[00:01:45] METRO TV. WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM, BUT WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED IN ABOUT 30S. WHICH WILL MEAN THAT EVERYTHING WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMITTEE. UNLESS WE GET A QUORUM AT SOME POINT IN TIME. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE. I'M COUNCILWOMAN [Call to Order] MADONNA FLOOD, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. OUR VICE CHAIR IS HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES AT THIS TIME, TRYING TO LOG IN, BUT WE'RE JOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDREW OWEN, COUNCILMAN BATSON, [Roll Call] COUNCILMAN ROBIN ENGEL, COUNCILMAN PHILIP BAKER, AND COUNCILMAN JENNIFER CHAPEL HAVE EXCUSED ABSENCES. WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY COUNCILMAN COREY ARTHUR, WHO HAS THE FIRST TWO, ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET A RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. AN [1. O-180-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1579 STORY AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.09 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 23ZONE0091). 08/27/24  Planning and Zoning Committee Held Action Required By:  November 1, 2024 **Council Member Jecorey Arthur (I-4) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1579 STORY AVENUE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.09 ACRES AND BEING A METRO CASE NUMBER 23, ZONE 0091. SO WE DON'T NEED. WE'RE NOT. OH, YOU DO STILL NEED YOUR MOTION. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU SAID. NO. OKAY. OH, COUNCILMAN READ IS ON NOW. AND WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY COUNCILMAN BLACKWELL. IS THAT A QUORUM? YES. NO YES. OKAY. SO IT'LL STILL, STILL GO WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY. GO AHEAD. BRIAN IS PROBABLY MOVED IN SECOND, SO YOU DO, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES. OH, HE'S COMING BACK. HE WAS UP THERE. HE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. YOU HAVE A PHONE? BECAUSE I SEE HIS NAME UP THERE. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, BRIAN DAVIS, LOUISVILLE METRO OFFICE OF PLANNING, THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 23, ZONE 091. LET ME GO TO FULL VIEW HERE, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 1579 STORY AVENUE. IT'S LOCATED IN METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY USED AS A RESIDENCE, THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO USE IT AS A RESIDENCE. AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, YOU CAN SEE THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY HERE IN BLUE. IT'S LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION, THE INTERCHANGE OF STORY OR STORY AVENUE GOES ON TO I-64, HERE'S A ZONING MAP OF THE AREA, IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED R7. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO C1. IS LOCATED IN A TRADITIONAL MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR FORM DISTRICT, YOU CAN SEE YOU. HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE AREA, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL, SOME RESIDENTIAL, A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING, SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R7 TO C1, IT IS ONE PARCEL WITH A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO, USE UTILIZE THE STRUCTURE FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL UNIT, AND IT IS LOCATED IN THE BUTCHERTOWN, NULU AND PHOENIX HILL [00:05:03] NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND WHAT'S IDENTIFIED AS A RESIDENTIAL USE AREA, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINE THAT'S, IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HERE, IT'S THE SAME DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NEXT CASE. AND SO JUST TO KIND OF KEEP THINGS STRAIGHT, THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE MOMENT. UNFORTUNATELY THE STRUCTURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS HIDDEN BEHIND THE TREES HERE IN THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW. BUT IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER TWO STRUCTURES THAT YOU SEE AT THE CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, THESE ARE JUST SOME ADJACENT PROPERTY PHOTOS OF THE THAT ARE OF OTHER USES THAT ARE WITHIN THE AREA, AND MORE ADJACENT PROPERTY USES AND PHOTOS, THE APPLICANT'S NEIGHBORHOOD CONDUCTED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON MAY 17TH, 2023. LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING ON JUNE 13TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 1ST, 2024, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R7 TO C1. THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 2. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. THANK YOU BRIAN. I SEE NO ONE IN THE QUEUE, BUT THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN ARTHUR'S DISTRICT, AND HE'S VIRTUALLY. COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, WOULD YOU LIKE THE FLOOR, PLEASE? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. CHAIR, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS CASE AND THE NEXT CASE JUST TO GET US THROUGH THIS. SO THE STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAD SOME VALID CONCERNS ABOUT THESE ZONING CHANGES. THE APPLICANT, AS YOU CAN SEE, WANTS TO USE IT FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL. THERE WERE ALSO SOME CONCERNS AROUND THIS GETTING AROUND OUR NEW REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE CHANGES DON'T COMPLY WITH PLAN 2040 OR THE BUTCHERTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. BUT IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT GOT LUCKY. IT'S NEXT TO A BOWLING ALLEY NEXT TO AN EXPRESSWAY. THERE'S A CONCRETE PLANT BEHIND IT THAT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. IT'S BASICALLY A COMMERCIAL BLOCK AND FUNCTION. ALSO SOMETHING THAT JAY LUCKETT PROPOSED THAT I'M GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO GET INTO THE BINDING ELEMENTS IS THAT IF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS DON'T WORK OUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT CAN STILL BE USED FOR LONG TERM RENTAL AND PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING. SO I THINK IT'S WORTH ANY METRO COUNCIL MEMBER INTERESTED IN SHORT TERM RENTALS TO REVIEW THE HEARING, BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME CHANGES IN THE FUTURE THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER, OR THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THIS GOING FORWARD. BUT I'LL BE A YES VOTE AND THANK YOU TO THE STAFF AND TO THE COMMISSION FOR WORKING ON ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAD. COUNCILMAN OWE, THANK YOU. CHAIR, BRIAN, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? I MEAN, I GUESS IF YOU HAVE AC1 ZONING, YOU YOU CAN DO ANYTHING IN THAT C ONE ZONING. THAT'S A LESSER USE. SO YOU COULD STILL DO LONG TERM RENTAL OR WHAT. HOW WOULD WHAT WHAT COUNCILMAN ARTHUR WAS TALKING ABOUT. DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A SPECIFIC SOMETHING SPECIFIC WRITTEN INTO IT, OR IS THAT BY RIGHT IN C ONE IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE BY RIGHT. BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS PERMITTED IN C ONE. BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THAT STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE PROPERTY WASN'T USED FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THEY WANTED TO ENTER INTO A LONG TERM AGREEMENT WITH SOMEONE, THAT WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED, AND SO THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT, THAT, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, AS A RESULT OF THE HEARING. SO I THINK WHAT I SO WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS, INSTEAD OF APPLYING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THEY'VE DECIDED TO GO TO TRY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL. AND THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN ARTHUR WAS TALKING ABOUT. THIS MIGHT BE A COULD BE CONSIDERED A RUNAROUND OF OUR RECENT, ORDINANCE CHANGES, RIGHT. YEAH. COUNCILMAN ARTHUR SUMMARIZED IT PERFECTLY BECAUSE, YEAH, THE IN THIS SITUATION, YOU HAD A SHORT TERM RENTAL. I THINK IT'S THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE, THAT HAS THE, THE, THE LICENSE. AND SO THE, THE TWO PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT AREN'T ELIGIBLE FOR THAT BECAUSE OF THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE IN THE REGULATIONS. BUT THEY CHOSE TO GO FORWARD WITH A ZONING RECLASSIFICATION, BECAUSE BY DOING THAT, THEN THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT GOES AWAY SINCE THEY ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL. SO THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE OVERALL CONTEXT HERE. SO I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD FOR SAYING THAT I WILL BE A YES VOTE ON THIS AS WELL. I DO WANT TO NOTE, THOUGH, THAT THIS WE WILL BE WATCHING FOR THIS. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN ARTHUR THAT THIS HAPPENS TO BE IN A LOCATION THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO BE ZONED COMMERCIAL, IN OTHER IN OTHER INSTANCES, I WOULD BE VERY DISINCLINED TO CHANGE THE ZONING AS A, AS A GET AROUND. SO I BUT I WILL BE A YES VOTE ON THIS ONE. THANKS COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT BINDING [00:10:02] ELEMENT ALSO LIMITS THE COMMERCIAL USE TO SHORT TERM RENTAL. AND THEN OF COURSE, ANYTHING UNDER THAT. SO RESIDENTIAL USE. BUT YOU KNOW THEY CAN'T LATER ON DECIDE THEY WANT TO OPEN UP A ROLLER RINK IN THIS IN THIS SPACE. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING NOTING THAT THE ONLY OPPOSITION ACTUALLY MANAGES THE SHORT TERM RENTAL IN THE MIDDLE. SO IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF THE COMPETITION MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NO ONE IN THE QUEUE, WE'RE READY TO VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER ARTHUR. YES YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES. SIX YES VOTES. THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1583 STORY AVENUE, CONTAINING [2. O-187-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1583 STORY AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.09 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 23ZONE0092). 