IN THE ROOM.

PROBABLY MOVED BY. COUNCILMAN BAKER AND CITED BY COUNSEL IN CHAPEL ALL HER FAVORITE TABLE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. SAYING THAT IT SHALL BE TABLED AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK UP. UM, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO I DON'T NUMBER 13 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THINKING WHICH LANE ADJACENT TO 59 05, THANKING BUSH LANG CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3.87 ACRES AND BEING ALONE METRO CASE NUMBER, STREET CLOSURES 0017. PROBABLY WENT BY COUNCILMAN BANKER SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ROY. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. 23 STREET CLOSURE. 17 59 05 FAGAN BUSH LANE CLOSURE IT'S LOCATED THAT WERE FAGAN. BUSH LANE COMES INTO SOUTH HARRIS BORN PARKWAY. OKAY, METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT TO, UM THIS IS THE AERIAL PHOTO LOOK FAMILIAR? SOME OF YOU ALL BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN THIS REQUEST BEFORE THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED IS THE OLD REAGAN BUSH LANE. RIGHT OF WAY. FAGAN BUSH LANE WAS REALIGNED. UH SO THAT TO CORRECT THE INTER INTERSECTION ALIGNMENT AS IT COMES, COMES INTO SOUTH FIRSTBORN PARKWAY. EXCUSE ME. HMM. AND SO, UM THE NEW RIGHT OF WAY, AND NEW ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY AREA, BUT THAT RIGHT OF WAY REMAINS, UH, THERE AND SO THE AFRICAN IS REQUESTING TO CLOSE THAT RIGHT AWAY. THE AREA OF THE RIGHT WEIGHS APPROXIMATELY 3.87 ACRES. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO CLOSE THAT PORTION. THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WHICH YOU SAW OUTLINED IN RED, WHICH WAS LEFT OVER FROM WHERE FAGAN BUSH WAS REALIGNED THE PRE . THIS REQUEST HAS COME BEFORE METRO COUNCIL TO OTHER TIMES UNDER 21 ST CLOSURE FOUR AND 22 STREET CLOSURE FOUR. ALL OF THE UTILITY AGENCIES HAVE APPROVED THE CLOSURE. UM SO THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ADVENT TO SHOW THE AREA THAT IS TO BE CLOSED. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS HELD ON JULY 13TH 2023 THAT THEY WENT ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 20TH 2023, AND THE MOTION WAS TO

[01:05:04]

THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR ME. I THINK I SPOKE MAYBE MORE IN THIS CASE THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL PERSON. AT THAT POINT, THERE WERE QUESTIONS LIKE, CAN WE SELL THIS PROPERTY? NO WHY NOT? WELL THE WAY THE STATE LAW FOCUS, UH, WORKS IS WHEN WE HAVE RIGHT AWAY THAT IT'S CLOSED WHEN THAT RIGHT BOY IS CLOSED. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW DISCRETION, WHETHER OR NOT TO CLOSE IT. UM BUT ONE OF THOSE CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY DEFAULTS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. UM WHY DID THEY ALL FUNCTION THAT WAY? WELL I THINK IN THEORY, THE IDEA IS THAT YOU KNOW, METALLURGICAL POWER TO CONDEMN PROPERTY TO CREATE RIGHT OF WAY. UM AND IT COULD CONDEMN PROPERTY THAT'S VERY VALUABLE TO CREATE RIGHT AWAY AND THEN JUST CONVERTED TO LAND WE COULD SELL. METRO COULD ABUSE THAT POWER AND MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. SO THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. PROPERTY CANNOT BE SELLING. IT CANNOT BE USED BY METRO FOR ANOTHER FACILITY. IT'S RIGHT AWAY UNTIL IT'S NO LONGER RIGHT AWAY, AND AT THAT POINT IT DEFAULT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. FULL STOP. UM, THAT'S HOW THE LAW FUNCTIONS. AND SO THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR METRO TO USE. UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN POTENTIAL RIGHT AWAY. SO AS I SAID IT CAME OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE ON ITS SECOND ROUND WITH A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION IN FAVOR OF THE CLOSURE. I GOT THE FULL COUNCIL AND THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION. SOME OF THE ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN COVERED A COMMITTEE, SOME ITEMS THAT WERE NEW UM AND ULTIMATELY , THE VOTE SWUNG THE OTHER WAY, AND I THINK IT WAS UNANIMOUS. WE SHOT DOWN AT FOUR COUNCIL. UM I KNOW THAT IN THE IN THE AFTER AFTER THAT THE APPLICANT HAD REACHED OUT TO SOME OF THE MORE VOCAL OPPONENTS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD HAD A COMMITTEE TO EXPLAIN. YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF WHAT COUNTY COUNCIL COULD AND COULDN'T DO WITH THE LAND, ETCETERA. UM, AND THEY FELT THAT UH, PERHAPS BOTH WITH SOME NEW FACES, AND WITH SOME ATTEMPTS AT, UM, EDUCATION OF SOME OF THE OPPOSITION THAT THIS MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PASS. UM RATHER THAN TWO. GO TO LITIGATION OVER THE MATTER, WHICH FRANKLY, IS LIKELY WHERE THIS WOULD GO IF COUNCIL TURNS IT DOWN THE THIRD TIME. EITHER WAY, IT'S FINE. WE'RE HAPPY THAT DEAL WITH THAT CASE, BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A FAIR LAYOUT OF SORT OF WHERE WE ARE. UM SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IN A FINAL ATTEMPT TO GO THROUGH THAT SORT OF PUBLIC PROCESS TO HOPEFULLY, HAVE THOSE SAME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. HAVE HAVE THIS NEW GROUP COUNCIL PEOPLE TAKE A LOOK AND YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS EITHER ABOUT THE HISTORY OR ABOUT THE LAW, BUT THAT'S MORE OR LESS WHY WE ARE BACK HERE FOR A THIRD AND FINAL TIME, REGARDLESS OF WHICH WAY THE VOTE GOES. COUNCIL MEMBER VASH ON. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, SO THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY. TRAVIS. UM AND YOU SAID THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT GO ON THAT CHASING PROPERTY. I'M NOT SEEING THAT HERE. CURIOSITY IN. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST? YES, SURE. I APOLOGIZE, BUT HASN'T GOTTEN ATTACKS. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT UM, GET UPLOADED. UM ESPECIALLY VERBALLY . TELL ME DR SHANKMAN YET EITHER, BUT IT'S I BELIEVE IN THE CONNECTING PROPERTY IS OWNED C TWO AND JUST IT'S I THINK THERE WAS LIKE A BANK PROPOSAL AND MAYBE A RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. MAYBE THREE WITH SOME, YOU KNOW, PARKING AND DR ISLES THAT IT WASN'T ANYTHING EARTH SHAKING. UM JUST SORT OF THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THEIR EXISTING COMMERCIAL PARCEL. I'M GOING TO SPEAK IF THAT'S OKAY. CHAIR. IF THIS IS COMING TWICE, AND WE'RE ON THE THIRD TIME, AND YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A POSSIBLE PROPOSAL FOR A BANK AND POSSIBLE SOME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND POSITIVE INFRASTRUCTURE GROWTH IN THAT COMMUNITY. I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD TURN IT DOWN. UNLESS THERE YOU'RE TELLING ME THEY'RE GONNA YOU KNOW. PUT SEWAGE YARD THERE SOMETHING OF THAT SORT, YOU KNOW. UH UM.

