[12. R-144-24 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW THE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO DEVELOPMENT ALONG SUBSTANDARD ROADS. Action Required By: May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Stuart Benson (R-20) ]

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. THE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS WITH REGARDS TO DEVELOPMENT ALONG SUBSTANDARD ROADS. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION, COUNCILMAN BENSON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS IS SOMETHING TO SEND BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING. THE STATE SAYS THAT ROADS NOW SHOULD BE 18. I MEAN, NOT 20FT. OURS SAYS 18. AND IN MY DISTRICT, WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF ROADS WITH CLOSE TO BEING 18. AND IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO WE NEED TO BRING IT UP TO CODE WITH, WITH THE STATE SAYS. SO WE JUST WANT TO SEND THIS BACK OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVE THEM SEND IT BACK TO US.

SORRY FOR NOT GETTING INTO THE MINUTIA OF THIS, COUNCILMAN. WHAT IS THE TIMELINE THAT WE'RE PUTTING ON THEIR RESULTS? THEIR FINDINGS OR. SORRY, CHAIR, I DIRECT YOU. IS THERE A TIMELINE

[00:20:02]

ON WHEN THE TURNAROUND? IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE FROM WHAT I REMEMBER. AND I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH A QUESTION TO THE PLANNING AND DESIGN ABOUT THAT. WELL, IT MIGHT BE MY SECOND QUESTION. IN LAST MEETING, I HAD ASKED IF YOU ALL HAD A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO WORK ON, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD TIME TO PUT TOGETHER THAT LIST.

I DID, AND I EMAILED IT TO COUNCILWOMAN. I CAN PULL IT UP IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT. IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR. WELL, NO. PLEASE SEND IT OUT, OR I CAN SEND IT OUT OR. OKAY, OKAY.

PRESENTING NOW. SO WE CAN ALL, LIKE, KNOCK THAT OFF OF OUR. TO DO LIST LATER. IF WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. WHAT DID YOU WANT? I'M SORRY. OH, HE WAS GOING TO PRESENT THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW. AND WITH THIS NOT HAVING A TIME LIMIT ON THERE, IT'S NOT AS IN DIRE STRAITS AS SOMETHING ELSE. BUT MY QUESTION WAS, IF PLANNING AND DESIGN WAS ALREADY WORKING ON THIS, IF STATE LAW HAD CHANGED, DOES THAT TAKE ON OUR OUR STREETS ALSO? WELL, THERE THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A BRIAN DAVIS LITTLE METRO OFFICE PLANNING THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE FIRE CODE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE WIDTH OF ROADS. AND SO THE CHANGE THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED AT THE STATE LEVEL HAD NOT YET BEEN ADOPTED LOCALLY. THAT THAT CHANGED. I THINK IT WAS LIKE LAST OCTOBER.

AND SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A DIFFERENCE. THERE'S A DIFFERENT PAVEMENT WIDTH REQUIREMENT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE VERSUS WHAT'S IN THIS FIRE ORDINANCE. AND SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND TAKEN LIKE A QUICK LOOK. BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN DEPTH.

BUT WE JUST NEED TO GO THROUGH AND FIND OUT HOW MANY DIFFERENT REFERENCES WE HAVE TO THE REQUIRED PAVEMENT WIDTHS AND SEE HOW THAT COMPARES TO THE TO THE FIRE CODE THAT WAS THAT WAS APPROVED AND THEN SEE WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES WE NEED TO MAKE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, BRIAN, I THINK THAT SEVERAL MANY MOONS AGO THAT WHEN JAMES PEDEN WAS ON THE COUNCIL THAT WE WORKED ON LEGISLATION AND WHENEVER WE PUT IN SOMETHING FROM THE FIRE CODE, QUOTING IT, IT THERE WAS A PHRASE IN THERE THAT SAID, WE AUTOMATICALLY ADOPT WHATEVER THE I FORGET THE INITIALS FOR THE REPORT IS AN RFP OR SOMETHING THAT WE AUTOMATICALLY ADOPT. THAT TO OUR LEGISLATION WE NEED TO CHECK THAT OUT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF THAT THAT HAPPENED WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON LEGISLATION. AND IT INVOLVED ANYTHING FROM THE FIRE FOR FIRE CODE. GO AHEAD, MR. VINCENT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. WELL, WHAT KIND OF BROUGHT THIS MORE TO ATTENTION? WE HAVE SOME ZONING NOW THAT WE DON'T. THE ZONING DON'T COME TO US. IT JUST AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING. WELL, WE HAVE A ROAD OUT IN IN IN MY DISTRICT, FISHERVILLE EASTWOOD ROAD. AND ONE WAY TO GET THE TAYLORSVILLE ROAD IS A TUNNEL. YOU HAVE TO GO UNDER A RAILROAD TRACK. AND IT'S ONLY 11 FOOT WIDE. AND THEY APPROVED THIS SUBDIVISION WITHOUT REALIZING THERE'S ONLY 11 FOOT. IT'S NOT EVEN 18 FOOT. AND IT'S A LAWSUIT GOING ON. BUT SINCE THAT'S BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, WE SAID, HEY, LET'S LET'S SEE IF WE CAN RELEASE BRING IT ALL BACK UP TO WHERE THE STATE IS. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE WANTING TO SEND IT OVER. I WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD DO IT AS QUICK AS THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IT UP TO 20FT. BUT THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE HAVE BETTER CHECKS AND BALANCES. BUT IF IT WENT, IF IT THAT WOULD HAVE CAME TO US, I BELIEVE WE'D HAVE NOTICED. IT SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, WE'RE DOING THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE 18FT ALL THE WAY TO, TO AN ARTERY MAIN ARTERY. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT IN COURT. BUT I JUST LIKE TO SEND THIS BACK OVER, SEND THIS OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SEE IF THEY CAN'T WORK IT THROUGH SO THAT WE HAVE IN MY AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF SUBSTANDARD ROADS. WE CALL THEM COW PATHS. YOU KNOW, A SCHOOL BUS AND A CAR CAN'T PASS UNLESS ONE GETS OFF THE ROAD. TO ME, THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY DANGEROUS. AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAD A FIRE, YOU HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM. SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE THINGS SAFE AS BEST WE CAN. THANK YOU.

BRIAN, ON THE LIST THAT YOU SENT ME, WASN'T THE GREEN COMPLETED? YES. SO THERE'S TEN ITEMS THAT STILL NEED TO BE COMPLETED. ACCORDING TO WHAT I'M COUNTING. AND I'LL SEND YOU A COPY OF ALL OF THAT. AND THE GREEN HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. THANK YOU.

[00:25:05]

COUNCILWOMAN. THIS SEEMS A LITTLE BIT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD THAN US ASKING YOU JUST TO REVIEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE JUST KIND OF LIKE MATCHING ONE THING TO THE OTHER. DOES THIS REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS? AND HOW MANY CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT PROCESS? BECAUSE I KNOW IT SAYS IT IN THE RESOLUTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT IF IT WAS THE CASE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE LEGISLATION PASSED THAT SAYS IF IT'S AUTOMATICALLY ADOPTED AT THE STATE LEVEL, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY ADOPTED INTO OURS. IT'S MAYBE SOMEWHAT. SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE PROTOCOL IS ON, YOU KNOW, VERIFYING THAT AND THEN GETTING THIS ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN TEN PROJECTS SOUNDS KIND OF HEFTY. WELL, A LOT GOING ON. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING MANDATED BY YOU KNOW, STATE AND LOCAL STATE REGULATION AND THE LOCAL ORDINANCE. SO THERE PROBABLY WON'T BE AS MUCH A NEED FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS AS NORMALLY AS WE NORMALLY DO. TYPICALLY, WHENEVER WE HAVE A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, WE WILL DRAFT SOMETHING AND THEN WE LEAVE IT OUT THERE FOR LIKE 30 TO 45 DAYS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE EVEN TAKE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THIS MAY NOT REQUIRE THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL TIME. NOW, ONE THING WITH THE HOLIDAYS AND THE METRO COUNCIL BREAK, YOU KNOW, WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE ADDED TIME THERE TO BEFORE WE WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT ANYTIME YOU'RE DOING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT THAT HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHO MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO METRO COUNCIL IN THE 12 SUBURBAN CITIES WITH ZONING AUTHORITY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO AT LEAST FOLLOW THAT PATH IN ORDER TO MAKE THE CHANGES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE IS A BUILT IN PERIOD OF TIME. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, ONE HOW MUCH TIME DO WE NEED FOR THE TO DO THE RESEARCH? AND THEN TWO, HOW MUCH OF A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DO WE WANT TO HAVE BEFORE IT GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSION? VERY INTERESTING. TRULY. AND WITH US NOT STIPULATING A TIME LIMIT THAT MAKES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE. COUNCILMAN OWEN. THANK YOU. CHAIR. DO WE HAVE A. AND I COULDN'T REALLY TELL FROM THIS WHETHER THIS IS PART OF THE REQUEST OR NOT. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY SUBSTANDARD ROADS WE HAVE AS IT RELATES TO THIS NEW 20 FOOT WIDE STANDARD? I MEAN, THE OFFICE OF PLANNING DOES NOT HAVE A RECORD OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET FROM PUBLIC WORKS. IF THAT'S INFORMATION THAT THEY KEEP ON THE ROADS THAT THEY MAINTAIN. I DON'T KNOW IF THE STATE HAS INFORMATION ABOUT THE STATE ROUTES THAT THEY MAINTAIN, BUT WE CAN WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM. YOU KNOW, ONCE, ONCE THIS ONCE THE RESOLUTION PASSES, WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM LIKE, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESEARCH. WHAT CAN Y'ALL HELP US OUT WITH? I, I SO FOR ME, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT INFORMATION AND SEE WHERE WE ARE. AND I START GETTING WORRIED THAT IF WE'VE GOT SUBSTANDARD ROADS ALL OVER THE COUNTY, WHICH I ASSUME THAT WE DO, AND WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CONTROL OVER THE FORMULA THAT FUNDS ROADS AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND SO WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO BRING THE ROADS UP TO A THE NEW STANDARD? THEN I GET REALLY CONCERNED THAT IT THEN BECOMES YOU CHANGE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO ANY DEVELOPMENT ON A SUBSTANDARD ROAD. YOU GOT A CHICKEN AND AN EGG AT THAT POINT, AND IT'S LIKE EVERY SUBSTANDARD ROAD, THERE CAN'T BE ANY MORE DEVELOPMENT ON IT. AND THAT STARTS THAT STARTS MAKING ME ME NERVOUS. SO AND IN, IN THE ORDINANCE, IN THE LOCAL ORDINANCE, THERE'S KIND OF A CAVEAT. THE FIRE CHIEFS HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE SOMETHING IF THEY FEEL THAT THE ROAD IS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND NOT NECESSARILY UP TO THE 20FT STANDARD. BUT YOU KNOW THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL LOOK AT AND WE'LL GET FEEDBACK FROM THE FIRE CHIEFS ON AS WE DIVE INTO THIS. AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE DETAILS, THE KIND OF DEVIL IN THE DETAILS KIND OF STUFF AS WE AS WE GO FORWARD. RIGHT. THANKS. I KNOW EARLY ON THERE WAS A ROAD IN MY DISTRICT THAT DEVELOPMENT WENT IN. EARLY MERGER. AND THE DEVELOPER HAD TO WIDEN THE STREET. SO FAR ALONG HIS DEVELOPMENT AND THEY JUST ADDED THREE FOOT OF ASPHALT, WHICH IS NO GOOD. I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE EVER DO THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE IT DOES ALL YOU DO IS YOU'RE PATCHED UP AGAINST AN EXISTING ROADWAY AND IT DOES NOT WORK. THAT WELL. IT CRUMBLES AND FALLS APART AT THAT SEAM. JUST FOR YOUR SO YOU ALL KNOW AS YOU MOVE FORWARD, SINCE I WON'T BE HERE, THAT YOU NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN THEY SAY WE'LL JUST ADD ON. IT DOESN'T WORK. AND I JUST AS A FOLLOW UP, I KNOW COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI AND I HAD DISCUSSED THERE'S A MECHANISM IN PLACE THAT I THINK IS KIND OF OLD AND NOT AND NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. SO I KNOW THERE'S AND I

[00:30:03]

CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME OF IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I KNOW THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY, TOO, THAT IF WE IF WE UPDATED THAT AND MADE THE SYSTEM, THAT'S EXACTLY IT.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE THAT THAT MIGHT BE A WAY THAT WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES AS WELL. SO JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON RECORD. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

THERE'S NO ONE IN THE QUEUE. WE WERE JOINED BY COUNCILMAN BAKER AS WE STARTED DISCUSSION. HE'S NOT SITTING IN HIS USUAL SEAT. NO. OKAY. WITHOUT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE ARE READY TO. IT'S A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. I. THOSE OPPOSED BY, LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE. SEEING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THIS WILL GO TO CONSENT CALENDAR IN OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE FIVE PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE CHANGE IN ZONING THAT HAVE TO COME OUT TODAY. THEY HAVE TO BE VOTED ON BY OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE THEIR DEADLINE. SO MOVING ON TO

[1. O-248-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5131-5137 POPLAR LEVEL ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.26 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 23-ZONE-0129). 11/12/24 Planning and Zoning Committee Held Action Required By: January 17, 2025 **Council Member Barbara Shanklin (D-2) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

ITEM NUMBER ONE IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5131 THROUGH 5137. PAPA ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.26 ACRES AND BEING A METRO CASE NUMBER 23. ZONE 0129. MOTION. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, BRIAN DAVIS, LOUISVILLE METRO OFFICE OF PLANNING. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 23, ZONE 129 FOR POPLAR LEVEL ROAD APARTMENTS. THANK YOU. PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE 5131 THROUGH 51, 37 POPLAR LEVEL ROAD, LOCATED IN METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE OUTLINED IN BLUE.