08/27/24  Planning and Zoning Committee  Held Action Required By:  October 25, 2024 **Council Member Jecorey Arthur (I-4) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] APPROXIMATELY 0.09 ACRES AND BEING IN LITTLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 23, ZONE 0092. MOTION PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS, PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 23, ZONE 92 FOR 1583 STORY AVENUE. THE ADDRESS, 1583 STORY AVENUE, LOCATED IN DISTRICT FOUR, AND SO THIS IS THE, THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE PREVIOUS CASE, SO TWO, TWO HOUSES, TWO PROPERTIES DOWN FROM THE FROM THE PREVIOUS REQUEST, ZONING MAP, OF COURSE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, AND SO THE REQUEST IS VERY SIMILAR, CHANGING FROM R7 TO C1, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THIS IS THE PROPERTY, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS THE, THE PROPERTY, AND THEN IT'S THE, THE STRUCTURE ON THE FAR RIGHT OF THE OF THE THREE RED BRICK BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE HERE, THAT THIS IS THE STRUCTURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SIMILARLY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS ON MAY 17TH, 2023. LAND DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION MEETING WAS ON JUNE 13TH, 2024, THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON AUGUST. AUGUST 1ST, AND THEIR MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING, FROM R7 TO C1 THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 2. AND THAT'S ALL I HAD ON SO MANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. BRIAN, COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THIS? SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE SAME THING. NO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I JUST HAD THE 7 TO 2 VOTE. WAS THE. WERE THE TWO VOTES KIND OF WHAT WE'VE TOUCHED ON, VERY MUCH SO. YEAH. YEAH. AND BOTH OF THEM EXPRESSED THAT. YES. CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. THANKS IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS SEEING NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. SULTAN COUNCIL MEMBER ARTHUR. YES COUNCIL MEMBER. YOU GET SIX YES VOTES. VOTING IS CLOSING. THERE ARE SIX YES VOTES. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, COUNCILMAN. DOCTOR BLACKWELL, DID YOU WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND SKIP DOWN AND DO YOUR ZONING CASE NEXT? I CAN'T, I'M SORRY. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. GIGANTIC. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY SO THAT'S ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT [5. O-201-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6801 DIXIE HIGHWAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 23.57 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0009). Action Required By:  November 15, 2024 **Council Member Rick Blackwell (D-12) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] 6801 DIXIE HIGHWAY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 23.57 ACRES AND BEING IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0009. A MOTION SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24. ZONE 0009 FOR DIXIE MANOR CONTRACTOR SHOPS, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS AT 6801. DIXIE HIGHWAY IS LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 12, THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE, IT'S AN EXISTING PARKING LOT. NAPKIN'S PROPOSING A COMMERCIAL CONTRACTOR SHOP USE ON THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C1, AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THAT TO C, SO THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C1 TO C2 FOR THE PURPOSES OF, CONVERTING THE PARKING LOT INTO A PROPOSAL FOR 30,600FT■!S OF CONTRACTOR SHOP, WHICH THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO, SAINT PAUL CHURCH ROAD, THE PRIVATE ROAD IS LOCATED ON THE TOP OF THE PHOTO, ACCESS WOULD COME FROM THERE, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED, CONTRACTOR SHOPS, [00:15:07] WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL BE CONSTRUCTING KIND OF AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE, OF THE SITE. THIS IS AN EXISTING PICTURE OF THE PARKING LOT THAT IS THERE TODAY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2023. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON JULY 18TH, 2024. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON AUGUST 15TH OF 2024, THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C1 TO C2, AND THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO SHOW. ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS IN DOCTOR BLACKWELL'S DISTRICT. DOCTOR BLACKWELL. THANK YOU. I JUST HAD THE ONE QUESTION WAS, AND THEN I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, THE ONE QUESTION WAS, DO WE HAVE THE, BINDING ELEMENT THAT IF THIS WERE TO IF THE IF THE PROJECT CHANGES. YES, YES, YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH. IF IT CHANGES THAT IT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE US. WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN DO THAT. DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT NOW BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR COMMENTS? YES PLEASE. TRAVIS, IF YOU'LL LOOK THAT UP AND I'LL JUST REMIND FOLKS THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO KRS 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE EIGHT FLED. TRAVIS THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TRAVIS FEASTER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. THIS WOULD BE BINDING. ELEMENT NUMBER TEN. ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASES TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES E.G. INCREASES IN BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY IN THE PROPERTY, ANY CHANGES IN USE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, AND OR ANY AMENDMENT TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS OTHER THAN I. THE ADDITION OF NEW BINDING ELEMENTS TO I CHANGE THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT MERELY UPDATE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OR THREE. I UPDATING A PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BINDING ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SHALL BE REVIEWED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH FINAL ACTION TO BE DETERMINED BY METRO COUNCIL. I MOVE THAT AMENDMENT PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES. DOCTOR BLACKWELL, THANK YOU. SO THIS IS, AS AS MENTIONED, A PROPERTY THAT IS, KIND OF IT'S BEHIND SAINT PAUL CHURCH, AND IT IS TO THE SIDE OF, DIXIE MANOR BACK IN THE DAY WHEN DIXIE MANOR WAS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, A HUB AND ALL OF THE SHOPPING, OCCURRED THERE AT DIXIE AND, LIKE, LIKE MANY, SIMILAR SITUATIONS, YOU KNOW, MALLS AND SO ON. WE HAVE A TON OF PARKING SPACE, THAT, THAT ISN'T USED. AND SO THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO USE THAT. AND IT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. I THINK. ONE, IT GIVES THE PROPERTY OWNER AN ABILITY TO USE THIS IN A WAY THAT CAN HELP THEM, BUT IT ALSO, I THINK, HELPS THOSE WHO ARE WHO MAY BE PARKED OUT THERE NOW AND ARE KIND OF ISOLATED. IT'S KIND OF THE THEORY THAT FOLKS HAVE OF, YOU KNOW, IF THE MORE ACTIVITY THAT YOU HAVE POSITIVE ACTIVITY THAT YOU HAVE IN AN AREA, GENERALLY GENERATES POSITIVE ACTIVITY, AND YOU HAVE AND YOU SEE LESS OF THE NEGATIVE ISSUES. SO THEY'VE HAD SOME IN SOME OF THE, NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT FOR A BIT. SOME OF THE ISSUES BACK THERE WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH BREAK INS ON THE CARS, WHEN, WHEN EMPLOYEES PARK BACK THERE OR WHATEVER, THIS WILL PROVIDE A LOT, A LOT MORE POSITIVE ACTIVITY BACK THERE. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND IT ALSO WILL LOOK FROM THE FRONT IF YOU SAW THE PICTURES FROM THE FRONT OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE, OFFICE SPACE. AND THEN THE SUPPLIES AND UTILITY PART OF IT IS IN THE BACK OF THE SPACE. SO I THINK IT WILL BE PRESENTABLE AS WELL. SO I DO SUPPORT IT. AND AND I ASK YOU TO AS WELL, COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN. THANK YOU. CHAIR. I HOPE WE SEE MORE OF THIS. I THINK IT'S GREAT. WE HAVE TONS OF PARKING LOTS ALONG OUR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS AND THE THAT'S NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND. AND SO WE'LL BE HAVE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM, FROM TAXES. IT'LL BE, HIGHER, HIGHER AND BETTER USE OF LAND. AND I APPLAUD I APPLAUD THE DEVELOPER FOR THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX. AND I HOPE WE SEE MORE OF IT. THANKS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THIS. OPEN COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKWELL YES, THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR READ. YES. IT DIDN'T POP UP ON MY SCREEN. YES YOU HAVE 60 [00:20:02] VOTES. SIX YES VOTES. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WE'VE ALSO BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, COUNCILWOMAN MURRAY, DO YOU NEED US TO PULL YOUR TWO, STREET CLOSURES TO DO THEM AHEAD OF THE AGENDA? NO, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THOSE STREET CLOSURES. DO YOU WANT US TO HEAR THEM NOW, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT IN LINE? I CAN WAIT IN LINE. I'M GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE [3. O-199-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1308 SOUTH 16TH STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.089 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0040). Action Required By:  November 15, 2024 **Council Member Phillip T. Baker (D-6) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] RELATED TO ZONING AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1308 SOUTH 16TH STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.089 ACRES AND BEING A LITTLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0040. SECOND PROPERLY, THEN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS, PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24, ZONE 0040 FOR 1308 SOUTH 16TH STREET MEDICAL OFFICE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1308 SOUTH 16TH STREET IS LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX, THE. THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY, AERIAL PHOTO. YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UTILIZE, THEY ARE PROPOSING AN OFFICE USE THERE IN THAT STRUCTURE, THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. THE PREDOMINANT ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE AREA IS R SEVEN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO R1 OFFICE RESIDENTIAL, SO THE REQUEST AGAIN, IS A CHANGE FROM R SEVEN TO OR ONE, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R SEVEN. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ZONE IT TO R R1, IN AN EFFORT FOR MEDICAL OFFICE THAT PROVIDES THERAPY SERVICES, AND THEN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH TWO BEDROOMS WILL BE CONVERTED TO THAT MEDICAL OFFICE. SO THERE WON'T BE ANY KIND OF, DECONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. IT WILL REMAIN. IT WILL BE, REMODELED TO FIT THE PROPOSED USE. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, UTILIZING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THIS IS THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW PHOTO OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON JANUARY 29TH, 2020 FOR THE LDA MEETING WAS ON JULY 18TH, 2024. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 15TH, THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R70R1, AND THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN BAKER'S DISTRICT, IN OUR OFFICE. HAS NOT HEARD FROM HIM, I DON'T THINK IT SEEMS TOO CONTROVERSIAL THAT WE CAN PASS IT IF HE WANTS IT SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE, BUT, TRAVIS, ON HIS BEHALF, COULD WE ADD THAT STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT? I THINK IT'S FINDING OUT NUMBER SEVEN. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, YES. THIS IS BINDING ELEMENT NUMBER SEVEN. ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASES TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, E.G. INCREASES IN BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY ON THE PROPERTY, ANY CHANGES IN USE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, AND OR ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS OTHER THAN I. THE ADDITION OF NEW BINDING ELEMENTS TO I CHANGES TO BINDING ELEMENTS THAT MERELY UPDATE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OR THREE I UPDATING A PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BINDING ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SHALL BE REVIEWED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH FINAL ACTION TO BE DETERMINED BY METRO COUNCIL. I MOVE THAT AMENDMENT SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I, I THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN HEARING NONE THE MOTION CARRIES. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE NO ONE IN THE QUEUE, SO WE'RE READY TO VOTE. PLEASE. CLOSING THE FABULOUS FOLKS FIVE YES VOTES AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING AND FORM DISTRICT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 10415 AND 10419. PRESTON HIGHWAY AND 5000 MAPLE SPRINGS DRIVE. PARCEL ID NUMBER IS 008502770000, AND. 008500960000, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.38, 2.13 ACRES [4. O-200-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING AND FORM DISTRICT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 10415 AND 10419 PRESTON HIGHWAY AND 5000 MAPLE SPRING DRIVE (PARCEL ID NOS. 008502770000 AND 008500960000) CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.13 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0051). Action Required By:  November 15, 2024 **Council Member Jeff Hudson (R-23) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] AND BEING A METRO CASE NUMBER 24. ZONE 0051. MOTION SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24 00051 FOR PRESTON. TWO, THE PARCELS WITH ADDRESSES ARE 10415 AND 10419 PRESTON HIGHWAY. AND THEN 5000 MAPLE SPRING DRIVE IS LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 23, THESE ARE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HERE, YOU CAN SEE OUTLINED IN BLUE ON THE AERIAL PHOTO. THIS IS THE MENARDS, LOCATED TO THE NORTH, [00:25:06] AND THEN OUR AERIAL PHOTOS HAVEN'T CAUGHT UP WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE SOUTH, BUT YOU'LL SEE PICTURES OF THOSE IN JUST A MINUTE, SO THE SITES CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL, THEY ARE PROPOSING COMMERCIAL USE. THEY'RE ON WHAT'S GOING ON? THERE WE GO, THE EXISTING ZONING. YOU HAVE R4 NEIGHBORHOOD THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE TO C2, SUBURBAN MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR, THIS WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH SOME OF THE OTHER COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THIS SIDE OF THE PRESTON HIGHWAY CORRIDOR, SO YOU HAVE THE CHANGE IN FORM DISTRICT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUBURBAN MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR AS WELL AS THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C2, THE SOUTHERN PART PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, THE PROPOSED DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT ON ONE PARCEL WITH, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING A DRIVE THRU. SORRY, RESTAURANT ON ONE PARCEL, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS LOT ONE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THEN ON THE SECOND PARCEL, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING PLANNED YET. SO IT'S KIND OF ACTING AS A GENERAL PLAN AS YOU'LL NOTE, FROM THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT ARE ON THE THAT ARE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AND SO THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, YOU HAVE THE, SEVEN BREW COFFEE, WHICH IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH, THAT WAS REZONED, A YEAR OR SO AGO, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE FREESTANDING RESTAURANT HERE ON LOT ONE. LOT TWO WOULD REMAIN VACANT FOR NOW, SO THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRIOR TO DOING ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION ON THAT SITE, THEY ARE PROPOSING IT'S A FREESTANDING CHIPOTLE RESTAURANT ON THE, LOT ONE. THESE ARE SOME RENDERINGS THAT WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PHOTO HERE, GOOGLE STREET VIEW, IF YOU GO OUT THERE, THOUGH, YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING SOME WORK IN THE VICINITY TO, CONSTRUCT THE ROAD THAT WOULD THAT FRONTAGE ROAD THAT WILL EXTEND, FROM LIKE THE VICINITY OF THE SEVEN BREW, TO THE, CHICK FIL A, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED, AND SO YOU HAD LIKE THE CHICK FIL A, A CAR WASH, AND THORNTON'S, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, WHICH WAS A PROPERTIES THAT WERE REZONED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, MORE PHOTOS, AND SO IN TOTAL, WHAT YOU'LL END UP WITH IS, AGAIN, YOU HAVE MAPLE SPRING DRIVE HERE, THE SEVEN BREW, THE PROPOSED CHIPOTLE, THAT VACANT LOT TWO, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE CHICK FIL A, THE CAR WASH, AND THEN THE THORNTON'S ALL THERE IN A ROW TOGETHER ON PRESTON HIGHWAY. THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27TH, 2020, FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING ON JULY 18TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON AUGUST 15, 2024, THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE CHANGE IN FORM DISTRICT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUBURBAN MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0, AND THEN THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C2 ALSO PASSED BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. AND THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE ON SHOW. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN HUDSON'S DISTRICT, AND HE DID CALL OUR OFFICE THIS MORNING TO SAY THAT HE IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. VOTING IS OPEN. FOR THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS. WE CAN ADD THAT STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. RIGHT. OKAY. WE'LL JUST DO IT THEN. I JUST THOUGHT OF THAT. I HAVEN'T. SO WE JUST FINISHED YOUR PROJECT. YES I'M SORRY. MOVING ON TO ITEM [6. O-202-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE AREAWIDE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1408-1412 NORTH ENGLISH STATION ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 6.28 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0026). Action Required By:  November 20, 2024 **Council Member Markus Winkler (D-17) can vote on this zoning change**  Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE AREA WIDE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1408 THROUGH 1412 NORTH ENGLISH STATION ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 6.28 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0026 OKAY, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY, THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24, ZONE 26 FOR NORTH ENGLISH STATION. AREA WIDE, THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE 1408 AND 1412 NORTH ENGLISH STATION ROAD. THEY ARE LOCATED IN METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 17, THESE THIS IS THE THIRD IN THE SERIES IN THE SERIES OF THREE AREA WIDE REZONINGS THAT INVOLVE LOUISVILLE METRO OWNED PROPERTY, SO OUR OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF PLANNING, HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, TO CONDUCT A SERIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS FOR EACH ONE OF THE SITES, AND GET INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO SEE [00:30:04] POTENTIALLY WHAT, ZONING DISTRICT MAY BE APPROPRIATE. SO THAT WHEN THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHOOSES TO OFFER