[01:10:01]

AND IT'S SO THE DECISION OF THE LAST TIME WAS THAT THEN IT'LL STAY RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING BEING OFFERED TO THE COMMUNITY. PERMISSION TO SPEAK. I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T SELL IT, BUT IT'S STILL A ROAD FOR SOME OF US TO JUST GIVE AWAY THAT TYPE OF PROPERTY TO MAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY MORE VALUABLE COMMERCIAL. RESPECTFULLY HERE. YOU AND I RESPECT THAT. BUT I THINK WE AS A AS A BODY WE WILL GAIN IN TAX REVENUES FROM WHAT COMES IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE OCCUPATIONAL TAX, OR, UM, INCOME TAX OR SALES TAX OF SOME SORT, SO WE DO GAIN IN THE LONG RUN. AND AGAIN. THIS IS IN COUNCILWOMAN, UM DR FRANKLIN'S DISTRICT. SO UM, INDIFFERENCE TO HER THAT I'VE GOT ONE POINT MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE JUST TO HEAR BACK FROM HER BECAUSE UM, IT IS. IT ISN'T HER DISTRICT. OKAY I'M GONNA WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE TO TABLE. IT. I'M OKAY WITH MAKING THAT MOTION. I THINK MR BAKER MADE THE MOTION AND WE NEED A 2ND 2ND. COUNCILMAN BUT SEAN THIS SEGMENT SO WITHOUT OBJECTION. I GUESS I BETTER WILL HAVE ALL OF THE FAVORITE TABLE AND SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SON. SEEN IN THE MOTION CARRIES NOW I NEED A MOTION TO GO BACK TO AN TABLE.

NUMBER 12. IS THAT RIGHT? MISS MISS PERFECTION WANTS TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. OKAY. MOTION ON TABLE ITEM, 12. IT PROBABLY MADE BY COUNSEL ABOUT SEAN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BAKER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ON TABLE AND SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. THAT WAS OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN SCENE AND THE MOTION CARRIES AND SO WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MR COUNCILWOMAN PURPOSE. THANK YOU , CHAIRWOMAN. FLUID UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SECTION OF THE HALL FOR IS UNDEVELOPED. CLOSING THIS WILL NOT HINDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD . IT WOULD NOT PREVENT. UM EXCESS. AH. FOR ANY VEHICLE WAS IS NOT NEEDED FOR ANY EXCESS PURPOSES. SO I DO AGREE WITH CLOSING THIS OFF. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEN THEN OTHER WEREN'T READY FOR BOAT.

I'M SORRY. THINGS OPEN. WITHOUT OBJECTION, VOTING IS CLOSING. THERE ARE SIX YES, FOLKS. AND ONE NOT VOTING. AND THIS WILL GO TO THE I THINK NOT TO CONSENT CALENDAR WILL GO TO CONSENT CALENDAR AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CO REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS. I NEED EMOTION TO UNTIE, ABLE MOTION. PROBABLY MOVED BY COUNCILOR BAKER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN REED . WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION AND THIS IS IN COUNCIL. THIS IS COUNCILMAN FOWLER'S LEGISLATION . DID YOU WANT ME TO CALL ON YOU? FIRST COUNCIL ONE, FOWLER.

I KNOW IT. I THINK THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS LAST TIME. IT MAY BE THAT TRAVIS MIGHT WANT TO UPDATE US ON, UM THE PARTICULARS. THANK COUNCILMAN TRANSFUSED ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. SO THERE IS AN AMENDED VERSION BASED ON THE SORT OF, UM ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN LAST TIME CHANGING THAT 60 DAY. TIME LIMIT TO SIX MONTHS. AS I EXPLAINED LAST TIME UNDER THE UNDER THE STATUTE AFTER 60 DAYS COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO PICK UP A RESOLUTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT YET ACTED ON . BUT IT'S ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT. AND SO TYPICALLY, WE DO WAIT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HOWEVER LONG THAT TAKES SO MOVING BACK TO SIX

[01:15:02]

IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR AHEAD, MR. COUNCILMAN REED. YES SO MY QUESTION IS THIS UM, IF SOMEBODY HAS ZONED A PROPERTY MERGER. YEAH, LET'S SAY, AND THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL. OKAY, LET'S SAY THAT THAT IT'S ZONED R FOUR. AND THAT DEVELOPER DOES NOT DEVELOPED A LOT. YEAH AND 30.

YEARS LATER, IT COMES BACK. ANOTHER DEVELOPER WANTS TO DEVELOP THAT LOT. IT'S STILL ZONE ARE FOUR. BUT THE COMPLEXITY AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PRE MERGER. I YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WOULD WORK, BUT TO ME THAT THAT SHOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT SORT OF BE FIT A DEVELOPMENT OR NOT A DEVELOPMENT AND I HAVE SEEN DEVELOPMENTS GO IN WHERE THE. ORIGINAL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. UM WAS NOT FOLLOWED, AND THEY NOW CERTAIN SUDDENLY, 30 YEARS LATER, SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAR. LET'S SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, SIDEWALKS ARE NOT THERE AND ACCESS TO TORQUE. LIONS ARE NOT THERE AND OR ACCESS TO JOBS OR GROCERY STORES, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. AND YOU KNOW TO ME THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THAT SHE COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL. UH PARTICULARLY IF IT'S IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM A MERGER. FOR A FINAL LOOK, SEE? AND I HOPE I'M MAKING SENSE. UM BUT IS ASKING TRAVIS IS THAT POSSIBLE? SO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. LOOKS AT A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM WHEN A PLAN IS FILED. OBVIOUSLY PRE MARRIAGE AS WELL. OUTSIDE OF FIVE YEARS, UM YOU KNOW THAT THAT PERIOD COULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY EXPANDED. UM I THINK. AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TOP OF MY HEAD. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT LEVEL OF SORT OF RETROACTIVITY, QUOTE UNQUOTE. UM. BUT ADMITTEDLY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF THE VEIL THAT IS MERGER. I'M NOT 90% SURE IF THAT MIGHT CREATE SOME ISSUES, ESPECIALLY IF THE PLAN ITSELF THE ORIGINAL PLAN PROCEEDED. MERGER YOU KNOW, IT MAY HAVE BEEN EVEN WITH THE UM IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH THE JUDGE, EXECUTIVE AND THAT'S ALL A LITTLE HAZY, SO I THINK THAT'S SPECIFIC. OTHER ADVOCATES MIGHT HAVE SOME UNIQUE ISSUES RELATED TO MURDER ITSELF. BUT IN ANY CASE, THE LANGUAGES CURRENTLY PROPOSED AGAIN WOULD ONLY COVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. SO IT AT MINIMUM, WE DID EXPLAINED THAT PERIOD SUBSTANTIALLY TO COVER PRE MERGER PROPERTIES. UM LIKE I SAID, I WANT TO DO SOME RESEARCH TO SEE IF ANYTHING TO DO WITH MERGER MIGHT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IMPACT THE VALIDITY OF THAT PLAN. I MEAN, IF I MAY BE, OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITE THAT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AT ALL OR PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SITE. BECAUSE IF YOU THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL, OKAY, RIGHT.