THEY ARE CURRENTLY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED. YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL PHOTO HERE. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. AND THEN YOU HAVE A COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY THAT SURROUND THE SITE. THIS IS A ZONING MAP OF THE AREA. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R4. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO R6. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROPERTY THERE'S SURROUNDED ON BOTH SIDES BY R4, AND YOU ALSO DO HAVE SOME R7 AND R4, R5 A WHICH ARE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS AND THEN SOME R1, WHICH IS LOCATED OVER AT THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND POPLAR LEVEL ROAD. SO THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R4 TO R6. YOU SEE THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING TO CONSOLIDATE THE PARCELS. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE PRESERVED. AND THEN THEY ARE PROPOSING 20 UNITS IN THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THEY HAVE TWO BUILDINGS. THAT ARE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. AND THEN THE ACCESS COMES FROM POPLAR LEVEL ROAD VIA A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY. CONFIGURATION THERE. THAT'S DUE TO SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ON POPLAR LEVEL ROAD. I THINK THERE'S A MEDIAN OR SOMETHING THERE. THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO CROSS. AND SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE SITE PLAN. THESE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION. AND THEN THESE WERE PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE MATERIALS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDINGS ARE. THIS IS LOOKING FROM POPLAR LEVEL ROAD INTO THE SITE. YOU SEE THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED THERE ON THE LEFT. THE PHOTOS. THE TOP PHOTO IS LOOKING ACROSS POPLAR LEVEL ROAD OVER TOWARDS THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE OF THE ROAD. AND THEN YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL THAT'S ALSO LOCATED LIKE A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE WEST ON POPLAR LEVEL TAKES A TURN THERE. SO IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION IS WHAT. THESE ARE SOME MORE PHOTOS OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE UNDEVELOPED SITE WHICH IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WHICH WAS IS ZONED FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2023.

THE LDA MEETING WAS ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024. AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONING THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? AND YOU DID SAY RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ON THE POPLAR LEVEL ROAD, IS THAT CORRECT? LET ME DOUBLE CHECK. IT CERTAINLY LOOKS THAT WAY ON THE DRAWING. I THINK IT'S BECAUSE

[00:35:05]

THERE IS. YEAH, THERE'S A MEDIAN IN POPLAR LEVEL ROAD. AND SO YEAH THEY'RE NOT CARS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE A LEFT FROM POPLAR LEVEL INTO THE SITE. SO THAT'S WHY THEY DID RESTRICTED TURNING INTO AND OUT OF THE LAN. AND THAT'S REAL CLOSE TO THAT LIGHT THERE AT JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. AND PAPA LAVAR ROAD. CORRECT. YEAH. THERE IS A LIGHT HERE. AND THERE WAS SOME COMMENT LIKE DURING THE YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT OAKDALE AND HOW OAKDALE DOESN'T LINE UP WITH JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND WHAT MAY HAPPEN WITH, WITH CARS AND TRAFFIC THERE. AND SO THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT CAME UP AT PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE PAST WEEK. THANK YOU. MADONNA, CAN I SPEAK? CAN I? JUST ASK. YEAH, SHE CAN IN JUST A SECOND.

I'LL CALL. I'LL CALL ON YOU. OKAY. WERE YOU FINISHED, BRIAN? YEAH. I'M FINISHED. YES. OKAY.

DOCTOR SHANKLIN? YES, I'M DEFINITELY AGAINST IT. BECAUSE FOR ONE THING, IT'S A SAFETY AREA. AS HE SPOKE ABOUT OAKDALE AND HE MENTIONED THAT THE RESIDENTS SAID THE SAME THING.

THE STREETLIGHT DOESN'T LINE UP WITH OAKDALE AND JEFFERSON. JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND SO WHEN YOU COME OUT OF OAKDALE, YOU GOT TO GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS TO THE FAR RIGHT TO GET TO THE LANE, GOING TO JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. WE'VE HAD ACCIDENTS RIGHT THERE AND PUTTING 50 MORE CARS RIGHT THERE ON THAT CORNER IS REALLY GOING TO BE IT'S DANGEROUS NOW AND IT'S GOING TO BE MORE DANGEROUS. AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES ALREADY ACROSS THE STREET. YOU PUT IN THE YOU PUT IN ANOTHER APARTMENT BUILDING RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS JUST ON THE OPPOSITE CORNER WHERE THE UNION HALL IS, ON THE OPPOSITE CORNER. AND ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE COMING WHEN THEY HAVE MEETINGS, ALL OF THOSE CARS ARE COMING THROUGH, AND YOU GOT 50 EXTRA HOUSES AND I SAY 50, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GOT 20 APARTMENTS, IT'S GOING TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO CARS IN THAT IN EACH HOUSE, APARTMENT. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE LIGHT ITSELF IS MAINLY ON JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. OAKDALE IS A STRAIGHT THROUGH WHERE EVERYBODY CUTS THROUGH. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT ALL THE WAY TO CROSS THE TRAFFIC TO THE FAR RIGHT TO TURN TO JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. EVEN COMING OUT OF THOSE APARTMENTS, IF YOU WANTED TO GO TO THE MALL OR ANY WAY TOWARDS JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, YOU HAVE TO CUT ACROSS IN FRONT OF THAT TRAFFIC TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN TO GO TO JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. AND IF THE STREETLIGHT WAS ALIGNED AND THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN YOU COULD HAVE CARS COMING OUT AND IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. BUT THE WAY IT'S ALREADY SET UP IS VERY DANGEROUS AND VERY A LOT OF ACCIDENTS RIGHT THERE ON THAT CORNER AND PUT UP ANOTHER COMPLEX WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE, TWO, ONE ON THE CORNER OF WAS TWO OF THEM RIGHT THERE ON JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, RIGHT ON THE CORNER. AND THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THIS OTHER ONE. IT'S JUST A DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS PLACE TO PUT EXTRA CARS. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT IT'S TO PUT ANOTHER CAR, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THAT BIG. YOU'RE GOING TO PUT EXTRA CARS THERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IT'S GOING TO BE DANGEROUS. IT'S ALREADY DANGEROUS. I'VE ALMOST BEEN HIT RIGHT THERE ON THAT CORNER. SO YOU IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT TRAFFIC ON THAT CORNER. AND THEN YOU GOT GE TRAFFIC COMING TWICE A DAY COMING RIGHT THROUGH THERE. AND THAT'S EVEN MORE CARS. AND YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THAT APARTMENT AND GET ACROSS THAT STREET. AND YOU THINK YOU'RE CROSSING ANYWAY UNLESS YOU GO ALL THE WAY DOWN POPLAR LEVEL ROAD AND TURN AROUND AND COME BACK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. SO I'M DEFINITELY AGAINST IT. MY CONSTITUENTS ARE ALL AGAINST IT, BUT OF COURSE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION GOES OUT AND CHECK THESE THINGS. THEY JUST RUBBER STAMP WHATEVER COMES THROUGH. THEY DO NOT GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AND SIT ON THAT CORNER FOR A FEW MINUTES AND SEE HOW THE TRAFFIC IS. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK BECAUSE I SAW SIX PEOPLE SPOKE IN OPPOSITION, AND I DEFINITELY HEAR DOCTOR SHANKLIN AND HER CONCERNS. I WAS JUST NOW I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DO THEY ECHO HERS OR ARE THERE OTHER CONCERNS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP? I THINK THEY ECHO MIND AND MATTER OF FACT, THE COMMISSION ITSELF, HE JUST SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT

[00:40:04]

OAKDALE AND THE TRAFFIC GOING ACROSS. SO SAME THING. SO AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. PEOPLE DID SEE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT. ONLY AND THE MANEUVERING THERE. YOU KNOW, ONE THING THE APPLICANT DID INCLUDE ON THEIR PLAN WAS A FUTURE CONNECTION THAT GOES TO THE EAST SO THAT IF THAT PROPERTY THAT FRONTS ON OAKDALE WERE TO DEVELOP, THERE WOULD BE A STUB SO THAT THEY COULD GET OVER AT LEAST TO OAKDALE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT WAS IF THERE EVER WAS A REVISED PLAN THAT THAT CAME IN ON THOSE TWO SITES, THAT KIND OF STRADDLE OAKDALE, THEN, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY YOU COULD MAYBE LOOK AT A REALIGNMENT SO THAT THAT WOULD LINE UP WITH TH, WITH THE LIGHT. BUT, BUT, BUT THE CONCERNS IS, YOU KNOW, THEY DID TALK ABOUT THERE WAS ALREADY MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF POPLAR LEVEL ROAD THERE NEAR JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. AND THEN THE AND THEN THE TRAFFIC AND HOW THEY, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WOULD MANAGE TO MANEUVER IN AND OUT IF THEY NEEDED TO GO EAST ON POPLAR LEVEL ROAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THOSE WERE THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD ABOUT AT PLANNING COMMISSION. SAFETY IS THE BIG THING. COUNCIL MEMBER REED. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS FOR DOCTOR SHANKLIN. DO YOU HAVE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT THAT YOU COULD, I GUESS, GET IN WRITING FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT IN ORDER TO MAKE AN EDUCATED VOTE HERE? I MEAN, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC. I MEAN, IT'S A MESS ALL OVER THE CITY. PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE STATE ROADS. AND I UNDERSTAND JUST IN ASKING COUNCILWOMAN FLOOD ABOUT POPLAR LEVEL ROAD THAT IT IS A STATE ROAD. DO WE HAVE TIME HERE OR IS THIS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO VOTE ON TODAY? IT HAS TO COME OUT OF METRO COUNCIL. THE DEADLINE, I THINK, IS. HOLD ON HERE MARCH OR JANUARY 17TH. AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE A YOU'LL HAVE A ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING THE 1ST OF JANUARY, THEN YOUR NEXT MEETING IN JANUARY, I BELIEVE, IS THE 20TH OF JANUARY. SO BETWEEN NOW AND THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE, I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT YOU COME UP WITH SOME FINDINGS OF FACT AND TELLING YOU HOW TO DO YOUR JOB, BUT SO THAT WE CAN REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE. I HAVE TALKED TO THE MAJOR OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN MY AREA, AND SHE'S GOING TO HAVE SOME THINGS PUT TOGETHER THIS WEEK BECAUSE THE CORNER, LIKE I SAID, THE CORNER ITSELF IS VERY DANGEROUS. IT WOULD NOT BE DANGEROUS IF THE IF THE STOP I MEAN, THE STREETLIGHT WOULD BE ALIGNED WITH THE JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, BUT THEY'RE NOT. AND SO YOU HAVE TO CROSS ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE ONGOING TRAFFIC TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE WHERE JEFFERSON BOULEVARD IS. AND THIS IS CHRISTMAS TIME. AND EVERYBODY'S HEADED TO JEFFERSON MALL. AND IT'S A MESS RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER. AND IT'S RIGHT THERE ON EAST PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. IT'S AN EMPTY FIELD. HE DOESN'T KNOW IF IT'S IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY FOR APARTMENTS OR WHAT THAT PROPERTY IS BEING. THEIR PROPERTY HAS BEEN THERE ALL MY LIFE SINCE BACK IN. WELL, NOT ALL MY LIFE, BUT BACK EARLY 50S. GE OWNS ALL THAT OTHER PROPERTY, SO THAT'S JUST A GUESS THAT THEY MIGHT TURN AROUND AND MAKE APARTMENTS OVER THERE. BUT I DOUBT IF GE IS GOING TO SELL THAT PROPERTY. SO BUT I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY. THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS THE SAFETY. 20 APARTMENTS IS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL. IF YOU JUST PUT 20 INSTEAD OF 300, BUT IT'S REALLY A BIG DEAL WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE CROSSING THE ONGOING TRAFFIC TO GET TO THE STREET, ACROSS THE STREET. COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN. SO THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN AND SAY SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS ABOUT NEEDING HOUSING AND WANTING TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ALONG MAJOR COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARES AND THAT SORT OF THING. I'M KIND OF IN AGREEMENT WITH WITH COUNCILMAN REED. I MEAN, THIS WAS AN EIGHT ZERO VOTE BY THE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M GOING TO BE HARD PRESSED NOT TO VOTE FOR THIS UNLESS THERE'S SOME SERIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT THAT'S PRESENTED TO US BETWEEN BETWEEN NOW AND THE COUNCIL MEETING. I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO PASS IT OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY, BECAUSE IT MEETS SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE ME, I HAVE AND MANY OF US HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TWO YEARS I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL. SO I APPRECIATE DOCTOR SHANKLIN EXPRESSING HER CONCERNS. BUT IN ORDER TO OVERTURN AN EIGHT, NOTHING PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE AND FINDING THE FACT TO OVERTURN THAT. SO I'LL BE VOTING FOR IT TODAY. THANK YOU. ANY THANKS FOR YOUR CONCERNS. I'M APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS, BUT IT'S NOT THE

[00:45:04]

CONCERNS OF MY COMMUNITY. IT IS. SAFETY COMES FIRST IN OUR COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE, AND I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WHERE YOU LIVE, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT. IT MATTERS TO THE WHERE THE PEOPLE LIVE. MY CONSTITUENTS LIVE NOT HOW MANY EIGHT. 8 TO 0. THAT DOESN'T MATTER. THEY DON'T LIVE THERE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THAT WAY. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

YOU CAN OPEN UP. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER SHANKLIN. NO. COMMITTEE MEMBER RENA WEBBE.