UP, I SOLICIT A SOLICITATION OF INTEREST FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, THE ZONING WOULD BE IN PLACE AND SO, THE THREE PROPERTIES ARE OUTLINED HERE. ONE OF THEM DOESN'T HAVE AN ADDRESS. THAT'S WHY THERE'S ONLY TWO ADDRESSES, YOU CAN SEE THE TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THE SITE, SO THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL AS WEL. THE. THIS IS A ZONING MAP OF THE OF THE AREA. THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY R4. YOU DO HAVE SOME PEC AS YOU GET OVER INTO THE INDUSTRIAL CENTER OVER TO THE EAST, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME MULTIFAMILY LOCATED DOWN TOWARDS THE SOUTH, THE, THE RESULTS OF, OF THE OF, OF LIKE THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED AND SUCH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THAT ZONING TO PRD, WHICH IS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SO IN TOTAL THE SIZE APPROXIMATELY 6.2 ACRES, THERE ARE THREE PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED R4, AND SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE SITE TO SEE WHERE SEWERS EXISTED ON THE SITE, AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TREE CANOPY THERE ON THE SITE. AND SO, AS WE WERE DOING THE EVALUATION FOR THE ZONING, WE WERE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD PERMIT CLUSTERING, IN AN EFFORT TO TRY AND PRESERVE SOME OF THAT TREE CANOPY, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT, HOMEOWNERSHIP AND TRYING TO ACHIEVE A GOAL OF HAVING OVER 60%, HOMEOWNERSHIP ON PARCELS WITHIN THE AREA, IT'S CURRENTLY AT ABOUT 55%, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A GOAL OF PROVIDING AT LEAST 40% OF TREE CANOPY WITHIN THE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AS YOU SAW HERE ON THIS SITE, THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING TREE CANOPY THAT, ULTIMATELY WE HOPE WILL BE PRESERVED, WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST LIKE THE, THE, THE HOUSES THAT THAT EXIST WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT THOSE MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS ARE, THE AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE IS ABOUT 1300 SQUARE FEET, THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT SITE OF ONE OF THE HOUSES THAT FRONTS ON NORTH ENGLISH STATION ROAD, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT OTHER HOUSES WITHIN THE AREA LOOK LIKE. AND SO YOU'VE GOT A VARIETY OF ONE AND TWO STORY, A VARIETY OF SIZES, AS YOU SAW FROM THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, YOU HAVE SOME MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT IS DEVELOPED WITHIN THE BARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THAT WE CONDUCTED, WAS TRAFFIC WITHIN THE AREA. AND SO WE FOUND SOME TRAFFIC DATA THAT SHOWED THERE'S ABOUT 3500, AVERAGE, DAILY TRIPS PER DAY. AND THEN THAT WAS ON NORTH STATION ROAD. AND THEN, OF COURSE, AS YOU GO TO THE NORTH TO LAGRANGE ROAD, IT'S A HIGHER LEVEL ROADY. AND SO YOU GET CLOSER TO 7000 VEHICLES A DAY UP THERE, THERE WASN'T A THERE WERE NOT A WHOL LOT OF REPORTED CRASHES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ADD MORE TRAFFIC, WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO THERE? BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA THAT WAS PROVIDED, THERE AREN'T A WHOLE LOT OF, OF CRASHES THAT OCCUR WITHIN THIS STRETCH OF ROAD, SO WHAT WE DID AGAIN, WAS, TRIED TO CREATE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN JUST TO SHOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THE SITE IF YOU DID HAVE CLUSTERING, KEEPING IN MIND THAT YOU HAVE THE TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES AT THE FRONT, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CAN BE PRESERVED IS UNKNOWN. THEY'LL THEY'LL HAVE TO BE A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION DONE WITH THOSE PRIOR TO ANY KIND OF, DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, AND THEN THE GREEN LINES THAT YOU SEE HERE, THOSE ARE SEWER LINES THAT ARE RUNNING ON THE PROPERTY, AND SO WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, AGAIN, THE THOUGHT WAS THAT WITH A WITH A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT, IT PERMITS ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT AND CLUSTERING. AND SO YOU CAN KIND OF ACHIEVE THE SAME NUMBERS THAT YOU WOULD GET FROM DOING A STANDARD R4 DEVELOPMENT, BUT UTILIZING A MUCH SMALLER SPACE ON THE ON THE SITE. AND SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE CAME UP TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE WHAT COULD BE DONE THERE, IN THE LONG RUN. THE GRAY BLOB YOU SEE HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION THAT MSD ENGINEERS TOLD US. HEY, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN LIKELY IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE DETENTION ON THE SITE, THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, AND THEN WHAT WE TRIED TO DO ON EACH ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS WAS TO MIMIC THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE OUT THERE, [00:35:01] AGAIN, JUST TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE LARGE SCALE APARTMENT, SIZED DEVELOPMENTS. WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT'S MORE, NEIGHBORHOOD, RESIDENTIAL AND SCALE, AND COMPARABLE TO WHAT IS WHAT IS IN THE VICINITY, ALSO WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT OUT AND TOOK SOME PICTURES OF OTHER UNITS THAT ARE DEVELOPED IN PRD DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT ARE IN EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY, AND SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WE SHOWED AGAIN, WITH PRD, YOU CAN DO A ZERO LOT LINE, SO THAT YOU CAN AGAIN CLUSTER UNITS, AND, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES THAT WE, PICTURES THAT WE TOOK, SO WE CONDUCTED THREE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WITH THIS PARTICULAR AREA WIDE, REQUEST, MARCH 19TH, APRIL 23RD, AND THEN JUNE 11TH, ALL OF THOSE WERE HELD OUT, IN THE COMMUNITY. TWO WERE AT THE, BARRY TOWN COMMUNITY CENTER. AND THEN WHILE THE COMMUNITY CENTER WAS CLOSED FOR SOME REPAIRS, WE WOUND UP HAVING ONE OF THE MEETINGS AT THE, MIDDLETOWN LIBRARY, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON JULY 18TH, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING, OUT IN THE DISTRICT ON AUGUST 20TH AT THE BARRY TOWN COMMUNITY CENTER. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO PRD, AND THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 0, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? COUNCILMEMBER BUCKHORN? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I HAVE, I THINK, TWO QUESTIONS. AND ONE IS A REQUEST, BUT CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ELABORATION ON THE PRD ZONING? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. WELL. WELL, AGAIN, PRD IS MEANT SO YOU CAN HAVE LOT LINES, BUT THEN YOU HAVE BUILDINGS THAT CAN KIND OF TRAVERSE ACROSS THE LOT LINES. SO YOU GET THE CLUSTERING. AND SO YOU CAN HAVE ZERO SETBACKS, AND AIN WHAT PRD ALLOWS IS, IT ALLOWS YOU TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND TREE CANOPY AND THINGS LIKE THAT ON THE SITE, AND STILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS OR DENSITY ON THE SITE. AND SO IT'S WE SEE IT FREQUENTLY, FREQUENTLY WITH LIKE PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS, OR TOWNHOME DEVELOPMTS WHERE, YOU KN, THEY, THEY HAVE PROPERTY LINES. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PURCHASING THE OPERTIES, EY, THEY ARE PURCHASING T LAND AND E BUDINGAND THA THAS TERM WTH PRDER. ESTION. I THINK MAYBE FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TRAVIS FEASTER, TRAVIS, WITH THIS BEING, A METRO GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, TO DO THIS, YOU KNOW, CONCEPTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WOULD IT BE WISE? FOR US AS A, AS A BODY TO, TO INCORPORATE THE WHEREAS CONSIDERING WE CAN'T PUT A BINDING ELEMENT IN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST TWO ZONING MEETINGS,HE KIND OF REQUIRES, US TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A SELLABLE PRODUCT AT AN AFFORDABLE RATE FOR OUR, OUR CONSTITUENTS IN OUR DISTRICTS. SO IT'S AFFORDABLE. IT'S AND IT'S SELLABLE SO THEY CAN GENERATE, YOU KNOW, GENERATIONAL WEALTH. SO THIS PROJECT, UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS TWO, DOESN'T HAVE THAT SORT OF CORE ELEMENT. YOU KNOW, YOU HAD THE VETERANS HOUSING THE FIRST ONE, AND YOU HAVE THE, THE SENIOR HOUSING IN THE SECOND, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THAT, CLAUSE THAT WE'VE USED IN THE PREVIOUS TWO CASES, BUT WE CAN USE THE SAME SORT OF LANGUAGE ABOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS, ABOUT STAFF'S REPRESENTATIONS THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A VERY PUBLIC ENGAGED PROCESS ON THE BACK END, AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE, AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THAT LANGUAGE TOGETHER. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, PLEASE. THANK YOU. YEAH. BECAUSE ONE OF THE IN THE CASE SUMMARY FROM THE STAFF, IT SAID THAT THEY WANTED THE FLEXIBILITY WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THEY WANTED THIS FLEXIBILITY OF WHAT SINGLE FAMILY WOULD LOOK LIKE. DO WE DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT MOTION IN THE FORM OF A MOTION OR HE'S HE'LL DO IT. AND THEN WE'LL READ IT ON THE FLOOR AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, THIS IS IN COUNCIL PRESIDENT WINKLER'S DISTRICT, AND HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOT. COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN. CARLSON, YOU GOT FIVE. YES VOTES, AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING GOING. WE'RE GOING TO SKIP NOW TO ITEMS NUMBER EIGHT AND NINE. AND DO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN LAST FOR DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF BEAN BLOSSOM ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18,481FT■!S AND BEING IN [8. O-197-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF BEANBLOSSOM ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18,481 SQUARE FEET AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0013). Action Required By:  March 2025 Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] [00:40:06] LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, STREET CLOSURE 0013. MOTION SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 20 FOR STREET CLOSURE, 0013 FOR BEAN BLOSSOM ROAD, BEAN BLOSSOM ROAD IS LOCATED IN METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 21, NEAR GREAT LANE AND FERN VALLEY ROAD. AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE BLOWOUT MAP HERE IN A MOMENT, SO THE REQUEST IS A CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S ABOUT 350FT RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN FERN VALLEY ROAD AND GRADE LANE, AND IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPANSION OF, UPS WORLDPORT PARKING LOT, THE PROPOSED CLOSURE WILL MAINTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES, THERE HAVE BEEN EASEMENT AGREEMENTS COORDINATED WITH LGA, AND ALL OTHER AGENCIES HAVE SENT APPROVAL OR DECLINED TO COMMENT. SO THIS IS THE BEAN BLOSSOM ROAD, RIGHT, OF WAY, OUTLINED IN RED HERE. SO YOU CAN SEE IT CURRENTLY RUNS BETWEEN FERN VALLEY ROAD AND GRADE LANE, AND THEN THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO. THAT SHOWS ITS LOCATION KIND OF BETWEEN PARKING LOTS AND OF VARIOUS FOR VARIOUS THINGS, THIS IS THE CLOSURE PLAN. SO THE PROPERTY WILL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE TWO P, AND THEN THESE ARE JUST SOME SUBJECT PROPERTY, PHOTOS FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW TO SHOW, THE, THE REMNANTS OF THAT STREET AND THE RIGHT OF WAY AS IT EXISTS TODAY, THE LDA MEETING WAS ON AUGUST 8TH, 2024. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON AUGUST 15TH, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR, AND THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CLOSURE PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. THIS IS IN COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ DISTRICT. COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, I'VE LOOKED AT THIS AREA. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. AND THIS IS A FRAGMENT OF A ROAD THAT IS REALLY NOT USED FOR TRAFFIC AND HASN'T BEEN FOR YEARS, SO I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO HAVING THEM CLOSE IT. AND I HOPE THAT YOU VOTE. YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY TO VOTE. PLEASE OPEN. VOTING IS CLOSED. YOU GOT FIVE YES VOTES. FIVE YES VOTES. AND THIS WILL GO TO CONSENT CALENDAR AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF WEST [9. O-198-24     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF WEST DRIVE BETWEEN FERN VALLEY ROAD AND GRADE LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3,440 SQUARE FEET AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0014). Action Required By:  March 2025 Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] DRIVE BETWEEN FERN VALLEY ROAD AND GRAY LANE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3440FT■!S AND BEIG A LOCAL METRO CASE NUMBER. STREET CLOSURE 0014. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION. DOCKET NUMBER 24, STREET CLOSURE 14 FOR WEST DRIVE, WEST DRIVE, SIMILAR LOCATION. FERN VALLEY ROAD, AS YOU'LL SEE HERE IN A MOMENT, THE REQUEST IS CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S A 250 FOOT STRETCH, NEAR THE INTERSECTIONS OF FERN VALLEY ROAD AND GRAY LANE, ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE UPS PARKING LOT EXPANSION, SO THE PROPOSED CLOSURE WILL MAINTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THEIR EASEMENT AGREEMENTS IN PLACE THAT HAVE BEEN COORDINATED WITH LGA, AND SO THIS IS THE, SECTION HERE. SO A LITTLE, OUTLINED IN RED. YOU CAN SEE IT EXTENDS OFF OF FERN VALLEY ROAD TOWARDS GRAY LANE, BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSING THE ENTIRE RIGHT OF WAY, THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE PORTION WHICH YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, DOESN'T REALLY SEE A WHOLE LOT OF PUBLIC TRAFFIC USE, THIS IS THE CLOSURE PLAT PLAN. THE AREA TO BE CLOSED WILL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, THESE ARE SOME GOOGLE STREET VIEW PHOTOS OF THE STRETCH OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S BEING CLOSED. AND HERE IT IS ON A BIRD'S EYE VIEW MAP, LIKE THE LAST CASE, THIS WAS THE LDA ON AUGUST 8TH, 2024, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AUGUST 15TH. AND THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT CLOSURE, THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN RUIZ DISTRICT. COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ. OKAY, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER SMALL FRAGMENT OF ROAD THAT IS NOT ACTIVELY USED. AND I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. VOTE IS OPEN. VOTING IS CLOSED. AND YOU'VE GOT FIVE YES VOTES. AND THAT WILL GO TO CONSENT CALENDAR. OUR NEXT MEETING, COLLEAGUES, THERE'S SEVERAL OF US THAT ARE MISSING TODAY, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND AT LEAST GET INTO DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. BUT AT THE END OF END OF OUR TIME AND DISCUSSION, I WILL ASK [00:45:01] THAT IT BE TABLED BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS AND ANOTHER MEETING. I BELIEVE FROM CONVERSATIONS THIS MORNING. TRAVIS, THERE'S ANOTHER MEETING THAT WE NEED TO SET UP WITH THE POWERS THAT BE. IS THAT CORRECT? I KNOW THERE'S CERTAINLY AN INTEREST IN THAT. AND, SO WE'LL GET ALL THAT COORDINATED AND HOPEFULLY HAVE IT READY NEXT TIME AROUND. THANK YOU. THIS IS [7. O-175-24     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1.2.2 AND 4.1.2 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) REGARDING FACTORY BUILT HOUSING (CASE NO. 23-LDC-0004). 8/27/24  Planning and Zoning Committee Held 8/13/24 Planning and Zoning Committee Held Action Required By:  February 2025 Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1.2.2 AND 4.1.2 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC REGARDING FACTORY BUILT HOUSING CASE NUMBER 23, LDC 0004. MOTION PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, JUST FOR INTRODUCTION REAL QUICK, RACHEL CASEY, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE OFFICE OF PLANNING, AS YOU SAID, WE HAVE 23 LDC 0004. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING FACTORY BUILT HOUSING. THIS WAS THE REQUEST TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR CHANGES TO THE FACTORY BUILD HOUSING REGULATIONS, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THERE WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON DECEMBER 21ST, 2023 FOR OFFICE OF PLANNING STAFF TO REVIEW THE STANDARDS FOR FACTORY BUILD, HOUSING AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO MODERNIZE AND REDUCE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO MANUFACTURED AND MODULAR HOME CONSTRUCTION. STAFF DEVELOPED A DRAFT AMENDMENT BASED ON INDUSTRY RESEARCH, NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES, AND OUR PRIOR EXPERIENCES AND FEEDBACK FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTORY BUILD HOUSING PROCESS IN THE PAST, THERE WAS A DRAFT, RECOMMENDED, CHANGES POSTED ONLINE, AND COMMENTS WERE ACCEPTED FROM MARCH 20TH 9TH TO MAY 12TH, 2024. WE RECEIVED ONE COMMENT IN GENERAL SUPPORT, AND THIS WAS THERE WAS A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. AND THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WAS ON JUNE 12TH AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING WAS ON JULY 11TH. JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE SO WE CAN HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE FACTORY BUILT HOUSING REGULATIONS ARE TODAY. AND WHAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE, SO JUST SOME DEFINITIONS HERE. FACTORY BUILT HOUSING IS A GENERAL TERM USED IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE BUILT IN AN OFF SITE FACILITY AND THEN TRANSPORTED TO A FINAL LOCATION FOR INSTALLATION, SO THIS INCLUDES BOTH MODULAR AND MANUFACTURED HOMES, THE CURRENT REGULATIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WERE LAST UPDATED IN 2015. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOBILE HOMES AND FACTORY BUILT HOMES, A MOBILE HOME, HAS NOT BEEN BUILT SINCE JUNE 15TH, 1976. ANYTHING PRIOR TO THAT DATE IS CONSIDERED A MOBILE HOME, AND WE HAVE SEPARATE REGULATIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO DEAL WITH MOBILE HOMES, AND THOSE ARE SEPARATE FROM FACTORY BUILT HOUSING, WHICH INCLUDES MANUFACTURED AND MODULAR HOMES. SO HERE WE GIVE A LITTLE BREAKDOWN OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANUFACTURED AND MODULAR HOMES. BOTH OF THEM ARE BUILT IN AN OFF SITE FACILITY, LIKE I SAID. AND THEN TRANSPORTED AND INSTALLED AT THE SITE. BUT FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME, THESE HOMES ARE BUILT IN AN OFF SITE FACILITY UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. IT'S CALLED THE MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS, BUT IT'S JUST COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE HUD CODE. SO ALL MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE BUILT TO THIS FEDERAL HUD CODE, AND THEY'RE INSPECTED BY FEDERALLY APPROVED THIRD PARTIES IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. THAT THIRD PARTY IS THE STATE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. SO ALL MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE BUILT TO THAT FEDERAL HUD CODE. AND THEN THEY'RE INSPECTED IN THE FACTORY AND ON THE SITE BY THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FOR A MODULAR HOME. THIS IS THE SAME THING BUILT IN AN OFF SITE FACILITY, BUT IT'S A BUILT TO STATE BUILDING CODES. SO A MODULAR HOME IS STILL BUILT IN A FACTORY, BUT IT'S BUILT TO THE IN THIS CASE, KENTUCKY RESIDENTIAL CODE, AND IT'S INSPECTED BY MULTIPLE STATE BUILDING OFFICIALS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, BETWEEN THE TWO HERE, IT'S REALLY CONSIDERED A DIFFERENCE IN PROCESS AND NOT A DIFFERENCE IN PRODUCT, BECAUSE MOST COMPANIES CAN OFFER THE EXACT SAME HOME AS EITHER MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE COST IN THE HOMES. THE MODULAR HOMES TEND TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF HAVING TO BE