SOMETHING LIKE THIS PROPOSED. BUT AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL AND JUST SEEMS TO BE AS THOUGH THE YOU KNOW THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY 30 YEARS AGO, DIFFERENT THAN THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY NOW AND WHAT WAS OWNED ARE FOUR VERY SPECIFIC PROJECT 30 YEARS AGO THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH ON MAY NOT BE THE PROPER DESIGNATION MAY NOT EVEN BE APPROVED NOW GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THAT PARTICULAR LIFE. THAT IS STILL ARE. FOR RIGHT. SO YOU KNOW IT DOES NOW. SO ONE OF PROPERTIES REZONED THE ZONING RUNS WITH THE LAND ONCE IT'S APPROVED. NOW THEY DO HAVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT THAT DO EXPIRE. SO IN THE SITUATION, HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION LIKE THAT, WHERE YOU HAVE A OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME IN AND GOT APPROVAL FOR THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN IF THEY NEVER DEVELOPED THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THAT PLAN EXPIRES. AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME IN AND SUBMIT A NEW PLAN FOR THE SITE, WHICH WOULD BE REVIEWED AGAINST THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOT THE CODE FROM WHICH IT WAS APPROVED UNDER SO UM, YOU KNOW, AND THAT SENSE WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT FROM TODAY LENS.

WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE LOOKING AT THE ZONING BECAUSE AGAIN THAT STAYS WITH THE LAND, BUT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COMPARE THAT TO TODAY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT

[01:20:02]

THAT'S WHY WE'RE ABLE TO PUT THAT ONE CAVEAT. ON LAND ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHANGES IN BODY AND I'M GONNA CHANGE THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE BY WRITING AT 30 DAYS OR SOMETHING. I LIKE YOU.

SO I DON'T CONFUSE EVERYBODY LET YOU GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN IT. APPRECIATE IT. I APOLOGIZE. I THINK I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT JUST BECAUSE THE CURRENT ORDINANCE MOSTLY DEALS WITH PREVENTING NEW PLANS ONCE FROM BEING FILED. ONCE A QUOTE OF AN ORIGINAL PLAN IS DONE, SO IT'S YOU KNOW, PREVENTING THE SORT OF FILING BUT IF A PLAN GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS AND IS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT'S YOU KNOW OUR REVISED PLAN CERTAIN OR BINDING ELEMENT CHANGES, THEN THE COUNCIL CAN USE 11 75 AT THE LDC TO GRAB THE PLAN AND TAKE IN FRONT OF THEM AND CONDUCT THEIR OWN REVIEW. UM AND THAT THAT SORT OF THAT PROVISION. 11 75 IS WHERE THE STANDARD BY ANY ELEMENT COMES FROM AS WELL. SORT OF, UM IDEOLOGICALLY INDIGNANT FORWARD, BUT, UM SO YOU KNOW, CASES WHERE WE'VE APPLIED THE STANDARD BY THE ELEMENT TO OBVIOUSLY THOSE WOULD BE CAPTURED, BUT ONES WERE THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT IS NOT IN PLACE COUNCIL CAN STILL USE 11 752. UM TO PICK UP, YOU KNOW ELIGIBLE PLANS AND REVIEW THEM. AND I'M GUESSING I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS, BUT PARTS OF IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, UNDEVELOPED AND SITTING IS ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO TRIGGER THOSE CONDITIONS. SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROACTIVELY DO THAT. YES, WELL YES, I THINK THE PROACTIV VERSION REALLY STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT. 11 75 EXISTING THAT'S ONE THAT'S ONE EXISTING IN IN FUTURE CASES, RIGHT? YES BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS AGO, WE DID NOT HAVE THAT BINDING ELEMENT. CORRECT? YEAH YOU CAN STILL USE 11 75. IT IS A FAIRLY TIGHT TURNAROUND, BUT IT IS DOABLE. OKAY I THINK I'D LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU OFFLINE ABOUT THIS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT I APPRECIATE IT, TRAVIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COUNCILMAN FOWLER. YES. UM MADAM CHAIR. SO UM, I WANTED TO REITERATE THAT I'M WILLING TO LESSEN THE FIVE YEAR UM TOM ON THIS 23 YEARS. AND THAT OF COURSE, I CAN'T MAKE THAT MOTION BECAUSE THIS ISN'T YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. CINDY I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT EMOTION FOR YOU. IT'S UNDER ITS THE LAST . WHEREAS PARAGRAPH THANK UM PART OF THE LAST. IT'S NEXT TO THE LAST STATEMENT, WHERE IT SAYS CANNOT BE FILED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS STRIKE THAT TO SAY THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS APPROVED. MA'AM AMENDMENT FOR YOU SENDING THANK YOU. I NEED A SECOND. PROBABLEMENTE. PROPERLY MADE BY MYSELF AND COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE FIVE YEARS GOING TO THREE YEARS? COUNCILMAN OWEN JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, PURPOSES IT THE ORIGINALLY IT WAS DRAFTED AT FIVE. THE MOTION IS TO CHANGE IT TO THREE. THE CURRENT LEGISLATION HAS IT AT TWO. IS THAT OR WHERE CAN CAN WE? CAN WE GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT? SORRY THE CURRENT LEGISLATION STOOD SHOULD STILL BE AT FIVE. UM, THE . THE WHEN I WAS FIRST SPEAKING, THE CHANGE TO SIX MONTHS OR 60 DAYS WAS THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE. BUT I DON'T THINK THE YEAR LIMIT ON NEW PLANS BEING FILED WAS AMENDED. SO THEY CURRENTLY READS FIVE AND THE PROPOSALS TO AMEND IT DOWN TO THREE. AND THIS IS A RESOLUTION REQUESTS THEM. LOOK AT THESE THINGS TO MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. AND COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IS THAT CORRECT? MADAM SHERIFF, IF I MAY, UM, EXPLAIN AGAIN, AND I'M NOT SURE MAYBE SOME WEREN'T UM, PRESENT THE LAST TIME, UM, THAT THIS ISN'T LIKE IF DEVELOPER. CHAIN.

SOMETHING ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HE HAS. THIS IS THAT HE DITCHES HIS DEVELOPMENT PLAYING

[01:25:06]

AND SO IT WAS VERY UPSETTING TO THE NEIGHBORS. UM, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY AGREED ON THE APARTMENTS WITH RELUCTANTLY, BUT THEY STILL AGREED. UM THEY SAID IT WAS BETTER THAN APARTMENTS.