VOTING IS CLOSING. WE'VE GOT NINE. EIGHT YES VOTES AND ONE NO VOTE. AND THAT WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I STATE THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO KRS 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE, A. MOTION.

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING AND FORM DISTRICT OF

[2. O-267-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING AND FORM DISTRICT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 13698 AIKEN ROAD AND PARCEL ID NO. 002307350000 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 44.8 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 22ZONE0090). Action Required By: January 27, 2025 **Council Member Anthony Piagentini (R-19) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

PROPERTIES LOCATED AT ONE, THREE, 698 AIKEN ROAD AND PARCEL ID. NUMBER 00232307350000, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 44.8 ACRES IN BEND, LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 22, ZONE 0090.

PROPERTY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. OKAY. THIS IS A PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 22 ZERO 90 FOR HOLLOWAY AND SON CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATEAT 1698 OAK AND AIKEN ROAD, LOCATED IN METRO COUNCIL DIRICT 19. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY USED FOR INDUSTRIAL IN THE FRONT, AND IT'S VANT THE AR. T ACAS PORTOFHEE RE DUAL SO THEY CAN USET E.HIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FRONT PART IS USED CURRENTLY. AND THEN THERE'S A CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY THAT THAT KIND OF DIVIDES THAT, THAT DEVELOPED PORTION FROM THE REAR PORTION THAT IS BACK THERE. KIND OF THIS, THIS KIND OF CLEARED MOWED AREA. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT LATER ON, THAT'S A LIKE A GAS AND ELECTRIC WIRE EASEMENT AREA. SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT STRIP THERE. AND THERE ARE NO TREES IN IT. SO THE EXISTING ZONING, THE BLUE PORTION UP HERE IS M2. AND THEN THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R4. IS LOCATED IN BOTH THE SUBURBAN WORKPLACE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE GREEN LINE THERE IS THE FORM DISTRICT LINE. AND SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO C M. SO THE M2 WOULD REMAIN. MOST OF THE R4 THAT YOU SEE ON HERE WOULD BE CHANGED TO CM, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING. AND THEN THAT STRIP OF LAND THAT YOU SAW, THAT IS THE GAS AND THE ELECTRIC WIRE EASEMENT THAT WOULD REMAIN R4. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FORM DISTRICT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUBURBAN WORKPLACE. SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU ARE THE CHANGE IN FORM DISTRICT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUBURBAN WORKPLACE, AS WELL AS THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 AND M2 TO R4, CM AND M2. THE SITE, AS YOU SAW, WAS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN THE M2 PART. MOST OF THE SITE IS R4.

THE STREAM THAT RUNS THROUGH THE SITE THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CHENOWITH RUN. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT CONTRACTORS SHOPS WITH POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ON THE ON THE SITE. SO THIS IS A COLORIZED VERSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AS PART OF THEIR TESTIMONY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. IS MUCH EASIER TO SEE THAN THE BLACK AND WHITE VERSION. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING AREA OUTLINED IN YELLOW. HERE IS THE EXISTING M2 AREA. THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED ON THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM IS THE AREA THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE TO CM. AND THEN THE AREA THAT IS SURROUNDED IN PURPLE, OUTLINED IN PURPLE HERE, WOULD REMAIN R4. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SERIES OF BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR CONTRACTOR SHOP USES. THESE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE

[00:50:03]

APPLICANT TO SHOW THE TYPE OF BUILDING THAT THEY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTING ON THE SITE. THESE ARE SOME SITE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE EXISTING ENTRANCE THAT GOES FROM AIKEN ROAD BACK INTO THE SITE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES YOU HAVE NON RESIDENTIAL ALONG AIKEN ROA. THERE'S SOME MORE. AND THEN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE EASEMENT AREA THAT YOU SAW THERE. THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE LAKE FOREST COMMUNITY THAT BACK UP TO THE THAT THAT EASEMENT AREA. THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON JUNE 7TH, 2022. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HAD A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT MEETINGS ON THIS ONE.

ONE ON JULY 27TH, THE OTHER ON AUGUST 22ND, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE DISTRICT ON OCTOBER 29TH, 2024. THE MOTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CHANGE IN FORM. DISTRICT, 1. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. IN CHAMBERS? YES. TERRIFIC. YEAH. THANK YOU, BRIAN, FOR A GREAT SUMMATION. YOU KNOW, LOOK, I'VE HAD PLENTY OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DIFFERENT DECISIONS. BUT I DO WANT TO CALL OUT THE TIMES WHEN THEY DO A REALLY GOOD AND THOROUGH JOB. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE FOR EXAMPLE, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A HUGE PUBLIC OUTCRY ON THIS, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IN A MOMENT. AND SO THEY DID A MEETING IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH WAS VERY HELPFUL, SO THAT MORE PEOPLE COULD ATTEND AND BE HEARD. AND THEN ULTIMATELY REACHING A DECISION HERE, WHICH I'LL BE ASKING FOR EVERYBODY'S SUPPORT TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL HERE. BASED ON THE FIVE ONE VOTE TO DENY BOTH MOTIONS SO AND THE REASON BEING AND YOU'LL ALL REMEMBER JUST A FEW SHORT YEARS AGO, THE COLLISION OF INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION RIGHT UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE FORM OF THE LAST TIME IT WAS A CONCRETE PLANT IN MY DISTRICT.

BUT THIS IS MORE OF THE SAME IN THAT WE ALREADY HAVE VERY, VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY IN THIS AIKEN ROAD CORRIDOR OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING. AND WE HAVE THESE, YOU KNOW, NOT VERY LARGE BUFFER ZONES. AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM THAT IS THEN BEING PROPOSED, OR AT LEAST PART OF IT WAS BEING PROPOSED TO MOVE TO INDUSTRIAL ZONING. MOVING IT RIGHT UP AGAINST THESE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID A VERY GOOD JOB HERE. I APPRECIATE THEIR WORK. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS.

AND I'LL ASK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL. THANK YOU. NO ONE ELSE IS IN IN THE QUEUE. DO WE HAVE A YES, COUNCILWOMAN, FOR CLARIFICATION. A YES IS TO UPHOLD THE VOTE.

YES. THE DENIAL. YES, A YES VOTE IS TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY TO VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER PIAGENTINI. YES. VOTING IS CLOSING. DO YOU NEED HELP LOGGING IN? CHAIR FLOOD, YOU HAVE NINE YES VOTES. NINE YES VOTES. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN. THANK YOU. ITEM

[3. O-268-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8300 COOPER CHAPEL ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 74.2 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 23ZONE0120). Action Required By: January 29, 2025 **Council Member Jeff Hudson (R-23) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

NUMBER THREE IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8300 COOPER CHAPEL ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 74.2 ACRES AND BEING LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 23, ZONE 0120. MOTION. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 23. ZONE 101 20 FOR 8300 COOPER CHAPEL ROAD. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS 8300 COOPER CHAPEL ROAD. LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 23. THE RED OUTLINE HERE, THE KIND OF WIDER LINE, IS AN OUTLINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON THAT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R4. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE IN ZONING. TO A COMBINATION OF R4, PRD

[00:55:05]

WHICH IS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THEN R6. YOU CAN SEE THE AREA IS YOU HAVE R4 AND THEN YOU DO HAVE SOME R5 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE COOPER CHAPEL, CEDAR CREEK ROAD. I LOVE NAME CHANGES THERE. MID MID DEVELOPMENT. THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4, R5, R6 AND PRD. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 74.2 ACRES LOCATED IN NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. IT IS ABOUT A MILE AND A QUARTER FROM THE GENE SNYDER FREEWAY.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS REQUESTING 60 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITHIN THE R4 PORTION. SO THAT PORTION WILL REMAIN R4. YOU'LL SEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HERE IN A MOMENT. THERE ARE SOME AREAS FOR PRD AGAIN, WHICH IS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 40 SEMI DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES ON ABOUT TWO ACRES.

AND THEN ON THE R6 PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ABOUT 29.6 ACRES, THEY ARE PROPOSING 408 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. THEY ARE PROVIDING SOME STUBS TO EXISTING OR CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STUBS THAT STUB INTO THE PROPERTY, PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL STUBS ON THE SITE.

AND THEN THEY HAVE RESERVED AREA FOR THE PROPOSED COOPER CHAPEL PROJECT, WHICH YOU'LL SEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOMENTARILY. ON THE R4 PORTION WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, THEY ARE UTILIZING THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL TRANSFER PORTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE SOME REDUCED LOT SIZES IN EXCHANGE FOR PRESERVING STEEP SLOPES. AND YOU'LL SEE THE AREAS THAT BACK UP TO THE CREEK AT THE REAR OF THE SITE. WHEN WE SHOW THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SO HERE'S THE COLORIZED VERSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. SO YOU CAN SEE THE COOPER CHAPEL WAY, WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF WAY, HAS ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED AS A STATE PROJECT. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES AND MULTIFAMILY THAT'S ON THE SITE. THE TWO POCKETS OF THE TOWNHOMES, ONE LOCATED HERE ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE SITE AND THEN THE AREA RIGHT HERE. THE KIND OF ORANGEY BROWN LOOKING BLOCKS ON THERE ARE THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

AND THEN THE REST IS SUBDIVIDED OUT FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THE AREA AT THE REAR OF THE OF THE OF THE EXISTING TRACT THAT WOULD BE PRESERVED IN OPEN SPACE, WHICH INCLUDES THE BUFFER AREAS THAT SURROUND THE CREEK AND SOME OF THE FLOODPLAINS THAT ARE IN THE WITHIN THAT THAT BOUNDARY.

THESE ELEVATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AS PART OF THEIR TESTIMONY TO SHOW WHAT THE MULTIFAMILY WOULD LOOK LIKE. THEY WOULD BE THREE STORY BUILDINGS. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE, WHICH WAS LOCATED NEAR THE COOPER CHAPEL SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE TO THE SOUTH. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY LOOKING IN FROM COOPER CHAPEL ROAD. THIS IS THE ONE OF THE STUBS THAT COMES FROM FANTASY TRAIL THAT STUBS INTO THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE LOCATION THERE. AND THEN THESE ARE SOME ADJACENT SITES. SOME OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT SURROUNDS THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ON MAY 17TH AND AUGUST 21ST, 2023. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON AUGUST 22ND, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING OUT IN THE DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT ON OCTOBER 22ND. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DID NOT HAVE A QUORUM THAT NIGHT. AND SO THE FINAL VOTE TOOK PLACE ON OCTOBER 31ST. 2024. AND THE MOTION AT THAT OCTOBER 31ST MEETING WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4, R5 AND R6 AND PRD THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 2. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. IF I CAN MAKE A QUICK NOTE, BRIAN TRAVIS, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. SO I REMEMBERED THIS BEING A I THOUGHT THIS WAS A THREE TWO SPLIT. I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE VIDEO. IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS LISTED BOTH AS A VOTE IN FAVOR AND AN ABSTENTION. SO I THINK THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE MINUTES. AND IT WAS A WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE VOTING TOTALS. YES. SO SHE'S LISTED BOTH UNDER THE YESES AND THE ABSTENTIONS. CURRENTLY, I WASN'T AT THAT VOTE. SO YEAH. YEAH. BUT JULIE IS SAYING THAT YES SHE DID. SHE DID ABSTAIN. SO YES, I WANT TO GET THAT CORRECTED. OKAY. SO FOR FULL COUNCIL IT WAS. NO. IT WAS 3 TO 2. TRAVIS, IF YOU HAVE IT LISTED AS THREE, TWO. WERE THERE. I'VE GOT SEVEN ATTENDEES. SO? SO THE

[01:00:05]

SO THE. SO THERE WAS A MOTION TO DENY. OKAY. AND THEN THAT THAT HAS HOWARD LISTED AS BOTH. YES.