INSPECTED BY THE STATE AT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT POINTS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, SO MODERN MANUFACTURED HOMES, I KNOW THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME MISCONCEPTIONS OUT THERE. AND EVEN STAFF HAD THOSE MISCONCEPTIONS BEFORE WE WENT ON THE PROCESS TO DO A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS TOPIC. AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY IS AND NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES. AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT, THE CONSTRUCTION QUALITY AND SAFETY, IS REALLY MUCH IMPROVED FROM WHAT IT USED TO BE, THE MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN THAT HUD CODE HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVED SINCE 2002, WITH THE MOST RECENT UPDATE IN 2021. AND AFTER THE UPDATE THAT THEY DID IN 2018. THE STANDARDS ARE GENERALLY THE SAME AS SITE BUILD HOMES FOR THINGS LIKE WALL THICKNESS, STUD SIZE, [00:50:05] INSULATION, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING COMPONENTS, AND THE PERMANENT FOUNDATION THAT THEY HAVE TO BE INSTALLED ON. MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE ALSO GENERALLY VERY ENERGY EFFICIENT. MOST NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES IN KENTUCKY ARE ENERGY STAR CERTIFIED AND CLAYTON HOMES, ONE OF THE REGION'S TOP MANUFACTURERS, BUILDS ALL OF THEIR HOMES AS ZERO ENERGY READY, WHICH MEANS THEY COULD BE ESSENTIALLY HOOKED UP TO SOLAR PANELS AND BE ZERO ENERGY AND NOT BE TAKING ANYTHING FROM THE GRID, THE OTHER, POSITIVE ASPECT OF MODERN MANUFACTURED HOMES IS THEIR EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION, YOU CAN GET A MANUFACTURED HOME PLACED ON A PROPERTY FROM ORDER TO COMPLETION, IN 30 DAYS OR LESS. SO THE GOAL OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO MAINTAIN THE EFFICIENCY AND AFFORDABILITY OF FACTORY BUILT HOMES THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, WHILE ENSURING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SCALE AND FORM OF NEW AND EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. SO YOU CAN SEE EXAMPLES HERE. THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS A FACTORY BUILT HOME, AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS A SITE BUILT HOME. AND SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF FACTORY BUILT HOUSING PRODUCT THAT WE ARE SEEING IN OUR COMMUNITY, IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THESE PHOTOS, RATHER THAN THE TRADITIONAL SORT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE TRAILER. LOOK, OF THE OLD STYLES OF MANUFACTURED HOMES. SO HOW IS FACTORY BUILT HOUSING CURRENTLY REGULATED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? IT IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, AND IT MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS. IT HAS TO MEET ALL THE STANDARDS OF THE FORM DISTRICT. SO SETBACKS. BUILDING HEIGHTS. ANY REQUIRED YARDS. AND THEN IT'S ALSO SUBJECT TO SECTION 4.1.2 WHICH ARE GENERAL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR FACTORY BUILT HOUSING. THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, HAVE THREE SECTIONS, WELL, FOUR REALLY, BUT THREE SECTIONS FOR THE REGULATIONS. SECTION A REQUIRES THAT ALL FACTORY BUILT HOUSING BE PLACED ON A PERMANENT FOUNDATION, HAVE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE AND HAVE EXTERIOR AND ROOF MATERIALS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO SITE BUILT HOMES. AND THEN IT SPLITS OFF INTO WHAT CONTEXT DID THE FACTORY BUILT HOME MIGHT BE IN. SO SECTION B IS FOR HOMES THAT ARE PLACED IN AN INFILL CONTEXT, MEANING THAT IT WOULD BE A VACANT LOT ON A BLOCK, THAT HAS AT LEAST 50% OF THE OTHER LOTS, ON THE BLOCK HAVE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THEM. AND SO HOMES THAT ARE PLACED IN AN INFILL CONTEXT HAVE PRETTY STRINGENT REGULATIONS FOR FACTORY BUILT HOUSING. THEY HAVE TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING HOMES EXTERIOR MATERIAL, WINDOW PLACEMENT, ROOF PITCH HEIGHT AND FRONT PORCH, MEANING THAT IF THEY'RE IF A HOME, A FACTORY BUILT HOME IS PLACED IN AN INFILL CONTEXT, AND THERE ARE TWO HOMES ON EITHER SIDE THAT HAVE BRICK EXTERIOR MATERIAL, THEN THE CURRENT REGULATIONS MANDATE THAT THE FACTORY BUILT HOME HAVE BRICK EXTERIOR MATERIAL. AND THEN SECTION C IS FOR HOMES THAT ARE PLACED NOT IN AN INFILL CONTEXT, AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LESS STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW FOR THOSE, BUT STILL PRETTY DIFFICULT TO MEET FOR MOST MODERN MANUFACTURED HOMES, AND THAT'S TO HAVE A 512 ROOF PITCH RATIO, 20FT, WIDTH AND AT LEAST 900FT■!S OF FLOOR AREA. AND THEN SECTION D CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THESE STANDARDS AT A PUBLIC HEARING. JUST A LITTLE OVERVIEW OF OUR APPLICATION DATA, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE HAD, OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, 20 TOTAL APPLICATIONS FOR FACTORY BUILT HOUSING, NINE OF THOSE HAD TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE APPROVED. AND THE SIGNIFICANT DATA POINT THERE IS THIS IS NINE HOMES THAT IF THEY WERE SITE BUILT, HOMES WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT BECAUSE THESE ARE FACTORY BUILT HOMES, THEY HAD TO GO TO THAT EXTRA STEP OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVAL. SO HERE'S A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN 23 LDC 0004. WE CONTINUE TO REGULATE BOTH MANUFACTURED HOME AND MODULAR HOMES TOGETHER AS FACTORY BUILT HOMES. THE FACTORY BUILT HOME STANDARDS APPLY TO PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS WITH A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT. SO THIS EXCLUDES ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES WHICH ARE REGULATED ELSEWHERE IN THE LDC. SO WE KNOW WE'RE SEEING SOME MODULAR CONSTRUCTION COMING IN AND A LOT OF THAT MODULAR CONSTRUCTION MIGHT BE FOR MULTI-FAMILY, AND THAT MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THESE FACTORY BUILT HOME REGULATIONS BECAUSE MULTI-FAMILY IS REGULATED SIGNIFICANTLY ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE CODE, IT ELIMINATES THE EXISTING INFILL REQUIREMENTS AND CREATES A SIMPLIFIED SET OF STANDARDS THAT REGULATE AND REQUIRE FOUNDATION, SKIRTING EXTERIOR MATERIAL, ROOF MATERIALS, ROOF PITCH ORIENTATION AND ORNAMENTATION. AND VERY IMPORTANTLY, EVERY NEW FACTORY BUILT HOME UNDER THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WOULD REQUIRE A FRONT PORCH. IN ADDITION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS, HAS THE ABILITY TO APPROVE ALTERNATE ROOF MATERIAL IF THEY DETERMINE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FORM DISTRICT, BUT OTHERWISE ALL FACTORY BUILT HOMES MUST BE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE OTHER PROPOSED STANDARDS, [00:55:04] THERE'S ALSO A PIECE IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THAT INCLUDES A REGULATORY PROCESS THAT ALLOWS A SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPE OR DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONE TIME, PREVENTING REDUNDANCY IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO COME IN AND REQUEST THAT ALTERNATE ROOF MATERIAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN AND GET APPROVAL. IF IT'S THE EXACT SAME BUILDING TYPE. THAT WAY WE PREVENT REDUNDANCY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. SO IN CONCLUSION, THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN 23 LDC 0004, ENCOURAGE FACTORY BUILT HOUSING LIKE THE HOME THAT YOU SEE ON THE LEFT AND WILL NOT ALLOW THE FACTORY BUILT HOUSING THAT YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT FOR THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS AMENDMENT. TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. GO BACK. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT NEXT, THAT LAST SCREEN, THIS ONE. SO THE ONE ON THE RIGHT. YOU'RE SAYING THEY IF THEY IF THEY WOULD PUT A PORCH ON THE FRONT OF THAT ON THE SIDE WHERE THE WINDOW WHERE THE LIKE BIG WINDOW IS. IF THEY PUT A PORCH ON THAT SIDE, THEY CANNOT USE THOSE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THEM ALREADY OUT THERE. WELL, IT DEPENDS A LITTLE BIT ON HOW IT'S ORIENTED, BASED ON IT'S BASED ON HOW IT'S ORIENTED. SO IF THE HOME WERE ORIENTED, LIKE THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT THERE, IN ORDER FOR THAT HOME TO COMPLY, IT WOULD NEED MORE WINDOWS, IT WOULD NEED A DORMER, AND IT WOULD NEED A FRONT PORCH ON THAT HOME. IF IT'S ORIENTED LIKE YOU SEE THERE WITH THE WIDE SIDE TOWARDS THE STREET, IF IT'S ORIENTED WITH THE NARROW SIDE TOWARD THE STREET, THEN THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE FOR IT TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH THAT COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THAT SIDE, AND THAT'S TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE URBAN INFILL SITUATIONS THAT YOU SEE ON NARROWER LOTS, BECAUSE WE SEE A TREND NATIONALLY, SOME GREAT EXAMPLES IN NEW ORLEANS OF, MUNICIPALITIES AND FACTORY BUILT HOUSING COMPANIES, TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOME URBAN INFILL ON WHAT YOU WOULD THINK OF AS MORE OF LIKE A SHOTGUN TYPE LOT, AND SO WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS STILL COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOO. IF YOU'RE IN A SAY, IN A SUBDIVISION IN A HOUSE BURNS DOWN AND YOU HAVE A LOT, WOULD YOU PERMIT THAT HOUSE ON THE RIGHT JUST WITH ALL THE CHANGES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, TO GO IN THIS WAY INSTEAD OF GOING THIS WAY, LIKE THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GO, IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON WHAT THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE SITE WOULD BE, BECAUSE IT JUST IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON HOW WIDE THE LOT IS. IF IT WAS A NARROW LOT, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FIT THE HOME WIDE SIDE FORWARD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, I GET THAT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING LIKE I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULDN'T WANT IT NEXT TO MY HOUSE THAT SOMEBODY TURNED THEIR HOUSE