AND THEN HE TURNS AROUND AND DOES THE APARTMENT. SO THIS IS YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A FEW BAD ACTORS, BUT IT HAS CONSEQUENCES . SO I'M JUST ASKING THROUGH THIS RESOLUTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION I'M SORRY. PLANNING JUST AN SERVICES LOOKS INTO THAT TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO REMEDY. SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS SAY THEY WANTED TO THE MOODS OF BUILDING A LITTLE BIT OR NEEDED TO ADD WINDOWS SOMEWHERE. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF USE. CAN I CAN I ASK. YEAH. IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME WERE YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO THE TWO YEAR RULE. COUNCILMAN. OKAY SO TWO YEAR RULES SEPARATE WHEN THE DIFFERENCE SO THE TWO YEAR OLD SOMEONE COMES IN WITH THE REZONING PROPOSAL THEY WERE PRESUMED TO FROM OUR FOUR TO SEE ONE. AND COUNCIL DENIES THAT REQUEST. UM THEN, FOR TWO YEARS, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO REAPPLY. THAT SAME REQUEST. UM. NOW THERE ARE SOME ASTERIX THERE IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE ECONOMIC OR PHYSICAL LOCATION MORE IF THE PLAN IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST A WAIVER BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE TWO YEAR OLD PREVENTS A SORT OF RE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME ZONE. IF YOU ARE DENIED, UH, THIS IS SEPARATED THAT DEALS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NOT THIS OUT AND SO FUEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S APPROVED. UM AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR YOU TRY TO COME IN AND FILE A BY COUNCILOR FOWLER SAID A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH UM, WE USE A COUPLE DEFINITIONS IN THIS RESOLUTION. UM BUT IF YOU ATTEMPT TO COME IN AND RADICALLY CHANGED THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHIN, CURRENTLY FIVE YEARS SUPPOSED TO BE THREE YEARS, THEN THAT APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE PROCESSED. I'M REALLY NOT TRYING TO BE INTENTIONALLY DENSE HERE. BUT DON'T DON'T. WE HAVE A BINDING ELEMENT THAT DOES JUST THAT. I GUESS I'M JUST SO WE HAVE A BINDING ELEMENT THAT REQUIRES LIKE A VERY STANDARD STANDARD IN THE COUNCIL WHEN IT'S ON LITERALLY EVERY CASE THAT REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN THAT IS BEING APPROVED, BE COUNSELED BY THE ELEMENT. THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT BRINGS A CASE BACK IN FRONT OF COUNCIL WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE OF A CERTAIN CATEGORY. THIS WOULD PREVENT THAT APPLICATION FROM EVEN GOING FORWARD. SO INSTEAD OF COUNCIL JUST SEEING A PROPOSAL THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM ITS INITIAL APPROVAL. COUNCIL WOULDN'T SEE IT AT ALL. IT WOULDN'T EVEN GO TO PUBLIC HEARING, UM THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE THREE OR FIVE YEAR PERIOD BEFORE IT GETS A CHANCE TO BE REVIEWED AND GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL MEMBER VASH ON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE LAST COMMITTEE AND I WASN'T ABLE TO GET AN ANSWER BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF TIME. BUT WHAT OTHER PEER CITIES HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS? AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY. I APOLOGIZE. THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T PULL THAT ON, UM I HAVEN'T FOUND ANYBODY HAPPY TO TRY AND FIGURE THAT OUT THAT INFORMATION. IF IT EXISTS, I CAN ASK YOU ANOTHER ONE. THAT WAS OKAY. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT ATTRACTION IN OUR CITY? AS PROBABLY SOMEONE FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BE ABLE TO ENTER ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. I KNOW THAT IN GENERAL, UM THE STANDARD BY THE ELEMENT. WE'VE OCCASIONALLY GOTTEN SOME COMPLAINTS FROM DEVELOPERS BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT. IS AN ADDITIONAL PROCESS. AND SO IF YOU HAVE A LOT THAT HAS THE STANDARD BINDING, ALL MEN ARE DEVELOPERS HAVE ALLEGED. WELL, NOW THIS IS LESS VALUABLE THAN A NEIGHBOR LOT THAT IS IDENTICAL BUT DOESN'T HAVE THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHEN YOU APPLY YOU GOT AN EXTRA MONTH AND A HALF A PROCESS TO CONFRONT A COUNCIL. SO BY THAT LOGIC, IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM. WHEN INITIAL PLAN IS DONE, THAT THEY COULDN'T COMPLETELY REVISE IT, BUT I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW SIGNIFICANT THAT MIGHT BE, IT MIGHT BE NEGLIGIBLE. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN RUI. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID. THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THIS, AND THEY'RE STILL BELIEVE THAT THIS COULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE BINDING ELEMENTS, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE HAVING ANY MORE

[01:30:02]

UM SO I THINK THAT THERE IS PROBABLY A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN SAYING THIS CAN NEVER BE DONE AND THIS CAN BE APPLIED TO ALL PROPERTIES. AND I THINK THE RELIEF VALVE WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROPRIATE REGARDLESS OF WHAT RECOMMENDATION MIGHT COME FROM MIGHT COME FORWARD FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. UM, AT MINIMUM. AND JUST TO MARRY THE WATER A LITTLE MORE. THE LAST THE LAST SENTENCE AFTER THE FIVE YEAR OR THREE YEARS IF WE CHANGE IT TO THE THREE YEARS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS AMENDMENT, A CHANGE IN USE IS INTENDED TO MEAN ONLY CHANGES IN USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO EITHER COMMERCIAL OR OR INDUSTRIAL VICE VERSA, OR CHANGE IN USE FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO A MULTI FAMILY. SO IT'S GOING TO A HIGHER DENSITY. FOR THAT, AS IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IF YOU'RE IF YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. AND IT'S CHANGED OUR 58 BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SMOKE SMALLER LOTS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WELL, WE CAN FIT SOMETHING ELSE IN THERE. AN APARTMENT BUILDING. WELL WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE THREE INSTEAD OF FIVE. BUT. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. I'D LIKE TO MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. YEP. SANDY DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO THIS BEFORE WE MOVED TO DO IF YOU DON'T MIND, UM FIVE YEARS 23 YEARS. TIME FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S A RESOLUTION AND WE'RE JUST ASKING THEM TO LOOK AT IT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS ISN'T GOING TO MAKE A LAW. THIS IS GOING TO GET RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY, OKAY. OKAY? UM ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE FIVE YEARS TO THREE YEARS SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. HI. THAT WAS OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN.

HEARING THEN CHANGES FROM 5 TO 3. THANK YOU. IT'S OKAY. IT'S OKAY. OKAY OKAY, SO NOW WE HAVE THE ALL THE CHANGES IN FRONT OF US THAT DO. WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE THE OTHER ONE. IT WAS ALREADY MADE RIGHT FOR THE SIX MONTHS. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. NOW WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL. EXCUSE ME.