AND ABSTAINING. BUT IT WOULD BE THREE TWO IF SHE DID ABSTAIN. AND THEN THERE WAS THE VARIANCE REQUEST OR. NO. THEN THERE WAS THE APPROVAL. SORRY. 2 TO 3 WAS THE DENIAL. AND THEN 3 TO 2 WAS THE APPROVAL VOTE. RIGHT. SORRY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WELL, 3 TO 2 AND A HALF. THIS YEAR. YOU KNOW, SO. MADAM CHAIR, MAY I. GO AHEAD. OKAY. I'M JUST MAKING SURE I'M LOOKING AT IT. RIGHT. I HAVE COMMISSIONER FISHER, MIMS, CARLSON, LOHAN AND HOWARD, AND THEN I HAVE WHERE IT HAS HOWARD.

ABSTAIN AND SO IS THAT. IT LOOKS LIKE CARLSON'S ALSO LISTED TWICE. SO CARLSON. CARLSON WAS A NO. CARLSON WAS LISTED TWICE. HE'S GOT YOU. OKAY, SO IT'S THREE 2 TO 1, RIGHT? CORRECT.

OKAY. 333. TWO AND ONE. OKAY. AND WE'LL GET BOTH OF THOSE CORRECTED IN THE MINUTES. THREE.

YES VOTES. TWO NO VOTES AND ONE ABSTENTION. IS IT ISN'T THIS THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS DENIED SOME TIME A COUPLE YEARS AGO? OR SO BECAUSE OF. SO WE YEAH, WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS FOR THIS SITE. THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR MULTIFAMILY THAT WAS DENIED. AND THEN THERE WAS A FOLLOW UP PROPOSAL AFTER THAT ONE THAT WOULD UTILIZE THE MR. D REGULATION THAT WAS APPROVED, BUT THEN THEY NEVER DID MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION ON THAT. MR. D PROPOSAL. MR. HUDSON, CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION BEFORE I TURN TO YOU? HAS THERE BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA AS FAR AS THE COOPER CHAPEL ROADWAY? I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE ON ONE OF THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF THINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THE ROADWAY IS FINISHED. I MEAN, IT'S A OTHER THAN THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE COOPER CHAPEL EXTENSION. YOU KNOW, REALIGNMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE HAVE BEEN ANY OTHER ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, CHANGES TO THE AREA TO THE ROADWAYS IN THE AREA. SO ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN, YES, THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED. IT SHOWS UP IN LOGIC. SO YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THAT WHERE IT PORTIONS OF THAT HAVE BEEN DEDICATED. BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE TIME FRAME FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THAT. THAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT GROWING UP IN THAT AREA, WE USED TO CALL IT THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD BECAUSE YOU NEVER REALLY PASSED ANOTHER SCHOOL BUS BACK IN THE DAY. I KNOW I'M 100 YEARS OLD, BUT YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY, YOU DIDN'T PASS ANOTHER SCHOOL BUS. NOW THERE'S TONS AND TONS OF SCHOOL BUSSES ON ON THAT ROADWAY. AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE IF YOU DRIVE ON THE UNIMPROVED PORTIONS, YOU KIND OF LIKE CLOSE YOUR EYES TO WHEN YOU'RE PASSING A SCHOOL BUS OR SOMETHING, HOPING YOU DON'T CLIP SOMETHING.

COUNCILMAN HUDSON. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO IN A MORE SUCCINCT WAY THAN I COULD HAVE. I WOULD JUST ADD TO WHAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA. THERE'S REALLY A COUPLE PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE TALKED ABOUT. THE ONE THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE, WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN ALREADY ACHIEVED, IS THE WIDENING OF BUELLER CHURCH ROAD AND THE EXTENSION OF BUELLER CHURCH ROAD. THERE'S ANOTHER PROJECT WHICH IS THE COOPER CHAPEL EXTENSION, THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS. SO IT HASN'T COMPLETELY BEEN ACQUIRED YET. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE'S REALLY A TIMELINE AND MILESTONE FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS. BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THAT CONNECTION OF THIS PIECE OF THIS PROPOSAL WITH THE PRIOR PROPOSAL IN 2021. FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT RECALL THAT ONE, A VERY SIMILAR PROPOSAL WAS BROUGHT IN 2021 TO METRO COUNCIL AND A VOTE WAS TAKEN BY AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION TO DENY THAT PROPOSAL. THE VOTE WAS 24 YES VOTES AND ONE PRESENT VOTE. MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND ON METRO COUNCIL AS A WHOLE WERE

[01:05:01]

AROUND THEN AND VOTED YES. AND THE PROPOSAL THAT IS BEING BROUGHT NOW IS VERY SIMILAR, NOT EXACT, BUT VERY SIMILAR. THE CONDITIONS OF THE ROADWAYS ARE VERY SIMILAR, IF NOT EXACT. AND SOME OF THE DEFENSE BACK THEN WAS WELL THE ROADS ARE COMING AND THE DEFENSE NOW IS THE ROADS ARE COMING. IT'S THREE YEARS LATER. I MAY BE ALONE IN THIS OPINION, BUT MY OPINION OF THE KENTUCKY STATE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. IT MAY BE A LITTLE DIM IN THAT UNTIL I SEE IT, I'M NOT EXACTLY GOING TO BELIEVE IT. SO I'M NOT INCLINED TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON A SPECIFIC DATE OR A SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC TIMELINE, BUT JUMPING FORWARD TO TODAY, I HAVE A PROPOSAL, AN ORDINANCE THAT MADAM CLERK COULD YOU TELL ME IF IT ACTUALLY MADE IT INTO THE FILE OR NOT? WE IT DID MAKE IT INTO THE FILE, LIKE AFTER THE MEETING STARTED. SO YOU'D HAVE TO REFRESH YOUR SCREEN. BUT ALSO I THINK TRAVIS IS PREPARED TO SPEAK TO IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. THERE WAS OR JUST PRIOR TO THE MEETING THERE IS SOME CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING ABOUT A BINDING ELEMENT THAT MAY ADDRESS SOME OF THE NONCONFORMANCE ISSUES THAT ARE IN THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION THAT I'M PROPOSING TODAY THAT TRIED TO ADDRESS SOME OF SOME OF THAT NONCONFORMANCE. MY COMMITMENT TO THIS BODY IS THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH AN OPEN MIND TO SEE IF SOME COMPROMISE CAN BE ACHIEVED THERE. BUT WHERE I'M SITTING TODAY IS TO ASK FOR SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION TO OVERTURN THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE AND BE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS. MAYBE THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME. ALSO, TO LET TRAVIS READ IN FINDINGS OF FACT TO FOR US. GO AHEAD, MR. BAKER. COUNCILMAN BAKER AND THEN WE'LL IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL MOVE ON TO SEE WHAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE. OKAY. AND MAYBE I'M RUNNING AHEAD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST AM TRYING TO SORT OUT THE BREVITY OF ISSUES. I'M LOOKING THROUGH THIS. I KNOW THE ROAD. YOU'RE SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. I GUESS, TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS, BE WIDENED. OKAY.

BECAUSE I WAS I WAS LOOKING AT IT AND IT JUST I'LL WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACT BEFORE I MAKE ANY STATEMENT. COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? OKAY. TRAVIS FEASTER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SINCE IT IS ON THE SYSTEM, I WILL SKIP THE SORT OF FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS WHICH ARE BASICALLY JUST LAYING OUT THAT THE MEETING WAS HELD. THE COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING, ETC, AND WE'LL GET INTO THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS STARTING AT THE FOURTH. WHEREAS CLAUSE. WHEREAS THE COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY REJECTED A REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 29.69 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY TO R6 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL VIA ORDINANCE NUMBER 56, SERIES 2021. AND WHEREAS THE CURRENT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE REJECTED 2021 PROPOSAL, WITH 408 UNITS PROPOSED ON APPROXIMATELY THE SITE WHERE 432 UNITS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROPOSED IN BUILDINGS WITH SIMILAR TOTAL FOOTPRINT HEIGHT AND RESULTING IN SIMILAR DENSITY 14.78 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IN 2021, 13.97 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE NOW. AND WHEREAS, WHILE THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES EXPECTED IN THE AREA, NOTABLY THE APPROVAL OF A KROGER AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 6803 BEULAH CHURCH ROAD AND ROAD, IMPROVEMENTS TO COOPER CHAPEL ROAD, BEULAH CHURCH ROAD AND CEDAR CREEK ROAD. NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, AND IT MAY BE YEARS UNTIL ALL ARE COMPLETED. AND WHEREAS UNTIL THESE CHANGES ARE ACTUALLY COMPLETED, THE CONDITIONS IN THE AREA REMAIN SIMILAR TO THOSE WHICH JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE SIMILAR REZONING REQUEST IN 2021. AND WHEREAS, EVEN IF THESE PROJECTS ARE EVENTUALLY COMPLETED, THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS EMPHASIZED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FURTHER DETAILED BELOW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE NEED FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT, PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY AND MEDICAL SERVICES, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE EVALUATED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE. AND WHEREAS, DURING DELIBERATIONS, SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS EXPRESSED VARIOUS CONCERNS WITH REZONING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING DOING SO BASED ON SPECULATIVE DATES FOR MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PARTIALLY USED TO JUSTIFY THE PROJECT, LEADING TO A SPLIT VOTE WITH THREE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, TWO AGAINST AND ONE ABSTENTION. AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT GOAL, ONE COMMUNITY FORUM, SUBSECTION SEVEN LOCATE HIGHER DENSITY AND INTENSITY USES NEAR MAJOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS. EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN OR NEAR ACTIVITY

[01:10:01]

CENTERS AND OTHER AREAS WHERE DEMAND AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS OR IS PLANNED. IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED ALONG A MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDOR, BUT INSTEAD LOCATED BETWEEN TWO ARTERIALS AT A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM EITHER. NOR IS IT NEAR AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER OR AN ACTIVITY CENTER, WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED OR FUNCTIONING. NOR IS THERE SUFFICIENT EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT. GOAL TWO MOBILITY. SUBSECTION FOUR AVOID ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT THROUGH AREAS OF SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER INTENSITY OR DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. IF SUCH AREA ACCESS WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT NUISANCES, IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE WHILE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES ATTEMPT TO PLACE A SINGLE FAMILY BUFFER BETWEEN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE MULTIFAMILY INTERIOR, THE ENTIRE SITE IS STILL AT A DENSITY AND INTENSITY WHICH FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH INCLUDES MUCH LOWER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND USES, INCLUDING FARMLAND, AND WOULD MAKE CONNECTIONS TO SUCH ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT GOAL THREE MOBILITY. SUBSECTION TWO TO IMPROVE MOBILITY AND REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND CONGESTION, ENCOURAGE A MIXTURE OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES THAT ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE BY BIKE, CAR, TRANSIT, PEDESTRIANS, AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. HOUSING SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED NEAR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS THAT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THERE IS NO SAFE, CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE OR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS FROM THE SITE TO EITHER OF THE MAJOR ARTERIALS. IT IS SITUATED BETWEEN. NOR IS IT NEAR AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM WITH LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT GOAL ONE HOUSING SUBSECTION TWO PROMOTE HOUSING OPTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS THAT SUPPORT AGING IN PLACE. ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR OLDER ADULTS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TO BE LOCATED CLOSE TO SHOPPING AND TRANSIT ROUTES, AND WHEN POSSIBLE, MEDICAL AND OTHER SUPPORTIVE FACILITIES. IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE INTENSE MULTIFAMILY PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY UNITS DEDICATED FOR SENIOR HOUSING OR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, AND IS LOCATED FAR FROM SHOPPING, MEDICAL AND OTHER SUPPORTIVE FACILITIES. AND WHEREAS THE PRD PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL ONLY MAKE SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LARGER PLAN AND A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE PROPOSED R-6 AND THE SURROUNDING R4, LEAVING ISOLATED POCKETS OF HIGHER DENSITY PRD SURROUNDED BY R4 WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WHEREAS FOR THESE REASONS THE PROPERTY SHOULD REMAIN ZONED R4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, WILL JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT AS FOLLOWS. SECTION ONE. THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8300 COOPER CHAPEL ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 74.2 ACRES AND BEING A LOCAL METRO AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE CASE NUMBER 23, ZONE 0120 SHALL REMAIN ARE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THAT CASE IS REJECTED. SECTION TWO THAT THE ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL. AND I SHOULD ADD OR OTHERWISE BECOMING LAW THERE, I APOLOGIZE. I ADMITTED OUR PHRASE. I WILL GET THAT IN THE DRAFT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING BACK TO THE SCREEN. HOLD ON ONE SECOND TO SEE WHO'S IN SPEAKER. COUNCIL MEMBER. OWEN. THANK YOU. CHAIR. SO I'M TRYING TO KIND OF, IN MY OWN MIND, WORK OUT WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. SO THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION IS BASICALLY PROVIDING THE CONTEXT FOR WHY WE WOULD BE WHY WOULD WE BE DENYING THE ZONING CHANGE? IS THAT WHY WE DO THAT RATHER THAN JUST VOTING NO ON THE ORIGINAL ZONING CHANGE? CORRECT. SO UNDER KENTUCKY LAW, YOU CAN'T JUST VOTE NO AGAINST THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. I MEAN, YOU CAN, BUT IT WON'T BE EFFECTIVE. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT JUSTIFY OVERTURNING THE PLAN. SO THIS IS THE CONTEXT, THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO WHY WE'RE DOING THAT.