SIDEWAYS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE A TRAILER. I MEAN, I KNOW YOU WANT TO CALL THEM MODULAR HOMES OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S STILL WHEN THEY COME IN ON WITH TONGUE AND GROOVE AND IT'S A TRAILER AS A TRAILER TO ME, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT IN ESTABLISHED SUBDIVISIONS THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE NEXT TO THEM IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY. COUNCILMAN SHAWN, SO I GUESS I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION, THAT YOU ORIGINALLY STARTED WITH, CHAIR FLOOD. SO THANK YOU FOR CALLING. BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME? SO I'VE SEEN THE ONES ON THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, TAKEN TO THE LAKE OR TAKEN TO A TRAILER PARK OR, YOU KNOW, JUST DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS. HOW IS THE FACTORY BUILT? HOME TRANSPORTED VERSUS THE MANUFACTURED, BUILT HOME. AND MAYBE I ASKED THAT INCORRECTLY, BUT ARE YOU SO ARE YOU ASKING HOW A MOBILE HOME IS TRANSPORTED DIFFERENTLY THAN A MANUFACTURED HOME? SURE I KNOW IT IS CONFUSING A LITTLE BIT, LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE. BECAUSE YOU SAID THE PROCESS IS JUST DIFFERENT, BUT BASICALLY THE SAME THING. THE PROCESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION IS WHAT'S DIFFERENT, BUT IT RESULTS IN THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT. SO SOMEONE CAN BUILD THEM EITHER TO THAT FEDERAL HUD CODE. AND THAT WOULD BE A MANUFACTURED HOME, OR THEY CAN BUILD IT TO THE KENTUCKY RESIDENTIAL CODE. AND THAT WOULD BE A MODULAR HOME. BUT THE TRANSPORT ON THOSE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME. THEY'RE STILL GOING TO COME IN ON A WIDE LOAD SEMI OR OCCASIONALLY THEY BRING THEM IN AND THEY MIGHT PLACE THEM DOWN WITH CRANES. BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTE IS THAT ALL OF THESE HOMES NOW REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, STATE LAW, AND BY OUR ZONING REGULATIONS HAVE TO BE PLACED ON PERMANENT [01:00:02] FOUNDATIONS. THESE AREN'T JUST PLACED ON CONCRETE BLOCKS, AND THEN SKIRTING IS PUT AROUND. WHAT IS THE PERMANENT FOUNDATION REQUIRED TO BE IN DEPTH? I GUESS YOU WOULD. IT'S THE SAME AS A SITE BUILT HOME. IT'S TO IT'S FOOTERS THAT GO DOWN TO THE FROST. OKAY. AND THIS IS JUST MY IGNORANCE. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING EDUCATED ON THIS, BUT A CLAYTON HOME VERSUS A FACTORY BUILT HOME. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? THERE THEY'RE THE THEY'RE THE SAME CLAYTON. CLAYTON HOMES IS A MANUFACTURED AND MODULAR HOME BUILDER. AND PRODUCER. OKAY I THINK I DIGRESS FOR A MINUTE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M I'M JUST TRYING TO. ME TOO. COUNCILMAN ARTHUR. COUNCIL MEMBER ARTHUR. THANK YOU, I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF YOUR DEPARTMENT, BUT AS YOU ALL DRAFTED THESE REGULATIONS AND DID YOUR RESEARCH, DID YOU NOTICE ANY CHANGES OR NEEDS OF CHANGES WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION LAW AT ALL? WELL, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT, THERE'S STILL A REQUIREMENT ON THESE OR THERE'S STILL A REQUIREMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURERS TO HAVE A LOWER ROOF PITCH, ON THESE HOMES, BECAUSE THE LOWER ROOF PITCH IS THE ONLY KIND THAT CAN BE TRANSPORTED. SO THE REASON THAT YOU STILL SEE THESE HOMES WITH SORT OF A SHALLOWER ROOF PITCH, IS BECAUSE THEY STILL NEED THAT SHALLOW ROOF PITCH TO GET UNDERNEATH BRIDGES, AND TO MEET TRANSPORTATION, GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS. SO I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN THING IS THAT WE'RE STILL SEEING THAT LOWER ROOF PITCH BECAUSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS. DO YOU KNOW IF CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT WITH THESE HOMES COMPARED TO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY ENFORCED? DO YOU MEAN LIKE AFTER THE HOMES ARE INSTALLED AND SOMETHING IS DETERIORATING ON THE HOME? YES. AND REALLY LESS OF DETERIORATION AND MORE SO IF THERE'S LIKE REALLY A STRUCTURAL ISSUE WITH THE HOME ITSELF. YEAH WOULD THAT BE ON THE FABRICATOR OR WOULD IT BE ON THE HOMEOWNER. HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO WHEN THEY'RE INSTALLED, LIKE I SAID, THE INSPECTION IS DIFFERENT BASED ON WHETHER IT'S MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR. SO IF IT'S MANUFACTURED THEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IS THE ONE THAT INSPECTS THE INSTALLATION AND INSPECTS THE FOUNDATION. HOWEVER, AFTER THAT, AFTER THE HOME IS TURNED INTO REAL PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE LOCAL DEPARTMENT OF CODES OF REGULATIONS TO INSPECT ANY STRUCTURAL ISSUES AFTER THE INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BACHON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I HAVE A FOUNDATION QUESTION, I GUESS RIGHT. SO, FACTORY BUILT HOME. CAN IT JUST HYPOTHETICALLY. RIGHT, LIKE, LET'S SAY, CAN IT BE BUILT AND PUT TOGETHER ON BLOCKS LIKE YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN OLDER TRAILER PARK NEIGHBORHOODS? NOT ANYMORE. OKAY. IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT IT COULD BE DONE IF LIKE, LET'S SAY LET'S TAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF THAT SCENARIO FOR A SECOND. IT COULD BE DONE. CORRECT IT COULD BE. BUT ONLY IF IT WAS IN AN APPROVED MOBILE HOME PARK. IF IT'S GOING TO GO ON AN INDIVIDUAL PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. BUT THE FACTORY BUILT HOUSE, NO, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT. SORRY. IT CAN BE BUILT ON THE BLOCKS THOUGH, RIGHT? THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WOULD ALSO THIS IS THE PICTURES THAT YOU SEE ARE PURELY FOR AN ESTHETIC STANDPOINT ON THE SCREEN. BOTH OF THESE HOMES ARE MANUFACTURED HOMES AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE PLACED ON PERMANENT FOUNDATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT TO THAT FEDERAL STANDARD. AND THE FEDERAL STANDARD SAYS THAT THEY MUST BE PLACED ON PERMANENT FOUNDATIONS. OKAY I'M JUST TRYING TO LEARN. SORRY AND LET'S GO BACK. I HATE NAME DROPPING A COMPANY. RIGHT. BUT IT'S THE ONLY ONE I CAN THINK OF. BUT LIKE CLAYTON HOMES, I DRIVE BY THEM ALL THE TIME THAT THEY SELL THESE HOMES. SO IT'S A FACTORY BUILT HOME. BUT YOU CAN BUY ONE OF THOSE AND TAKE IT TO THE LAKE, AND YOU CAN BUILD IT ON BLOCKS. CORRECT. OR YOU CAN SET IT ON BLOCKS. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT YOU CANNOT DO THAT BASED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. [01:05:02] HOWEVER, THAT WOULD BE IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, IN A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU CAN DO THAT IN A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION. OUR REGULATIONS TODAY AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS BOTH WOULD REQUIRE A PERMANENT FOUNDATION. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN. THANK YOU. CHAIR, IN PART, AS A FOLLOW UP TO COUNCILMAN ARTHUR'S QUESTION, I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT. WHAT RACHEL SAID IS THESE PRODUCTS ARE ARE NOT REAL PROPERTY UNTIL THEY ARE ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATION AND HAVE BEEN INSPECTED. AND THAT'S WHEN THE DEED IS PROBABLY TRANSFERRED AT THAT POINT AND IT BECOMES REAL PROPERTY. AND REAL PROPERTY IS REAL ESTATE AS OPPOSED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE PRODUCT BEFORE IT BECOMES REAL PROPERTY. SO I THINK THAT'S A DISTINCTION THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. IT IS A IT IS A PRODUCT WHILE IT IS MOBILE AND BEING TRANSPORTED. AND AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER, IF ANYTHING, IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEM, ONCE THE HOME IS INSTALLED ON A PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND INSPECTED, IT IS DEEDED OVER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND BECOMES REAL PROPERTY. AND IS THE SAME CONSIDERED THE SAME FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES AND PURPOSES OF EQUITY AND ALL OTHER THINGS AS A, AS A, AS A STICK BUILT HOME WOULD BE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO KEEP IN MIND, AND KIND OF GOES TO COUNCILMAN ARTHUR'S POINT OF WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IF THERE'S A STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY, THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY IS, I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, I THINK MOST OF US IN THIS ROOM WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE WITH THE HOME ON THE LEFT BEING INSTALLED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE MOST OF THE OTHER OTHER HOMES LOOKED SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE HOME ON THE RIGHT THAT, WHILE BUILT TO A HIGHER STANDARD REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND OR STATE GOVERNMENT, STILL LOOKS LIKE A TRAILER. SO I GUESS WHAT PEOPLE I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS, IS THIS AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED STRONG ENOUGH TO PREVENT THE KIND OF HOUSE ON THE RIGHT FROM GOING INTO A AN INFILL SITE WHERE MORE THAN 50% OF THE OF THE LOTS ARE ALREADY BUILT WITH OTHER STRUCTURES. ARE WE PREVENTING THAT KIND OF PROPERTY FROM GOING INTO THAT LOCATION? THE ONE ON THE RIGHT? SURE WE BELIEVE SO. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHY THIS PHOTO IS UP HERE. IS BECAUSE, AS I SAID, THE REGULATIONS AS PROPOSED WOULD NOT ALLOW THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADD MANY ESTHETIC DESIGN FEATURES TO THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IN ORDER FOR IT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS. AND AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO REMEMBER WITH THESE NEW PROPOSED REGULATIONS IS THAT THEY MUST BE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO OFFER RELIEF, WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST WHERE, THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT MAY BE APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT ALL STRUCTURES BE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE LAID OUT. SO. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS TIGHTENING UP THE REGULATION AND NOT GIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WIGGLE ROOM TO APPROVE SOMETHING. IT HAS TO COMPLY. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE THAT THE HOME ON THE RIGHT LOOKS LIKE A TRAILER. THESE ARE NONE OF THESE ARE MOBILE HOMES OR TRAILERS. NONE OF THEM ARE. YOU DON'T CAN'T YOU CAN'T BUILD THAT ANYMORE. THESE ARE ALL BUILT TO A MUCH, MUCH HIGHER STANDARD. SO WHILE WE DON'T NEED TO CONFLATE OR GET GET, YOU CAN BUILD AN UGLY STICK BUILD HOUSE TO, I MEAN, I'VE SEEN PLENTY OF SUPER UGLY STICK BUILD HOUSES. SO REALLY, ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN THESE TWO HOUSES ARE ESTHETICS. AND THIS NEW AMENDMENT IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ESTHETICS OF THE, THE MANUFACTURED HOME THAT GOES INTO THESE INFILL NEIGHBORHOODS MEETS THE, SIMILAR ESTHETICS TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. COUNCIL MEMBER SEAN, I'M GOING TO PASS AND LET COUNCILMAN ENGEL GO FIRST, AND THEN I'LL GO AGAIN. SEAN OKAY. MY QUESTION MAY BE DIFFERENT. OKAY. GO AHEAD, COUNCILMAN EAGLE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, I JUST, [01:10:02] THAT THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION IS, IS I THINK WE'RE TIGHTENING THINGS U, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING, ACTUALLY, I THINK I DON'T KNOW, I'M. I'M WORKING MY WAY THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, SO THE R-4. OKAY, SO THE SO OUR ZONING. OKAY WHAT OUR CURRENT ZONING IN THE COUNTY, WHAT IMPACT DOES THIS IF ANY, DOES THIS HAVE ON, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE WHERE THESE HOMES CAN BE PLACED, PLACED? CAN THEY GO IN THE RF? CAN THEY GO IN THE R4 ZONING AND EITHER ONE AND TALK TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. YEAH. SO BOTH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THE CURRENT REGULATIONS ALLOW FACTORY BUILT HOMES TO BE PLACED WHEREVER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMITTED, WHICH MEANS THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMITTED IN ALMOST ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. AND SO THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED IN AN R4 ON AN R4 LOT AND R5 LOT, EVEN IN AN R1 OR AN RR LOT, BECAUSE THOSE, ZONING DISTRICTS PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS STILL A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IT'S JUST PRODUCED DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT A SITE BUILT HOME WOULD BE. EITHER ONE THAT THE FACTORY BUILT AND THE NOT THE OTHER ONE. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT. YEAH. SO THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WOULD NOT QUALIFY. RIGHT. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WOULD NOT QUALIFY. NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE LAID OUT FOR FACTORY BUILT HOUSING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD. I'M STILL THINKING, BUT COUNCIL MEMBER BATSON. AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE COUNCILWOMAN CINDY FOWLER AND CINDY. I'M SORRY. I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE YOU WERE OVER MY LEFT SHOULDER, SO AFTER COUNCILMAN SEAN WILL GO TO COUNCILWOMAN FOWLER, I THINK COUNCILMAN ENGEL KIND OF TOUCHED ON WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. SO THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN FOWLER, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO I NEED TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEONE CAME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A PITCH LIKE A PROPOSAL OF THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, AND IT HAD A FRONT PORCH ON THE END, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET TWO DIFFERENT WAIVERS. ONE WOULD BE THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, THE SECOND WOULD BE THE WIDTH OF THE OF THE STRUCTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE REDUCING THE WIDTH REQUIREMENT FROM 20 FOOT DOWN TO 15 FOOT TO ALLOW STRUCTURES THAT LOOK LIKE THE ONE ON THE RIGHT. AND I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN USED, 2 OR 3 OF THEM HAVE BEEN USED IN INFILL SITUATIONS, WHICH I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE THIN, SKINNY. ANYWAY BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THIS HAS HAPPENED IN MY DISTRICT AND I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE, NEIGHBORHOOD NEW NEIGHBORHOOD BEING LAID OUT TO ONLY ALLOW THESE TRAILER TYPE HOMES. I KNOW THEY'RE MANUFACTURED HOMES. I KNOW THEY'RE CALLED MODULAR OR, FACTORY BUILT, BUT WHAT THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS PIECE OF LAND SITS ON ARE SAYING IS WE HAVE GOT A CREDIT CARD FOR IT IN OUR BACK YARD. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T ALLOW, BECAUSE IT'S YOU KNOW, THE, THE FOUNDATION TO THESE STRUCTURES. THEY CAN PUT CONCRETE AROUND IT. I NEED EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT A LOAD BEARING WALL. NONE OF THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE LOAD BEARING. THE LOAD BEARING IS UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE ON A TRAILER TYPE BASE THAT HAS TWO I-BEAMS THAT RUN THE LENGTH OF THE TRAILER, OR THE MANUFACTURED HOME, AND THEN COLUMNS ARE BUILT ON THE IN THE MIDDLE PERIPHERY OF THE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND SO THERE'S NO LOAD BEARING ON THAT FOUNDATION. YOU CAN CALL IT A FOUNDATION, BUT I CALL A FOUNDATION SOMETHING THAT'S LOAD BEARING, [01:15:02] NOT SOMETHING THAT'S THERE FOR ESTHETICS ONLY. I THINK THAT ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL COULD FIND, IF WE LET THIS PASS THE WAY, IT'S WRITTEN, ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL COULD FIND A VACANT LOT IN THEIR DISTRICT THAT WOULD HAVE WHAT LOOKS TO BE A TRAILER ON THAT LOT, AND IT WOULD BE LEGAL. AND WE'RE GIVING THEM THE OKAY TO DO IT. AND I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER REED. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, IF A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS ZONED R FOR SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH MOST OF THEM ARE, AND IT IS DEED RESTRICTED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ONLY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS NEW REGULATION WOULD SUPERSEDE THAT AND FACTORY BUILD HOMES COULD BE BUILT WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S A DEED RESTRICTION. AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THERE. ONE, OUR ZONING REGULATIONS DON'T NECESSARILY SUPERSEDE ANY PRIVATE, AGREEMENTS. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT, DOES NOT ENFORCE THOSE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS UNLESS WE ARE PARTY TO THEM. BUT SECONDLY, BECAUSE THIS IS CONSIDERED STILL A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SPECIFIC RESTRICTION, I BELIEVE, ON A FACTORY BUILT OR MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR OR WHATEVER TYPE OF HOME IT IS, FOR THAT RESTRICTION TO APPLY. AND THEN IN ADDITION, UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, YOU CAN STILL PLACE THESE HOMES IN ANY R4 ZONE PLOT. AS I SAID, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT SET OF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, VERSUS THE PROPOSED SET OF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT. OKAY. YOU'VE ANSWERED IT. THANK YOU VERY MUC. COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN, THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY TO SOMETHING THAT CAME UP A MINUTE AGO, WHEN COUNCILMAN ENGEL WAS SAYING THAT WE'RE TIGHTENING THINGS UP, AND I SAI, YES, I THINK WE'RE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. WE'RE LOOSE. WE'RE MAKING IT EASIER IN ONE REGARD. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE PIE GRAPH THAT THEY SHOWED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE, OF THE, OF THE PRESENTATION WAS SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE THEY HAD TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO GET, PERMISSION TO INSTALL A FACTORY BUILT HOUSE. WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE HAVING TO DO THAT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SO IN ONE SENSE, WE'RE LOOSENING UP IN THAT REGARD. BUT I THINK FROM AN ESTHETIC STANDPOINT, WHICH IS WHAT MOST OF US ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT, WE'RE TIGHTENING IT UP. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, BECAUSE I KIND OF IT WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING BEFORE, CHAIR, ARE WE ARE YOU READY TO ACCEPT A MOTION TO TABLE OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO. I JUST HAD ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND, BACK ON MAYBE A COUPLE SLIDES BACK WHERE IT SAYS SKIRTING FOUNDATION, SKIRTING. WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF FOUNDATION SKIRTING? BECAUSE WHEN I THINK OF SKIRTING I'M THINKING OF THAT. PLASTIC. YOU'RE THINKING OF PLASTIC. YEAH. YEAH, YEAH, IT HAS TO BE UNDER UNDER BOTH THE CURRENT AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, THE FOUNDATION SKIRTING IS REQUIRED TO BE BRICK OR MASONRY, FOR FACTORY BUILT HOUSING, SO IT'S THE SAME UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, BUT JUST TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WITH THAT SKIRTING VERSUS THE FOUNDATION, THESE ARE LIKE I SAID, PLACED ON A PERMANENT FOUNDATION. AND THEN THAT SKIRTING THAT, YOU SEE AROUND THERE IS PURELY ESTHETIC, THAT SKIRTING IS NOT LOAD BEARING BECAUSE THERE IS A LOAD BEARING FOUNDATION UNDERNEATH THE HOME THAT THE HOME IS ATTACHED TO. THE SKIRTING THAT YOU SEE AROUND THERE IS SIMPLY TO MAKE THE HOME LOOK BETTER, OR TO LOOK LIKE A SITE BUILT HOME, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LOAD BEARING QUALITIES ON THE SKIRTING ITSELF. THANK YOU. NOW GO AHEAD. COUNCILMAN OWEN. MOTION. I MOTION THAT WE, TABLE THIS FOR DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT MEETING. SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE, AYE. THOSE OPPOSED BY, LIKE, SIGN HEARING. NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES, AND THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE HAVE CLEARED IT EXCEPT FOR THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.