THE MINUTE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US IS THE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION THEN THAT CALLS FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. HI. THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN. CALL.

VICE CHAIR, EAD. SORRY. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. YES. UP CHECK. MARK IS A PRESENT.

ALTHOUGH, OKAY. THE OBJECTION IS CLOSING. THERE ARE 51 YES VOTE, FIVE NO VOTES AND ONE VOTING PRESENT. AND SO THE OR THE RESOLUTION FAILS, BUT IT WILL GO TO OH, BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO

[01:35:17]

I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THESE TO MAKE THEM EASIER FOR ME TO FIND. THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE L M C O LANGUAGE. THOSE WERE ALL ON THE L. D. C. WHERE IS IT? WHY WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT? CAN I GO BACK TO THE SORRY CAN I GO BACK TO THE OR ONE AND TWO REAL QUICK JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM SO THE NEW LANGUAGE, UH, SO GOING FORWARD, YOU WILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR A C U P IN O R O R ONE AND R TWO ZONE PROPERTIES. CORRECT. CORRECT AND ONES THAT ALREADY HAVE LICENSES AND OUR NONCONFORMING CAN CONTINUE TO BE NONCONFORMING USES BUT GOING FORWARD NONCONFORMING O R ONE OR HARD TO LICENSE. WILL FACTOR INTO

[01:40:07]

SHOW HABERMAN. THEY'RE SHAKING THEIR HEAD. NO. TRAVIS. JOE HABERMAN PLANNING AND DESIGN SERVICES AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE NOT ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SCHEDULED OR DOCTORED FOR ABOUT A HEARING. COUNCILMAN MARINA WEBER. UM, MADAM CHARITY FIRST OFF. I WANT TO COMMEND THE PLANNING AND ZONING TEAM FOR THEIR AMAZING RESPONSIVENESS IN THIS, THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT HAVE COME IN LATER FROM COMMUNITY INPUTS. I'D LIKE THE MOTION TO TABLE THIS FOR ONE MORE SESSION TO VOTE ON. SORRY THESE CHANGES THAT HE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD. YES MA'AM. PLEASE FORGET THE NEWBIE. THAT'S OKAY. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THOSE AMENDMENTS READ, BUT MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BAKER SECOND BY COUNCILMAN RUINING ALL THE FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENTS SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. HI. THAT'S OPPOSED BY LIKE, SIGN HEARING NONE. UM THE AMENDMENTS PASSED. NOW YOU CAN MAKE YOUR. I APOLOGIZE. CAN I JUMP IN ONE MORE TIME? REAL QUICK. I FOUND MY L M C O CHANGE. THE REASON IS NOT NOTICED. IT WAS A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. WE HAD TO SUBSECTION D S AND ONE SUBSECTION E, BUT WE'RE APPROPRIATELY RELABELED TO E N F. SORRY. SO THAT THAT SINCE THAT'S TECHNICAL, WE DON'T NEED TO. OKAY? WE HAVE A MOTION TO TAPER OFF. COUNCILMAN RENO WEBER , SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BAKER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. I PROPOSED BY, LIKE SINCE SEEN NONE. IT SHALL BE TABLED. OKAY, MOVING ON. TO I'M MAKING SURE I HAVE EVERYTHING OFF OF YOUR. MOVING TO I DON'T NUMBER EIGHT FOR DISCUSSION IS AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE LOCAL JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT CODE OF ORDINANCES. LMC OUT DESIGNATING HISTORICALLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS IS PROTECTED COMMUNITIES FROM DIRECT AND DIRECT AND CULTURAL. DISPLACEMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE HISTORICALLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD LAW AND AMENDING L. M C. 0 92.15 MOTION. CORRECTLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR. BEFORE WE PRESENT I LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO ACCEPT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE IN THE SYSTEM, SO WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THIS LEGISLATION. THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN IN THE SYSTEM SINCE LAST WEEK, AND IT FOCUSES ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. IT ALSO MAKES THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE EIGHT HISTORICALLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS CITY WIDE. A LOT OF RESIDENTS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. HOW MUCH IN THE AMENDMENT. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE INFECTED. ALL OF THE FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. THAT WAS OPPOSED BY LIKE SCIENCE SEEN NONE. THE NEW VERSION IS IN FRONT OF US. DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU WANT TO SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, SO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD. ABSOLUTELY JUST TO BE CLEAR. THOSE CHANGES MEAN THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE EIGHT HISTORICALLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION ARE NOW CITYWIDE. IT ALSO MEANS THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. THANK YOU. COMMITTEE. SO. THE OFFICE OF DISEASE PREVENTION. AND HEALTH PROMOTION SHOWS THAT HOUSING INSTABILITY LEADS TO POOR HEALTH FOR CHILDREN, A DOUBLING OF SUICIDE RATES AND 9 TO 10 TIMES WORSE MORTALITY

[01:45:01]

2019 LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT PUBLISHED THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT. OUR VERY FIRST IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSING STOCK ACROSS LOUISVILLE METRO. IT MADE TWO VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCT POINTS. NUMBER ONE. OUR CITY HAS A SURPLUS OF 4000 HOUSING UNITS FOR HOUSEHOLDS WHO MAKE 200% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. NUMBER. TWO OUR CITY HAS A DEFICIT OF OVER 31,000 HOUSING UNITS FOR HOUSEHOLDS WHO MAKE UP TO 30% OF THE AREA MEETING INCOME, OR AM I. TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. THERE ARE ENOUGH AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE HOMES FOR LESS THAN HALF OF THE HOUSEHOLDS WHO MAKE UP TO 30% AM I AND ENOUGH AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE HOMES FOR MORE THAN ALL OF THE HOUSEHOLDS WHO MAKE UP TO 200% AM I? SO IN 2019? IF I'M A FAMILY OF FOUR, MAKING $25,000 OR LESS I HAVE A 45% CHANCE OF FINDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT IF I'M A FAMILY OF FOUR, MAKING $143,000, I CAN AFFORD TO LIVE WHEREVER I WANT. THE ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDS FOCUSING ON THE GAP FOR RESIDENTS AT 30% AM I BECAUSE CURRENTLY, THOSE HOUSEHOLDS CANNOT FIND HOUSING THAT THEY CAN AFFORD. SO THEY'RE FORCED INTO HOUSING ABOVE THEIR INCOME , OCCUPYING HOUSING THAT THOSE WITH HIGHER INCOME COULD AFFORD CREATING ANOTHER GAP FOR THAT GROUP. THIS IS HOUSING INSTABILITY AND WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD THEIR HOUSING, IT PUTS THEM AT A RISK FOR DISPLACEMENT. PAGE SIX OF OUR LEGISLATION DEFINES DIRECT DISPLACEMENT AS CHANGES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN RESIDENTS CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO REMAIN IN HOMES DUE TO RISING HOUSING COSTS OR ARE FORCED OUT BY LEAST NON RENEWALS, EVICTIONS, EMINENT DOMAIN OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT RENDER HOMES UNINHABITABLE AS INVESTORS AWAIT REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. TO BE VERY CLEAR . OUR LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT BEING PRO DEVELOPMENT OR ANTI DEVELOPMENT. IT'S ABOUT BEING PRO DISPLACEMENT OR ANTI DISPLACEMENT. AND IN RECENT YEARS LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT HAS COMMITTED ON PAPER TO BEING ANTI THIS PLACEMENT. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THIS LEGISLATION IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSES. PLAYING 2040, IT SAYS, AS NEIGHBORHOODS EVOLVED, DISCOURAGE DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTS FROM THEIR COMMUNITY. PLAN 2040 ALSO SAYS DISCOURAGE NON RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION INTO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS UNLESS THE APPLICANT UNDEMONSTRATIVE THAT ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL USES WILL BE MITIGATED. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS AND LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. THE 2019 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, SAYS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. CHALLENGES ARE TO HELP GUARD AGAINST THE DISPLACEMENT OF CURRENT RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AND TO HELP CREATE AND PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THESE AREAS. RESIDENTS OF WEST LOUISVILLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THEIR DOWNTOWN ARE MOST AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT AND AIRPORT WEST CORE NORTHWEST CORE AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE NEWBERG AND TAYLOR BERRY. FINANCIAL INSECURITY MAKES RESIDENTS PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO CHANGES IN THE HOUSING MARKET.