AND THEN SO IT HAS THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING GOING FORWARD. SO IF WE DO THIS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THIS. AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT OR CHANGE HOW THE WHEN THE APPLICANT CAN REAPPLY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S STANDARD NO MATTER HOW WE. SO IF A ZONING PROPOSAL IS DENIED, THE TWO YEAR RULE DOES COME INTO EFFECT. AND SO THEY CAN REAPPLY FOR THE SAME PROPOSAL WITHIN TWO YEARS. THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS THERE. ONE IS IF IT'S A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT PLAN. SO LET'S IMAGINE THEY PROPOSED C-2 ON THIS SITE. WELL, THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MIGHT DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR THAT. OR IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE AREA, FOR EXAMPLE, THREE MAJOR ROADWAYS BEING COMPLETED. SO ONE OF THOSE MIGHT JUSTIFY THAT TWO YEAR CLOCK BEING ACCELERATED. BUT OTHERWISE THE DENIAL WOULD PUT A TWO YEAR PAUSE GENERALLY ON ON THE SAME KIND OF PLAN COMING FORWARD. THANKS. JUST TRAVIS, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT RECEIVE ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY INTO COOPER CHAPEL ROAD WAS TOTALLY COMPLETE. THIS AT THIS PHASE THAT WOULD WOULDN'T THAT BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE SO THAT THAT THE TWO YEAR RULE IS REALLY IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DISCRETION? I DON'T THINK NECESSARILY THAT THE ADDITION OF A BINDING ELEMENT

[01:15:04]

REGARDING, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION TIMING WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SAY BECAUSE, WELL, I IMAGINE THE ARGUMENT WOULD GO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL IT'S DONE ANYWAY, LET'S JUST WAIT TILL IT'S DONE AND THEN YOU ALL CAN COME FORWARD AND SAY IT'S DONE. AND THAT'S A BETTER REASON THAN PUTTING A BINDING ELEMENT ON IT TO THEN CIRCUMVENT THE TWO YEAR RULE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT BUT ULTIMATELY IT WOULD BE IN THEIR DISCRETION ON HOW THEY WANTED TO HANDLE THAT AND KIND OF FOLLOW UP. YES. AND WAS WAS THAT THE KIND OF THE. YOU TALKED ABOUT DISCUSSIONS OF A OF A BINDING ELEMENT. WAS THAT THE KIND OF BINDING ELEMENT THAT YOU WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, SOME KIND OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING REQUIRED PRIOR TO MOVING FORWARD? I MEAN, PRIOR TO PRIOR THE ROAD COMPLETIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEING PREREQUISITE TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT OR SOMETHING.

IS THAT THE KIND OF CONVERSATION YOU WERE HAVING? MAY I ANSWER? YES. AND I OFFER MY APOLOGIES FOR THE TIMING OF THIS. SINCE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON OCTOBER 31ST, WE FALL INTO THE 90 DAY DEADLINE. SO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT NEXT THURSDAY. AND IT HAS ACCELERATED ALL THE CONVERSATIONS. SO JUST ON THE DRIVE OVER HERE THIS AFTERNOON OR THIS MORNING, I WAS I WAS PRESENTED WITH A AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE PUT A BINDING ELEMENT IN THAT COULD ADDRESS ONE OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND IT'S TOO SHORT OF A TIME TO JUST COMPLETELY REVERSE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN MOTION RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHY I OFFERED THE COMMITMENT TO CONSIDER IT WITH AN OPEN MIND UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WHEN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. IF I HAD TO GIVE AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BINDING ELEMENT WOULD SATISFY ALL FOUR OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. BUT LIKE I SAID, I'M GOING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND ABOUT IT. OKAY. HELPFUL.

THANK YOU. YEP. THAT. I DID THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE HAVING, COUNCILMAN BAKER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MAY I DIRECT? JUST. WELL, I GUESS I CAN'T REALLY DIRECT THE QUESTION TO HIM, BUT WITH THE. IT'S A POSITIVE QUESTION. SO I'M NOT COMING FOR YOU. WOULD YOU? BECAUSE I HEARD YOU SAY YOU NEED THE TIME. WOULD YOU CONSIDER US PASSING IT THROUGH COMMITTEE WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION? I CAN'T BECAUSE. MADAM CHAIR. OH, OKAY. NO. OKAY. I JUST WE'RE WE'RE UP AGAINST A HARD DEADLINE. WELL, IF YOU PASS IT THROUGH THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATION, WOULD IT STILL BE VOTED AT THE GENERAL COUNCIL TO GIVE THE TIME? ACTUALLY. I'M SORRY, THIS IS SONYA. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY WANT TO VOTE THE. AT LEAST THE CURRENT VERSION THROUGH WITH A RECOMMENDATION, IF POSSIBLE. AND THEN YOU COULD AMEND IT LATER AT THE COUNCIL TO OVERTURN IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE AS WELL. YEAH, WE CAN. IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD MUDDY THE WATERS. I THINK THE CLEANEST WAY GOING FORWARD IS WITH THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION. THAT MIGHT BE THAT MIGHT BE THE CLEANER VERSION. AND IF THEY CLEANEST WAY AND IF THEY COME TO SOME AGREEMENT THAT'S AMENABLE TO THE PARTIES, THEN WE CAN ALWAYS REVERSE THE DECISION. BECAUSE IF THAT GOT VOTED DOWN, IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AT THAT POINT. COULDN'T WE ADD BINDING ELEMENTS AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL? YES WE COULD. I MEAN, PROCEDURALLY, WE CAN END UP IN THE SAME PLACE REGARDLESS OF WHERE WE START. BUT IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO AVOID HAVING TO READ IN ALL THOSE PARAGRAPHS TO GET A FULL COUNCIL. IT MIGHT BE SIMPLER. THANK YOU. SO THEN WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION IN A SECOND MOTION. SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. I. I. THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE. THE AMENDMENT BY THE SUBSTITUTION IS NOW BEFORE US.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION BEFORE WE GO FORWARD? SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY TO VOTE. AND THIS IS AN AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION TO DENY, TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 3 TO 2 VOTE, THREE TO 2 TO 1. MADAM CHAIR, AM I ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THIS? I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. THIS IS MY DISTRICT. YES, MEMBER. BAKER.

THANK YOU, VICE PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. HUDSON. YE. CHAIR. YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES

[01:20:14]

AND ONE PRESENT, AND IT WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN HUDSON, I THINK YOU HAVE ANOTHER LEGISLATION COMING UP, TOO. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

MAYBE NOT. NOPE. SORRY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR. AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING OF

[4. O-269-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 8107-8119 MINOR LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 97 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0110). Action Required By: January 29, 2025 **Council Member Dan Seum (R-13) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 8107 THROUGH 8119 MINOR LANE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 97 ACRES AND BEING LOUISVILLE METRO LOUISVILLE, LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24. ZONE 0110.

MOTION TO APPROVE. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS 24 ZONE 0110 FOR C5 CENTER AT STANFORD FIELD. THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE 8107 81, 1181, 1381 17 AND 8201 MINER LANE. AND THEN SHADOWWOOD AVENUE. THIS IS LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 13. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS OUTLINED IN THE HEAVIER RED HERE. IT IS CURRENTLY COMBINATION YOU HAVE VACANT ON SOME OF THE POOREST PORTION OF THE SITE, BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAVE SOME EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOCATED ALONG SHADES WOOD. RIGHT HERE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE AREA. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMBINATION OF R4 AND R2 RIGHT UP ON MINER LANE. AND THEN THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C2. LOCATED IN THE SUBURBAN WORKPLACE FORUM DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO EASY ONE. SO THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R4 OR R2, R2 AND C2 TO EASY ONE ON 97 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EASY ONE TO ALLOW THE FOUR BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED, TOTALING ONE POINT 2,000,000FT■!S, PRIMARILY PRIMAY ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE THROUGH MINOR LANE. AND THEN IT'S, AS YOU SAW ON THE MAP, IS ADJACENT TO I-65. AND THEN I-265. THERE IS A MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY ON THE SITE WHICH WILL BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO FROM 1997 THAT HAS THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED HERE. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THIS THIS AREA. YOU CAN SEE THE TRANSFORMATION THAT'S UNDERGONE OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. SO IT USED TO HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. MANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH, YOU KNOW, BY THE AIRPORT BECAUSE OF THE AIRPORT NOISE. AND SO THIS IS AN AERIAL FROM 2019. SO YOU CAN SEE HOW, YOU KNOW, MUCH OF THE AREA HAS TRANSFORMED INTO AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE THE THREE LARGER BUILDINGS AND THEN ONE SMALLER BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED ON TRACK FOUR. MINOR LANE IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE PLAN.

SO THERE'LL BE AN ACCESS THAT COMES OFF MINOR LANE AND COMES BACK AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO ALL THE VARIOUS BUILDINGS. THIS IS A BUILDING ELEVATION THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. THESE ARE JUST SOME PICTURES LOOKING FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW.

LOOKING INTO THE SITE. THIS IS ADJACENT PROPERTY. MORE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 26TH. AS RECENTLY AS AUGUST 26TH, 2024. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2024. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON OCTOBER 31ST, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4, OH, R2 AND C2 TO S ONE THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0, AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. COUNCILMAN SAM. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. I'M ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, AND I'M GOING TO VOTE A RELUCTANT YES.

AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN MY RELUCTANCE. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AT LEAST TRYING TO HELP THESE FOLKS GET A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO MOVE ON. AND I'M, I'M REMINDED OF COUNCILMAN ARTHUR'S DISPLACEMENT RESOLUTION HE'S WORKING ON. AND I'VE LEARNED TO EMPATHIZE, EMPATHIZE MORE WITH IT BECAUSE THESE FOLKS ARE DEFINITELY BEING DISPLACED. IT'S AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING DISPLACED. I WANT TO SAY I'M SORRY TO THESE FOLKS BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE LATINO. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUT OUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO AFFORD AN APARTMENT THAT THEY SAY THEY GAVE A NUMBER OF $1,200

[01:25:10]

FOR THE COST OF A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT. THERE IS NO WAY YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT FOR $1,200 IN MY DISTRICT. A ONE BEDROOM COST MORE THAN THAT. SO I AM SO SORRY FOR THESE FOLKS. BUT IF I DON'T VOTE YES AND IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HADN'T HAVE WORKED ON THESE FOLKS, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOT A DIME. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET $6,000 TO MOVE THEIR TRAILER. IF IT WILL MOVE THE TRAILER SOME. IT COST 10,000. MOST OF THESE FOLKS ARE LATINO. THEY CAN'T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE SET OUT. AND I GUARANTEE YOU WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HOMELESS POPULATION COME OUT OF THIS COMMUNITY. BUT I AM A RELUCTANT.

YES, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T GET A DIME. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AT LEAST FIGHTING TO GET THAT MUCH FOR THEM. BUT AGAIN, I'M A RELUCTANT YES.

THANK YOU. HOW MANY UNITS ARE THERE AT THE TRAILER PARK? DO YOU KNOW? JUST. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T COUNT THEM. I MEANT TO GET A NUMBER. DO YOU KNOW. DO WE KNOW? LIKE HOW THEY DIDN'T? YEAH. 5056 UNITS, 56, 56 UNITS. OKAY. I THINK TRAVIS IS LOOKING UP SOMETHING FOR ME, SO I'LL MOVE TO COUNCILMAN REED. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR. SO, COUNCILMAN SAM JUST MENTIONED THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE AT $6,000, BUT THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR IT ACTUALLY COSTING MORE. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THERE ANY SORT OF MECHANISM TO REIMBURSE THEM IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A COST INCREASE? FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, COUNCILMAN REED, IF I'M ALLOWED TO ANSWER THAT CHAIR, IS THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE 6000 AND THAT'S IT. IF WE DON'T IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY COULD THEY'RE GOING TO BACK OFF AND NOT GIVE THEM ANYTHING. SO AND SO IF IT COSTS $9,000 THEN THEY GOT THAT'S JUST THEIR TOUGH LUCK RIGHT. AND THE 2400 THAT THEY'RE GIVING, IF THEY DON'T HAVE A TRAILER TO MOVE, THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM 2400 TO COVER THE FIRST MONTH AND LAST MONTH OF THEIR LEASE, IF THEY CAN FIND AN APARTMENT THAT CHEAP, THEY'RE NOT OUT THERE LIKE THAT. AND I JUST I HURT FOR THESE FOLKS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO FIND A HOME AFTER THIS BIG COMPANY HAS COME IN AND BOUGHT THEM OUT AND THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT. NOTHING I GET TO DO ABOUT IT, BUT VOTE YES ON THIS BILL JUST TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO HELP THEM OUT. BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE TO THINK ABOUT. WE CAN'T DO IT NOW, OBVIOUSLY. IS THAT MAYBE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS LIKE WHEN THE STATE BUYS PROPERTY, DISPLACES PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES? THERE'S A FORMULA THAT THEY USE, BUT IT COVERS NOT JUST ONE. IT COVERS THE ENTIRE FAMILY LIKE IF YOU HAVE THREE KIDS OR ONE KID, YOU KNOW THERE'S A FORMULA THAT THEY GET. IT'S BASED ON HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU HAVE, HOW MANY IN THE FAMILY, AND THE AGE OF YOUR YOUR PROPERTY. I GOT TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE PROCESS, TOO. WHEN I LOOKED AT AT THE FINDINGS AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THERE WAS THREE PEOPLE. TWO COME FROM SOME OTHER COUNTY, NOT EVEN AROUND HERE.

THERE WERE 13 IN OPPOSITION. AND WHEN THOSE 13 SPOKE, THERE WAS A REBUTTAL. THERE WAS NO REBUTTAL THAT WAS AFFORDED TO THESE PEOPLE. WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE THAT WERE PROPOSING THIS. AND I JUST I HATE THIS PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE PUBLIC SAY. AND THESE POOR FOLKS ARE EVERY ONE OF THEM WERE LATINO AND HAD TO HAVE PEOPLE INTERPRET FOR THEM. SO I'M REALLY I HATE THIS PROCESS. I HATE WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THESE PEOPLE, BUT I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE YES FOR THEM. AND I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL. BUT IT'S TERRIBLE. IT'S LIKE HAVING A GUN TO YOUR HEAD TO FOR THIS VOTE. AND THESE POOR FOLKS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A HOME SOMEWHERE WITH MINIMAL MONEY TO DO IT WITH. AND I IT BREAKS MY HEART, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. AND COUNCILMAN SAM, MAYBE YOU AND I CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT MAYBE FINDING OTHER HELP FOR THESE PEOPLE. WELL, WE THERE'S A TRAILER COURT RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT'S TRYING TO ABSORB SOME OF THEM, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO GET BOUGHT OUT EVENTUALLY, TOO. AND WE KNOW THAT. AND WHAT'S REALLY BAD IS THE AIRPORT COME IN AND BOUGHT OUT EVERY MINOR LANE HEIGHTS AND ALL THEM OTHERS AND LEFT THEM TO COMMUNITIES TO, TO,

[01:30:03]

TO, TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES. AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING, YOU GOTTA GO AND HERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO DO IT, AND WE KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO COVER THE EXPENSES FOR THESE POOR FOLKS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, COMMENTS? NO ONE IS IN THE QUEU. GO AHEAD TRAVIS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO CHAIR FLOOD HAD ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THE RECORD AND SEE WHETHER THE HOUSING COUNSELOR, WHICH IS BEING REQUIRED BY BINDING ELEMENT SIX AMONGST OTHER THINGS, IS BILINGUAL OR NOT. I KNEW THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SENT OUT NOTICES IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH, BUT THEY THE APPLICANT INDICATED THEY CAN PROVIDE A TRANSLATOR WHERE NEEDED. I DON'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IMMEDIATELY, I DON'T KNOW AND THERE'S A LOT OF SUBSECTIONS OF THIS BINDING ELEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WOULD FIT BEST. SO I CAN WORK WITH THEM BEFORE COUNCIL TO GET THAT SORT OF FINALIZED. BUT LIKE I SAID, THEIR NOTICES WERE IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH. I THINK THEY'RE THEY'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SERVICES ARE COMMUNICATED.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER LANGUAGE THAT IS NEEDED. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE IS NOT UNDULY SET OUT BECAUSE THERE'S A LANGUAGE BARRIER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THEM. COUNCILMAN WEBER NO, I JUST WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR THE ATTENTION TO THE HUMAN IMPACT OF THIS. IT IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE FOR US AS A COMMUNITY TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BE COMPASSIONATE AND THOUGHTFUL AROUND THE IMPACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON THE VERY REAL HUMANS, PARTICULARLY THE MOST VULNERABLE HUMANS. I MEAN, THERE'S NO EXCUSE IN THIS DAY AND AGE IN WHICH CHATBOT CAN TRANSLATE EVERY FORM FOR NOT WRAPPING AROUND THESE HUMANS WITH EVERY POSSIBLE RESOURCE THAT WE CAN GIVE TO THEM TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE GROWTH THAT WE WANT. I MEAN, THAT'S SO I AND I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY ABOUT THE PROCESS HERE. THE IDEA THAT THE APPLICANT GETS A REBUTTAL AND THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE. SO I'D LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON HOW WE CHANGE THAT PROCESS, BOTH OF THOSE PROCESSES. AND I LOVE THE IDEA OF US FIGURING OUT SOME KIND OF SYSTEM BY SAYING, LISTEN, IF YOU GET DISPLACED, HERE'S ALL THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO THAT TO MITIGATE THAT, BECAUSE WE NEED THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S NO REASON THAT THAT HAS TO COME ON THE BACKS OF THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I HAVE ONE MORE LEGAL QUESTION. I'M SORRY, IS THIS BECAUSE IT'S A CHANGE IN ZONING? IS THIS CONSIDERED GOVERNMENT ACTION? I KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN APPLICANT DOING THIS, BUT IS BUT BY US APPROVING THIS, IS THIS GOVERNMENT ACTION, I THINK IT'S GOING TO MATTER. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU MEAN? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY THIS COUNCIL ACTING IS ACTION. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD QUALIFY. I'D HAVE TO REREAD THE ORDINANCE. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD QUALIFY AS SORT OF METRO SUPPORT UNDER THE DISLOCATED PERSONS ORDINANCE, BUT I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK ALL THE SUBCATEGORIES THERE. I KNOW THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LETTERS OF SUPPORT, FINANCIAL SUPPORT. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE ARE IN PLACE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE.

CHERYL. COUNCILMEMBER STEIN YES. CHAIR FLOATS EIGHT YES VOTES IN ONE ONE. NO. THANK YOU, CHERYL.

AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WITH A POSSIBLE BINDING ELEMENT.

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT

[5. O-270-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4206 TAYLOR BLVD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1645 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0082). Action Required By: January 29, 2025 Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

4206 TAYLOR BOULEVARD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1645 ACRES AND BEING A LOCAL METRO CASE NUMBER 2024, ZONE 0082. MOTION PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY.

THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24, ZONE 0082 FOR SAMUELS COLLISION CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4206 TAYLOR BOULEVARD. IT'S LOCATED IN METRO COUNCIL, COUNCIL DISTRICT 15. THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE. SO THE EXISTING COLLISION CENTERS HERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR BOULEVARD AND BLUEGRASS AVENUE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY HAVE CARS PARKED BEHIND THE BUILDING ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. IT'S CURRENTLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL.

THEY'RE PROPOSING COMMERCIAL. THE SITE IS ZONED R7. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO C2 TO MATCH THE PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE CORNER. SO THE REQUEST IS CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R7 MULTIFAMILY TO C2 COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SERVICE REPAIR SHOP TO

[01:35:06]

UTILIZE THE EXISTING LOT FOR STORAGE WHILE CONDUCTING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE AUTOMOBILES. IT'S A LITTLE OVER BETWEEN A 10TH AND 2/10 OF AN ACRE. ACCESS TO THE LOT WILL BE FROM THE ADJACENT ALLEYWAY ALLEYWAY THAT RUNS TO THE REAR OF THE SITE, AND THEN THEY HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THE ASPHALT DRIVE THAT THAT CONNECTED THIS PROPERTY TO TAYLOR BOULEVARD, SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A DIRECT ACCESS FROM TAYLOR BOULEVARD ONTO THE PROPERTY. YOU'D HAVE TO ACCESS IT THROUGH THE ALLEY OR FROM THE WELL, THE ALLEY THAT YOU SEE RIGHT THERE. SO THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING WITH THE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THIS IS A PHOTO LOOKING FROM TAYLOR BOULEVARD TO THE SITE. SO YOU SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT. AND THEN YOU SEE THE PARCEL WHICH IS RIGHT HERE WITH THE FENCE AND THE CARS THAT ARE PARKED THERE. THIS IS A PHOTO FROM THE ALLEY LOOKING INTO THE SITE. SO AGAIN ACCESS WOULD HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FROM TAYLOR BOULEVARD. YOU'LL ONLY BE ABLE TO ACCESS THIS PARTICULAR LOT FROM THE ALLEY. THESE ARE SOME OF THE ADJACENT SITES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS CONDUCTED BY THE APPLICANT ON JUNE 26TH, 2024. LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WAS ON OCTOBER 10TH, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON OCTOBER 31ST, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R7 TO C2 THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN CHAPPELL. THIS ONE MIGHT BE THE EASIEST ONE WE HAVE TODAY, SO I'M GOING TO BE ASKING Y'ALL FOR A YES VOTE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY TO VOT. COUNTY CHAIR, YOU HAD EIGHT YES VOTES. EIGHT. YES VOTES. AND IT WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING ON

[6. O-271-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 WEST JEFFERSON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.41 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0090). Action Required By: February 5, 2025 **Council Member Jecorey Arthur (I-4) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

TO ITEM NUMBER SIX IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.41 ACRES AND BEING THE LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0090. THE SECOND PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24 0090 FOR WEST JEFFERSON APARTMENTS. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED AT 2100 WEST JEFFERSON STREET. THIS IS METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST JEFFERSON STREET AND DOCTOR W.J. HODGE STREET. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE.

THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THEY ARE PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE SITE. THIS IS A AREA MAP THAT SHOWS THE ZONING. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED R6. THEY ARE REQUESTING R7, SO GOING UP 11 DEGREES IF YOU WOULD. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A MIX OF R6 AND YOU HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING. ALL THE HAVE FRONTAGE ON WEST JEFFERSON STREET IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

SO THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R SIX TO R SEVEN ON 0.41 ACRES IS CURRENTLY ZONED R SIX AND IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE REZONING WOULD PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO GO FROM SEVEN UNITS TO NINE UNITS. SO THEY ARE PROPOSING NINE UNITS ON THE SITE. THERE WOULD BE A THREE STORY MODULAR MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE, WHICH YOU'LL SEE IN AN EXHIBIT IN A MOMENT. AND THEN THEY ARE PROVIDING SOME OFF STREET PARKING TO THE REAR OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE THREE STORY STRUCTURES WITH A TOTAL OF NINE UNITS BUILT TO THE CORNER OF WEST JEFFERSON AND DOCTOR W.J. HODGE STREET, WITH PARKING COMING OFF OF THE ALLEY WHICH IS TO THE REAR OF THE SIT. THESE ARE SOME RENDERINGS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO SHOW WHAT THE STRUCTURES WOULD LOOK LIKE. THIS IS AN EXISTING GOOGLE STREET VIEW PHOTO OF THE INTERSECTION, SO YOU CAN SEE THE SITE RIGHT HERE. THIS VACANT PARCEL. THESE ARE SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON JULY 25TH, 2024. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024, AND THEIR MOTION WAS TO

[01:40:03]

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R6 TO R7 THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. LET'S HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, THANK YOU. I THINK THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE THE EASIEST ONE TODAY. NO DISRESPECT THOUGH, THERE'S BEEN A SIGN AT THIS CORNER THAT SAYS AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMING SOON. FOR WHAT SEEMS LIKE YEARS NOW. I'M GLAD TO SEE SOME PROGRESS ON IT. I'D LOVE TO BE AT IT AS A CO-SPONSOR, PLEASE VOTE YES. AND I WILL JUST ADD IF ANYBODY IF ANYONE HAS LIKE AN INTEREST OR QUESTIONS ABOUT MODULAR CONSTRUCTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS DURING THIS AND THE APPLICANT HAD A LOT OF EXHIBITS AND WENT THROUGH A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT HOW THESE ARE CONSTRUCTED AND THEN KIND OF PUT TOGETHER ON SITE. AND SO THIS WOULD BE ONE, IF THAT IS OF INTEREST TO YOU TO GO BACK AND WATCH THAT PARTICULAR TESTIMONY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE SEEING NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER ARTHUR YES. YES.