AND THE DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITY IN NORTHEAST CORE MARKET AREAS ACTIVELY VOLATILE HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS ARE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPLACEMENT. THE URGENCY TO PRIORITIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI DISPLACEMENT INITIATIVES IN THESE AREAS. CAN NOT BE OVERSTATED. THIS IS WHAT LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT HAS ON PAPER, A STUDY THAT THIS METRO COUNCIL PAID FOR BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT IT HAS DONE IN PRACTICE. SHEPHERD SQUARE IN THE SMOKETOWN NEIGHBORHOOD. IN 2011 SHEPHERD SQUARE WAS DEMOLISHED. 267 HOUSEHOLDS WERE FORCED TO RELOCATE. LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT WAS A PARTNER. THERE'S A PRESS RELEASE ON OUR CITY WEBSITE THAT SAYS THE WAITING LIST TO SECURE AN APARTMENT BASED ON INCOME IS 2 TO 5 YEARS. HOWEVER IF YOU ARE OVER THE INCOME LIMIT, THERE ARE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS AVAILABLE. OUR MAYOR AT THE TIME, SAID THE PROJECT WILL HELP ATTRACT OTHER INVESTORS TO THE AREA. WHEN YOU SEE THIS KIND OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT, YOU START SEEING THE PRIVATE INVESTORS

[01:50:02]

[01:55:03]

OKAY SO IN OTHER WORDS, INSTEAD OF SAYING THE SHANI, THE LIMERICK NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS NOW EVERYTHING. YOUR PLAN IS TO BE CITY WIDE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T. UM YOUR FOCUS IS NOT GOING TO BE IN CONCENTRATED AREAS ONLY CORRECT. THE PROTECTIONS WON'T BE IN CONCENTRATED AREAS. BUT IF YOU EXPERIENCE SOME OF THE PAST HARM, SUCH AS REDLINING, YOU MIGHT STILL BE IN THOSE AREAS AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATION PROCESS SO YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM THE METRO PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE. OKAY, OKAY. UM. DID YOU MEET WITH ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES PRIOR TO CREATING THIS LEGISLATION? YES. UM DID YOU MEET WITH ANY OF THE ONES THAT REPRESENT? THE PREVIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS THAT YOU HAD IDENTIFIED. YES, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THOSE PREVIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT AGAIN, THE LEGISLATION IS CITY WIDE. IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THOSE AREAS ANYMORE ANYMORE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, UM. CAN YOU SHARE THE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON? THE GROWTH IN ANY CERTAIN COMMUNITIES. ABSOLUTELY. SO WHEN I READ THAT QUOTE FROM THE OFFICE OF DISEASE PREVENTION, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT A LACK OF QUALITY OF HOUSING MEANS THE LACK OF QUALITY OF LIFE. SO ONE IMPACT THAT I'M HOPING TO HAVE OUTSIDE OF EVERYTHING ELSE IS THAT WE SUSTAIN LIFE AND OUTCOMES OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. IT'S NO SECRET THAT THE WEST END OF LOUISVILLE HAS A SIGNIFICANTLY LESS LIFE EXPECTANCY RATES, SO I'M HOPING THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE LONGER BECAUSE THEY CAN STAY IN THEIR HOMES LONGER, AND THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR HOMES FOR MUCH LONGER, SO THAT IS THE MAIN GOAL OF THIS. IS TO EXTEND PEOPLE'S LIVES AND GIVE THEM A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I THINK YOU SAID THIS WAS NO LONGER COMMERCIAL. BUT RESIDENTIAL SO YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING LIKE THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THIS ONLY INCLUDES LIKE SINGLE LIVING HOMES. IT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO CREATE A MIXED USE PROPERTY, AND I'M LOOKING AT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY LAURA FERGUSON, AND IT HAD A RESTAURANT IN IT, BUT IT ALSO HAD HOUSING UNITS IN IT. WE WOULD TAKE THAT THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO OPEN A RESTAURANT, AND NOBODY WAS GOING TO LIVE IN THAT RESTAURANT, THERE WOULD BE NO DISPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO THAT RESTAURANT. OKAY? UM.

KING YOU SHARE HOW THIS WILL AFFECT EXCUSE ME. THE TAX REVENUE. STREAM FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD AND CITY. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY IMPACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON THAT TAX REVENUE. IF PROPERTIES HAVE TO BE AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT. AH TO BE SOLD TO BE DEVELOPED. AND WHAT HAVE YOU WOULD THAT WOULD THAT AFFECT THAT? THE UNDERSTOOD SO THE ISSUE WITH DISPLACEMENT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE TENANT WOULD PAY WHAT THE PERSON WHO WAS IN THAT PROPERTY WOULD PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE BURDENED ONTO THAT PERSON SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY REMAINED THE SAME AND THE PROPERTIES ARE REMAINING THE SAME. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH SOMEONE WOULD BE CHARGED TO LIVE IN THAT PROPERTY. UM WOULD THERE BE, UM, FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY? IF THEY ARE ASSESSING. THE PROPERTY LESS THAN WHAT? WHAT IT SHOULD BE ASSESSED THAT OR VALUE THAT I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE SEPARATE. TOTALLY FROM WHAT SOMEBODY WILL BE PAYING FOR RENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT A COLLECTIVELY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF ANYWHERE THEY ANYWHERE STREET HAS ALL THESE HOMES THAT UM OR ASSESSED AND VALUE. 203 100. 1000 BUT NOW WITH THIS LEGISLATION UM, IF WE'RE ENTERTAINING THE THOUGHT TO UM. REAPPRAISED THEM TO MAKE THEM MORE AFFORDABLE. THEN SOMEBODY IS LOSING OUT. HMM AND THE TAX COLLECTION ARE THE REVENUE STREAM. THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. SO THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TAXES RIGHT

[02:00:01]

BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. IT ACTUALLY DOES THE OPPOSITE. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS NOW THAT WE ARE INVESTING IN THESE AREAS. LET THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED THERE REAP THE BENEFITS OF THAT. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE CRITICISM OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT'S REALLY THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT D CONCENTRATING POVERTY VERSUS POVERTY BEING SPREAD OUT. THE DISPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON INCOME, SO AS INCOMES RISE IF WE WANT, WE CAN SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN NOW AFFORD. IT ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE SHOULDN'T BELIEVE IN THE STIGMA THAT POOR PEOPLE SHOULD BE SYNONYMOUS WITH POOR HOUSING. WE SHOULD NOT. WE SHOULD NOT LEGISLATE THAT WAY. NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE, COMFORTABLE, BEAUTIFUL HOUSING AND NUMBER THREE IF WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT D CONCENTRATING POVERTY, LET'S TALK ABOUT ABOLISHING POVERTY. BUT THAT ISN'T THE SAME AS DISPLACEMENT, WHICH IS ABOLISHING PEOPLE. YOU GET NO ARGUMENT FROM ME ON THAT. BUT I'M NOT SOLELY CONVINCED ON THE METHOD BEING USED TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. ARE THESE ISSUES WITH HOUSING? THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THAT HAS JUST NOT BEEN FOR TWO PEOPLE THAT LIVE WEST OF NINTH STREET.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I. WE'VE SEEN SO MANY THINGS BEING IGNORED FOR. FOR WHATEVER GAINS THAT WE DID NOT BENEFIT FROM. SO YOU GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH ME FROM ME. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF THE METHODS PROPOSED ARE THE METHODS THAT I WOULD USE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. SO JUST PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS. UM I'M GONNA CEASE MARK QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW, AND I'M GOING TO YIELD THE FOUR FLOOR TO MY COLLEAGUES. UH COUNCILMAN BASHAR ON, UH, TO ASK HIS QUESTIONS, AND BUT I DO HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS. IF WE HAVE TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS THINKING PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE. SO IF WE GET BE MINDFUL OF THE TIME, SO COUNCILMAN RASHAD. FIRST I JUST WANNA COMMITTED MY COLLEAGUE MCCOY ARTHUR FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE FOREFRONT. SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS SO VERY NECESSARY. I THINK WE LOSE FOCUS. SOMETIMES WE START THINKING ABOUT THE COST OF TAXES WHEN WE REALLY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE CAUSE BECAUSE THE CITY HAS TO PAY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE DISPLACED. HOMELESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 30 $40 MILLION, YOU KNOW, UH, TO DEAL WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA YOU GOTTA TALK ABOUT ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANY TYPE OF INCOME THAT MAY BE LOST, WHICH WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE PRODUCT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS DOESN'T LOWER ANY TAX, SO THERE'S NOTHING BEING LOST IN THIS CASE. UH ON THAT AND THAT END ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT? YOU KNOW, THIS IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE A STAND, TAKE A STAND AND WE STOPPED THESE PREDATORY LENDERS. WE STOPPED. THESE LANDLORDS WHO RAISED RAISED THEIR RENTS. WITHOUT RAISING THE SERVICE THAT THEY GIVE TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEM JUST SO THEY CAN MOVE OUT. AND THEN REPLACED THEM WITH SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO PAY THAT MONEY THAT ABSORB A FEE THAT THEY WANT JUST THAT THEY CAN

[02:05:03]

I'M ON MY WRAP UP AS A TEACHER. YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WE STARTED THIS PROGRAM CALLED ACRE. UH YOU KNOW, ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR RACIAL EQUITY AND AN ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR RACIAL EQUITY. WE DECIDED THAT THE SCHOOL ALL THE CPS WAS GOING TO BE UNDERNEATH THE RACIAL JUSTICE. UMBRELLA UH, BUT WE IN PART OF THAT COMMITTEE AND WE CREATED A FORM. IT'S CALLED THE RE PROTOCOL RACIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS PROTOCOL, AND THAT MEANS THAT ANY POLICY THAT YOU HAVE DURING THE POLICY HAS TO BE VETTED FOR SCREEN THROUGH THAT REPROCESS TO MAKE SURE WHO DOES IT AFFECT POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY. WE'VE GOT TO DO THAT SAME PROCESS HERE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR VERSION OF THE REPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR FOLKS ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED.

THAT PROPERTIES AREN'T BEING CREATED THAT DISPLACES. OUR PEOPLE RAISES ALL THEIR COSTS, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO LEAVE. NO, WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT OUR HISTORICALLY THE OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN JUST ONE MORE TIME JUST TO FINISH THAT OFF, JUST TO SAY AGAIN. THE COST OF NOT PROTECTING OUR PEOPLE IS WAY MORE THAN ANY IMAGINE WHAT PERCEIVED COST THAT WE MAY FEEL THAT WE HAVE FROM THIS. COUNCIL MEMBER BET, SEAN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN ARTHUR FOR PUTTING TOGETHER SUCH A WELL PREPARED PROPOSAL. JUST SOME QUESTIONS. UM WHAT ACTIONS? OF THE PAST. WOULD THIS ORDINANCE OF STOPPED OR PREVENTED IF IN PLACE THAN SO TODAY WHEN I PRESENTED I GAVE TWO VERY INTENSE EXAMPLES, THE SHEPHERD SQUARE PROJECT AND SMOKETOWN AND ALSO THE BEACH OF TERRORIST PROJECT AND THE RUSSELL NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE INVOLVEMENT WHEN I SAY PARTNERSHIP, OUR MAYOR APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL GRANTS FOR THOSE PROJECTS. THERE WAS MONEY THAT WENT THROUGH THE CITY BUDGET FOR THOSE PROJECTS AGAIN . LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT HAD TO BE LEGISLATION FILED. THAT ACCOMPANIED THOSE PROJECTS. SO THOSE ARE TWO MAJOR PROJECTS THAT I USE AS EXAMPLES, BUT WE CAN REALLY GO DOWN THE LIST AND I'M HAPPY TO PREPARE MORE OF THOSE EXAMPLES FOR YOU FOR THE NEXT COMMITTEE. UH YEAH, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE AND MADAM SHERIFF, IF I CAN ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, PLEASE. UM I GUESS IT'S KIND OF A TWO PART QUESTION . WILL THIS AFFECT INVESTMENTS SUCH AS THE NORTON HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS FACILITY OR NEW HOSPITALS OR OTHER INVESTMENTS? UM WITH THE WATERFRONT EXPANSION PROJECT BE AFFECTED BY THIS AS WELL ONLY FOCUSES ON RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS NOW, SO UNLESS THE WATERFRONT IS GOING TO PUT SOME APARTMENTS WITH THAT EXPANSION, THEY WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE DISPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT. ALSO ADD THAT I HAVE WORKED WITH THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. AND I HAD THEM ACTUALLY STUDY THE IMPACT OF PARKS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THE EXPANSION OF WATERFRONT PARK PHASE FOR WILL NOT IMPACT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THEIR HOUSING. AND SO THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE, THOUGH. THE WEST END OF THE IN THE COMMUNITIES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART AS I GREW UP NEAR THEM, SO I RESPECT YOUR WORK ON THIS, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS. UM AND IF I CAN MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE WE HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE IN. Q SORRY. YES, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN I JUST ASKED THE CLERKS AND YOUR PRESENTATION IS PART OF THE ATTACHED ARE WASN'T BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS MEETING BUT IS NOW YOU CAN SEE HIS PRESENTATION. GET A COPY OF IT ONLINE IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW THAT, ALSO, COUNCILMAN RENO WEBER. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT DISORDER ORDINANCES SPECIFICALLY TARGETING THE WHEN METRO RESOURCES ARE BEING USED TO SUBSIDIZE THE DEVELOPMENT CORRECT, NOT PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SEPARATE FROM METRO RESOURCES, CORRECT IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT, AND IT'S LEGAL. YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO USE GOVERNMENT MONEY, WE WILL NOT HELP YOU DISPLACE PEOPLE. IF WE PASS THIS LEGISLATION GREAT, UH AND THE TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS HERE IS,