EIGHT YES VOTES AND IT WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6805 BEULAH CHURCH ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.1

[7. O-272-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6805 BEULAH CHURCH ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.1 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24DDP0059). Action Required By: May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24), Markus Winkler (D-17)]

ACRES AND BEING A METRO CASE NUMBER 24 DDP 0059 MOTION SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY, THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24 DDP 0059 FOR BEULAH CROSSINGS TRACT EIGHT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6805 BEULAH CHURCH ROAD, LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT 23. IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT. THIS IS AN OLDER AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE THAT SHOWS THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS. THEY ARE PROPOSING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HERE ON THE SITE. IT IS ZONED C1 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS APPROVAL OF THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE BINDING ELEMENTS. AS STATED, THIS IS ZONED C-1. THEY'RE PROPOSING A RESTAURANT WITH A 6500 IN LIKE UNDER ROOF. AND THEN 2200FT■!S OF OUTDOOR RESTAURANT SPACE ON APPROXIMATELY 2.1 ACRES. THIS IS LOCATED AT ON BEULAH CHURCH ROAD, RIGHT AT THE GENE SNYDER FREEWAY. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE ZONING MAP, HERE. BUT LET'S SEE THE THIS IS THE OVERALL GENERAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY METRO COUNCIL UNDER DOCKET NUMBER 23, ZONE 30. YOU MAY RECALL THE TRACT WAS A KROGER. THERE'S I THINK THE KROGER GAS CENTER. WE'VE DONE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRACK THREE. HERE IS THE TRACT IN QUESTION TODAY. SO RIGHT UP HERE BY THE INTERSECTION WHERE ROCKY LANE COMES OUT ONTO BEULAH CHURCH ROAD, THERE WAS A BINDING ELEMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH THE GENERAL PLAN THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAD TO COME BACK TO METRO COUNCIL. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED PARKING THAT WILL ALL HAVE NO DIRECT ACCESS FROM BEULAH CHURCH ROAD WILL COME FROM THE PROPOSED STREET THAT IS PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED FOR THE RESTAURAN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024, AND THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE IN ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. COUNCILMAN HUDSON THANK YOU. CHAIR. YEAH, THIS IS COMING BEFORE US BECAUSE OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED. THERE'S A CHANGE TO THE PLAN, BUT ANOTHER REASON IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL OF LAND WAS OWNED BY A SEPARATE PERSON THAN THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S JUST A GAP IN THE TIMING OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. SO THERE'S THAT'S ANOTHER REASON IT'S COMING BEFORE US. BUT I SUPPORT IT COMPLETELY. AND I APPRECIATE A YES VOTE ON THIS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NO ONE IN THE QUEUE, WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE. I'M SORRY. STAFF, LOOK, YOU'VE GOT

[01:45:02]

SEVEN YES VOTES. THIS CAN'T GO TO CONSENT, CAN IT? YEP. YEAH. IT'S JUST A DEVELOPMENT PLAN OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO SEND IT TO CONSENT CALENDAR AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 150 OF THE LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES LMCO TO GIVE GREATER NOTICE OF THOSE AFFECTED BY DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. MOTION. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE

[8. O-259-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 150 OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) TO GIVE GREATER NOTICE TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. 11/12/24 Planning and Zoning Committee Held Action Required By: May 7, 2024 Sponsors: Jecorey Arthur (I-4) ]

READY FOR DISCUSSION. IS THIS SIMPLY GOING TO BE THE SPONSOR? ARE YOU RIGHT? I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT ON THIS. OKAY. COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, THANK YOU. SO MUCH. SO THE LEGISLATION IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE ADVANCE NOTICES FOR RESIDENTIALLY OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS. AND RIGHT NOW, THE PROCESS SHOWS THAT IF YOU WANT TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICES TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THAT NOTIFICATION IS A WEEK BEFORE THE WORK STARTS. SO NOT ONLY ARE YOU ONLY NOTIFYING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE ADJOINING TO THE SITE, BUT IT'S ALSO A WEEK WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR PEOPLE TO FIND HOUSING, SCHOOLS, JOBS, RELOCATE AS NEEDED. I KNOW SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIX MONTH NOTICE, SO AFTER TALKING WITH HOUSING NAVIGATORS AT THE SOUTH LOUISVILLE COMMUNITY MINISTRIES, WE FOUND OUT THAT IF ALL OF THE FACTORS ALIGN PERFECTLY, IF YOU HAVE A HOUSING NAVIGATOR, IF YOU HAVE ASSISTANCE, ENOUGH INCOME AND THERE'S HOUSING AVAILABLE, YOU CAN MOVE WITHIN THREE MONTHS. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD ASK SOMEONE ON THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THAT SIX MONTH REQUIREMENT TO THREE MONTHS, AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO LOWER THE REQUIREMENT FROM SIX MONTHS TO THREE MONTHS. SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THAT DATE TO. IS THAT WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS DOING? ARE WE MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE? THAT AMENDMENT WOULD JUST CHANGE TWO REFERENCES THAT ARE ON PAGE TWO THAT SAY SIX MONTHS, WHICH IS CHANGING THOSE TO THREE MONTHS? I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ALREADY THE LEGISLATIO. OH NO, NO, NO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE SIX MONTHS TO THREE MONTHS SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, I THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE HAVE THE AMENDED VERSION IN FRONT OF US. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO I COUNCILMAN WEBER, THANK YOU. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I THINK THE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMOLITION WAS, I GUESS, THE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THE PROBLEM HERE THAT WE ARE. WE ARE SEEING BUILDINGS BEING DEMOLISHED OR BEING MOVED TO BE DEMOLISHED WHILE THEY'RE OCCUPIED, AND WE'RE NOT NOTIFYING THE EXISTING RESIDENTS UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE THEY'RE BEING. THE BUILDINGS ARE BEING DEMOLISHED. WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGULATION AROUND WHEN THE NOTIFICATION ACTUALLY HAS TO GO OUT. AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF YOU WANT TO. SO WE DON'T KNOW. WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SITUATION ACTUALLY IN DISTRICT EIGHT, AND I STARTED WORKING ON THIS WITH FORMER COUNCILMAN CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG BECAUSE OF I THINK IT WAS THE YORKTOWN APARTMENTS WHERE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO RELOCATE, AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY FIGHTING TO GET FUNDING TO RELOCATE, TO ALSO TRY TO STOP THAT DEMOLITION. OF COURSE, THEY LOST THAT BATTLE, BUT THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY NOTIFY THE TENANTS AND THEN SOME INSTRUCTION ON HOW YOU NOTIFY THEM. I MEAN, WITH THE YORKTOWN, THERE WAS NO LIKE THERE'S A WEEK. AND THEN THEY WERE I MEAN, THIS IS A MONTHS LONG PROCESS AND I I'M JUST LIKE, I'M, I'M, I GET THE, THE IDEA AND WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF PEOPLE HAVING ENOUGH NOTICE.

I'M I'M JUST LIKE NEVER IN ALL THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN DOING HOUSING STUFF, I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM. AND SO I'M, I'M JUST A LITTLE I LIKE NOTICE OF EVICTION BECAUSE WE ARE PLANNING LONG TERM TO DEMOLISH A PROPERTY. TOTALLY. I'VE NEVER ONCE HEARD WE'RE GOING TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY WHILE SOMEBODY IS IN RESIDENCE, SO. BUT I'M OPEN TO THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THIS, BUT I THOUGHT THAT UNDER LANDLORD TENANT ACT

[01:50:03]

THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN IF THEIR TENANT 30 DAY NOTICE THAT THE THAT THEY'RE NOT RENEWING THE LEASE OR THAT THEY'RE. YEAH I THINK THERE ARE SOME BOUNDARIES ON THE LEASE AND LANDLORD TENANT COUNCIL GO AHEAD TRAVIS. SO THERE ARE CERTAINLY SOME LANDLORD TENANT PROVISIONS THAT DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, TERMINATION AND EVICTION, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS AND ALL OF THOSE PLAY IN HERE TO WHERE SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE NOTICE WHEN THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO LEAVE, WHERE THEY'RE A TENANT. RIGHT. AND SO IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THAT WOULD OCCUR IN THESE SITUATIONS.

BUT IF YOU'RE JUST TELLING SOMEONE YOU'RE NOT RENEWING THEIR MONTH TO MONTH LEASE, THAT MIGHT ONLY HAPPEN 30 DAYS BEFORE. SO THIS IS JUST ESTABLISHING A SORT OF LONGER MINIMUM PERIOD IF IT'S TIED TO A DEMOLITION. THE REASON THE DEMOLITION IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE HERE IS METRO HAS NO AUTHORITY. THE LANDLORD TENANT ACT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE. IT'S UNIVERSAL ACROSS THE STATE. WE CAN'T MEDDLE WITH ANY OF THAT. BUT THE DEMOLITION PROCESS IS NOT SO MUCH RELATED TO THE LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP AS IT IS TO, YOU KNOW, METRO OR APPROVING A BUILDING COMING DOWN. AND THIS IS A REASONABLE CONSIDERATION FOR METRO TO MAKE OF SOMEONE IN THIS BUILDING. IF SO, THEY SHOULD HAVE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TIME TO GET THEIR AFFAIRS IN ORDER. AND JUST TO AGAIN REPEAT MYSELF, THAT'S IN A PERFECT WORLD. IF THEY HAVE THE INCOME, IF THEY HAVE A HOUSING NAVIGATOR AND THE MEANS TO MOVE THREE MONTHS IS WHAT THE HOUSING NAVIGATOR IS, IS QUOTING. BUT OF COURSE IT COULD TAKE WAY LONGER THAN THAT. SO ORIGINALLY THAT SIX MONTHS WAS JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE TO MOVE. BUT IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, THREE MONTHS IS LOOKING LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE BARE MINIMUM THAT WE WANT TO MOVE TOWARDS. COUNCILMAN OWEN. YEAH. SO THAT THAT DOES CLEAR SOME STUFF UP FOR ME TOO, BECAUSE I WAS ALSO CONFUSED AND I THINK THAT THIS SITUATION ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS.

I MEAN, YORKTOWN IS A VERY, VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION. NORMALLY YOU DON'T MOVE TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING THAT'S FULL OF TENANTS THAT ARE PAYING RENT. THAT'S LIKE EXTREMELY UNUSUAL. I GENERALLY DON'T LOVE LEGISLATION THAT COMES ABOUT BECAUSE OF ONE INSTANCE ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THE HARM, SO I'LL PROBABLY VOTE FOR IT. BUT I THINK THE REASON I WAS CONFUSED AS WELL IS BECAUSE IT'S AN EXTREMELY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IT'S AN ORDINANCE CALLING FOR ROLL CALL VOTE.

CHERYL, WOULD YOU OPEN THE VOTING? VOTING IS OPEN. VOTING IS CLOSED. AND CHAIR FLETCHER FOR EIGHT YES VOTES. THANK YOU. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS BECAUSE IT WAS AMENDED. OR ARE WE READY TO HEAR ITEM NUMBER NINE? NOW I. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING

[9. O-288-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE REDUCTION OF FINES AND COSTS FOR OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES. Action Required By: May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Donna L. Purvis (D-5), Khalil Batshon (R-25)]

CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE REDUCTION OF FINES AND COSTS FOR THE OWNER OF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND, WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS LEGISLATION IS IN REGARDS TO WHAT MANY OF US HAVE KNOWN PEOPLE TO FACE. IS DISPLACEMENT OF THEIR LIVING STATUS. THIS WAS CREATED WITH SENIOR CITIZENS IN MIND THAT OWN AND OCCUPY THEIR HOMES, THAT ARE FACED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, FINES AND WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IS A LOT OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS CANNOT PAY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES DUE TO THE FACT THAT EITHER THEY HAVE TO PAY THE FINES OR PAY TO BECOME COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE VIOLATIONS. THESE FINES ACCRUE OVER A NUMBER OF TIME, TO THE POINT THAT THEIR EXISTENCE IS BEING THREATENED, AND SO I AM PROPOSING THAT IN THIS LEGISLATION THAT THESE FINES BE REDUCED BY 40%. THEY ARE TO BE PUT ON AN AFFORDABLE PAYMENT PLAN. THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFAULTING ON THE AGREEMENT. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO YIELD THE FLOOR TO COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBBIE HOWARD TO DISCUSS THIS IN FURTHER DETAILS.

IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT

[01:55:07]

BY SUBSTITUTION. I WASN'T SURE IF EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT THERE'S A NEW VERSION OF THIS.