[02:10:05]

ESPECIALLY AS IT IS IN AREAS WHERE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE, AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF EMOTION RATHER THAN FACTS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO GET AT FACT AS PART OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS. I JUST WANT TO ASK A REAL FAST QUESTION. CATHERINE ARTHUR AND I I'M SURE I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS FOR THE JUST WANTED OUT IN THE FOOT. WHEN YOU'RE REFERRED TO LETTERS OF SUPPORT. THOSE ARE THE LETTERS THAT WOULD COME FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. FOR PURPOSES OF FINANCING. IS THAT CORRECT? YES BUT ALSO WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE LETTERS OF SUPPORT. AND WHEN I SAY WE I JUST MEAN ELECTED OFFICIALS. AS PARTNERS FOR FEDERAL GRANTS, AND I KNOW THAT IN THE CASE OF BEECHER TERRORISTS, THE SHEPHERD SQUARE PROJECTS THOSE LETTERS OF SUPPORT MEANT A WHOLE LOT IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR WHATEVER THOSE PROJECTS WERE GOING TO BE AND HOW THE FUNDING WOULD ACTUALLY GET ACQUIRED. SO WHEN I SAY LETTERS OF SUPPORT, I MEAN IT VAGUELY IN THE SENSE OF SUPPORTING IT, BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING REQUIREMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT NEEDS YOUR MAYOR TO SAY WE OKAY THIS AND WE WANT THIS MONEY SO THAT WE CAN DO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF BEING PUBLIC DON'T UNDERSTAND, OR DON'T KNOW THAT ON BIG PROJECTS LIKE THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED, OR THEY WILL. THEY'LL THROW THAT PROJECT , RIGHT RIGHT OUT OF IT RIGHT OUT THE DOOR. UM, LET'S SEE YOU . COUNCIL COUNCILMAN CHAPEL. THANK YOU, UM. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT SINCE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, I'M JUST GOING TO, UM EITHER EMAIL YOU DIRECTLY MOST OF IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE ASSESSMENT. I THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT ALREADY. UM BUT I THINK THAT JUST MORE OR LESS WITH THE LANGUAGE AND THE TERMS HOW OFTEN THEY SHOULD MEET, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I KIND OF HAVE MORE OF A PROBLEM WITH, UM AND THEN ALSO KIND OF DEFINITIONS. AND AGAIN. I'LL REACH OUT TO YOU TRYING TO MAKE THAT AS THOSE QUESTIONS AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. BUT UM, THERE YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE 16. REPRESENTATIVES ONE FROM EACH DISPLACEMENT RISK AREA. UM COULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH THAT LIST OF THOSE AREAS? ABSOLUTELY AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT THERE'S ACTUALLY A HINT AT WHAT THOSE AREAS ARE. THE NAMES MIGHT NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT HOUSING MARKET AREAS. BUT THE TITLE OF THAT DOCUMENT IS VULNERABILITY INDEX AND WHEN YOU OPEN IT IT LISTS THE MARKET AREAS IN THE FIRST COLUMN. IT INCLUDES THE NORTHWEST CORE THE WEST CORE. SOUTHWEST CORE UNIVERSITY. THEY'RE QUITE PARK DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITY AND THE LIST GOES ON. AND EVERY OTHER COLUMN AFTER THIS TALKS ABOUT HOW IT CALCULATED WHETHER OR NOT THESE AREAS WERE AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT THAT INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, THE RENT BURDEN RATE OVERCROWDING WHO RECEIVES PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, OCCUPY RENTAL PROPERTIES AND SO FORTH, SO THE LIST IS ATTACHED TO THE LEGISLATION. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO BE BROKEN DOWN IN A DIFFERENT WAY, LET ME KNOW AND WE'LL WORK ON IT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE NORTHWEST CORE MEANS. AND I KNOW THAT THAT LAUAGE IS IN YOU ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S ALSOEEN LOT T UNDEND WS CHGED WIT

[02:15:07]

UM AND I'M GONNA GET DIRECT MY COMMENTS TOWARDS COUNCILMAN, I THINK HAVE SOME RASHAD JUST SAYING GOOD WORK ON THIS BECAUSE OF TIME I AM GOING TO MOTION TO TABLE BUT I ONLY WANTED BECAUSE ITS DISCUSSION OF MATTERS I DON'T WANT. I THINK THAT CHALLENGE OUR COLLEAGUES THAT AS WE GET OUR ROOM THAT IF IT'S NOT THIS THEN WHAT SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. CONTINUE YOU KNOW, I ASK OF YOU IS CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ALL OF US AND KEEP US ABREAST OF THE CHANGES. LET US DIGEST IT AND CONTINUE TO SEE HOW WE CAN MEET THOSE NEEDS FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS. SO THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT SO MUCH EMOTION THE TABLE ONLY BECAUSE MANAGER IF I MIGHT OH, YES, COUNSELOR. I HAD TO LEAVE FOR JUST A SECOND AND I WAS IN THE CUBE. CAN I JUST ASK ONE VERY QUICK QUESTION ONE MINUTE TILL AND WE HAVE ANOTHER. CAN YOU HOLD IT TILL NEXT WEEK? THE NEXT TIME MORE THAN HAPPY TO JUST DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S COMMITTEE AND AGAIN ONLY MOST OF THE TABLE BECAUSE TIME AND I THINK THIS IS A PERTINENT CONVERSATION, SO MOTION TO TABLE PROBABLY MADE A SECOND ON FAVORITE TABLETS SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. I WAS OPPOSED BY LIKE SINCE WE WERE JOINED BY COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS. I THINK SHE'S DRIVING. THAT'S WHY SHE IS NOT PARTICIPATING BECAUSE OF OUR RULE ABOUT DRIVING AND TALKING TO THE SAME TIME ON THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN AUCTIONS FOR LISTENING TO THE COMMITTEE TODAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.