OKAY. AND SO IF ANYONE HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL VERSION AND THIS NEW VERSION, I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THIS, WE DON'T HAVE THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION IN FRONT OF US YET. MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND THEN EXPLAIN WHY THE AMENDMENT THE SUBSTITUTION. OKAY, YES. THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE IT SET OUT A IT'S BASED OFF THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. SO ANYONE YOU CAN GET TAX BENEFITS WHEN YOU REACH THE AGE OF 65 OR GREATER, OR IF YOU HAVE CERTAIN DISABILITIES. AND SO THIS IS SOMEWHAT BASED ON THAT. SO ANYONE WHO'S ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS. I'M GONNA CALL IT A PROGRAM. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE EXACT WORD YOU WOULD WANT TO USE, BUT YOU'D BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF METRO HEALTH MEANS THAT ARE ON YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT YOU LIVE IN. SO A PROPERTY THAT YOU OWN, THAT YOU'VE LIVED IN FOR 15 YEARS OR MORE, THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 156, WHICH IS THE CHAPTER THAT DEALS WITH REGULATIONS ON YOUR HOUSE, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER HOMES THAT ARE IN VIOLATION AT THE TIME THAT YOU WOULD APPLY FOR THIS, AND YOU CAN ONLY APPLY FOR IT ONCE WITH EVERY EVERY FIVE YEARS. IF YOU MEET ALL THOSE CRITERIA, YOU CAN HAVE THE LIENS THAT ARE ON YOUR HOUSE REDUCED BY 40%, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $15,000, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CHANGES. ORIGINALLY, THE ORIGINAL VERSION, THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT WAS $2,500, AND THAT'S BEEN CHANGED TO THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT OF BEING 15,000. BUT IT'S 40% OF THE TOTAL LIENS THAT ARE ON YOUR PROPERTY. SO IF YOU HAD A HOME THAT'S IN VIOLATION, YOU GET ISSUED A CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION. THAT CITATION EVENTUALLY CONVERTS INTO A LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY IF IT GOES UNADDRESSED. SO THOSE LIENS, THAT'S WHAT THIS REDUCTION IS TALKING ABOUT. SO IT WOULD BE 40% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIENS ON YOUR PROPERTY, UP TO $15,000. AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGE THAT WE MADE. SO THE ONE CHANGE WAS THE $2,500 MAXIMUM. NOW IT'S 15,040% UP TO 15,000. AND THEN YOU IT ALSO SETS OUT SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY CAN BE AN OWNER CAN BE PLACED ON A PAYMENT PLAN, AND THAT AS LONG AS YOU'RE COMPLIANT WITH THAT, YOU'RE OKAY. BUT IF YOU ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT, THE ORIGINAL DEBT ALL BECOMES DUE. SO THAT WAS THE OTHER CHANGE THAT WE'VE MADE. DO WE NOT HAVE A PROGRAM AND PROCESS NOW, LIKE IF YOU'RE I DON'T SEE ANYBODY FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT HERE. OH OH OH I'M SORRY. DON'T WE HAVE A PROCESS NOW SAY I GUESS IT'S UP TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSON WHETHER THEY SEND JUST THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR IF THERE'S A FINE ON ON CERTAIN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND THEN THEY'RE GIVEN A CHANCE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, CORRECT, TO APPEAL THAT. AND THEN NORMALLY, IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE, THEY ARE IT'S CONDITIONALLY DISCHARGED. SAYING THAT IF YOU DON'T VIOLATE AGAIN, THEY WON'T BRING THAT BACK UP. BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY TIME THERE'S EVER BEEN THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HAS EVER ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP A CONDITIONAL A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE AND PLACED IT ON A PERSON. THEY JUST BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA IS NOT TO FIND YOUR LENIENT. THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO GET YOU INTO COMPLIANCE. BECAUSE NORMALLY IF YOU ARE, YOU ARE IN A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUE, IT'S BECAUSE A NEIGHBOR HAS COMPLAINED ON YOU FOR SOME TYPE OF VIOLATION. WHETHER IT'S YOUR GRASS IS OVER TEN INCHES TALL, WHETHER IT'S YOUR GUTTERS HANGING DOWN OFF OF YOUR HOUSE, MANY THINGS YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. FOR THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. YES, MA'AM.

IT'S PHILIP CROW WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CODES AND REGULATIONS. HI, PHILIP. YES? HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? SO CAN YOU MAYBE SO. SO YOU'RE CORRECT TODAY WHEN THE OFFICERS GO OUT, THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION OF ISSUING JUST A NOTICE OF VIOLATION BEFORE MOVING TO A CITATION. AND ONCE THEY DO MOVE TO A CITATION, IT'S ISSUED ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE CODE BOARD, AND THEY ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AND THEN THE HEARING OFFICER HAS THE CHANCE TO CONDITIONALLY DISCHARGE THAT CITATION. OKAY. I'M I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THIS. I'M SORRY. I'LL GO TO COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS

[02:00:02]

BEFORE I FINISH QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT SYSTEM DOES NOT SEEM TO WORK WELL. WE'VE RECEIVED NUMEROUS CALLS FROM CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF LIENS THAT THEY HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND THESE ARE OWNER OCCUPANTS. THESE ARE NOT INVESTORS. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEIR HOMES. THEY HAVE CALLED THEY'VE CONTACTED OMB BEFORE TO FIND THAT OMB IS NOT USER FRIENDLY. WE'VE BEEN TOLD SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE PERSONNEL IN OMB ARE NOT WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM. AND, I MEAN, I COULD UNDERSTAND IF I HEARD THIS MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE, BUT I'VE HEARD THIS SO MANY TIMES OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, AND I'M SEEING THAT PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES DUE TO THESE THESE LIENS THAT THEY CAN NEVER PAY. THEY WILL NEVER, EVER BE ABLE TO PAY THESE LIENS OFF. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE ON FIXED INCOMES THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, ARE HAVING TO MAKE A CHOICE. DO THEY TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY THESE LIENS, OR DO THEY BUY THEIR MEDICINE? AND IT SEEMS LIKE FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT WHEN THEY TRY TO GO THROUGH OMB OR, OR CODE ENFORCEMENT, THIS IS NOT A USER FRIENDLY PLAN AT ALL. THE WAIVER, I THINK THAT OMB OR CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS IS NOT ALWAYS EXPLAINED TO PEOPLE THAT THIS IS AN OPTION. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE THAT THIS IS AN OPTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT OMB IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT. THIS COULD HAVE, BUT IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE BACKS OF POOR PEOPLE TO SUSTAIN THE CITY'S BUDGET, I JUST CANNOT AGREE WITH THAT. AND SO A CHANGE NEEDS TO BE MADE TO HELP THESE PEOPLE STAY IN THEIR HOMES SO THAT INVESTORS CANNOT BE SITTING BY THE SIDE WAY, READY AND WAITING TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTIES FROM THEM TO SATISFY LIENS THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THEM BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. ANGIE DUNN IS HERE WITH OMB. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND HELP ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID THAT YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, ANGELA DUNN, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING WAIVER PROGRAM THAT FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE FUNDS, THERE IS AN A HARDSHIP IS PART OF THAT. SO IF PART OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO ADDRESS INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE EXPERIENCING HARDSHIP AND CANNOT PAY THOSE FINES OR THOSE FEES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED, OR THE LIENS THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED OVER TIME, THERE IS A PROCESS. IT IS AN APPLICATION PROCESS. AND, YOU KNOW, IT DOES GO THROUGH A REVIEW, BUT IT IS IT IS MEANT TO ADDRESS INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN A HARDSHIP SITUATION. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE COULD BE SITUATIONS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OR SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WHERE THE HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, WE'D CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE CASES. BUT YOU KNOW, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS A PROGRAM IN PLACE. IT'S DESIGNED TO HELP INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN A HARDSHIP SITUATIO, YOU KNOW, TO EITHER REDUCE OR IN IN MANY CASES, ELIMINATE THE FEES ALTOGETHER, JUST REALLY SORT OF DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. AND IN, IN, IN A PROGRAM LIKE THAT IT IS VERY SITUATIONAL. SO YOU KNOW, EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. THERE'S NOT A BLANKET ACROSS THE BOARD WHERE A HARDSHIP MAY BE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED OR APPROVED IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, OR WHERE IT MAY, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DENIED. BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THOSE HARDSHIPS ARE ARE MET. WE TRY TO WORK WITH THE TAXPAYER IN SOME FORM OR FASHION TO MEET THEIR NEEDS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN. I'M ALSO NOT AWARE OF ANYONE LOSING THEIR HOMES DUE TO, YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT FORECLOSE. WE DON'T COME AFTER YOUR PROPERTY. THOSE LIENS DO EXIST. IF YOU'RE UNABLE TO PAY THEM DOWN. AND TYPICALLY THOSE LIENS ARE SATISFIED. MOST OF OUR I THINK IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 65% OF OUR COLLECTIONS COME THROUGH THE TRANSFER. THE SALE OF PROPERTIES. SO TYPICALLY THOSE LIENS WILL SIT. AND WHEN A PROPERTY IS SOLD FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SATISFIED IN ANY OTHER WAY, THEY WOULD BE SATISFIED THROUGH THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY. COUNCILMAN BATSON, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IS IT OKAY TO ASK MISS DUNN A QUESTION? YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. SO WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID, CAN YOU KIND OF GIVE

[02:05:04]

SOME INSIGHT AND EXPLANATION ON HOW THE HARDSHIP PROGRAM THAT YOU HAVE WORKS FIRST AND THEN SECONDLY, TO THAT QUESTION OR SECOND FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS IF YOU'RE COLLECTING THE DEBTS IN THE SALE AND TRANSFER ON THESE HOMES, IN MY OPINION, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S BECAUSE EITHER THEY'VE FACED THE HARDSHIP ENOUGH WHERE THEY NEED TO SELL THEIR HOME TO GET OUT OF WHATEVER SITUATION THEY'RE IN, SO THEY'RE PROBABLY GETTING IT AT A, AT THE SELLER IS PROBABLY OR THE BUYER IS PROBABLY GETTING IT AT PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR TO HELP GET THESE FOLKS INTO A BETTER SITUATION. IDEALLY, RIGH. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, COUNCIL IS COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS IS IDEAL HERE IS ESSENTIALLY FOR THESE SENIORS TO NOT HAVE TO BE FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOMES AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY IT AT A DISCOUNT SO THAT YOU STILL COLLECT ON THE FEES AT A 40% DISCOUNT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE THERE? AND THEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION FOR ME, PLEASE, IN TERMS OF YOUR FIRST QUESTION, IT'S AN APPLICATION PROCESS. SO, YOU KNOW, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS HAD THOSE FEES OR FINES ASSESSED TO THEM WOULD SIMPLY REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE. WE WALK THEM THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS. I KNOW THAT THERE'S CERTAIN PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE COLLECTED. RIGHT. ARE YOU ON A FIXED INCOME? YOU KNOW, WHAT IS YOUR DEBT TO INCOME RATIO? AND YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME. YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T REVIEW THOSE APPLICATIONS MYSELF. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A TEAM THAT'S DOING THAT. SO I'M I'M SPEAKING VERY HIGH LEVEL. IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND WHAT IS ASKED THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WE CAN CERTAINLY GET BACK TO YOU WITH THOSE DETAILS. BUT AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, IT'S AN APPLICATION PROCESS BY WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL JUST SORT OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S SIMILAR TO MAYBE A LOAN APPLICATION OR ANY, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE CERTAIN INFORMATION COLLECTED ABOUT YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION, YOUR, YOUR INCOME DEBTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. FIXED INCOME OBVIOUSLY IS A BIG ONE. SO FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SENIOR CITIZENS THAT ARE EXPERIENCING, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF FIXED INCOME SITUATION. THAT IS DEFINITELY A PIECE THAT IS CONSIDERED. SO AGAIN, THAT'S VERY I KNOW THAT'S HIGH LEVEL. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION ENOUGH. BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY PROVIDE MORE DETAILS TO THAT APPLICATION PROCESS. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE COULD ADD INTO THAT APPLICATION PROCESS WOULD BE DO YOU QUALIFY FOR THE HOMESTEAD ACT IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HELP MEET HALFWAY, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD TAKE THE EXISTING PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY ADD THAT IN AS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU SOMEONE THAT QUALIFIES FOR THE HOMESTEAD ACT, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE THAT QUESTION IS CURRENTLY IN THERE, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT. I HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP, IF THAT'S OKAY. I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME IN A QUOTE THAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL ALSO IMPACT THE GENERAL FUND IN STATEMENT ON THAT OR FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON HOW THAT HOW THIS PARTICULAR THING COULD COST US A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS. SO THAT THAT ESTIMATE, THAT QUOTE, CAME FROM A CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, SO WHAT I WILL SAY IS WE COLLECT ABOUT $5 MILLION A YEAR THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE. IN TERMS OF WOULD IT BE A SMALL IMPACT, A LARGE IMPACT? BUT BETWEEN THE WAIVER PROGRAM THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND OTHER EXISTING PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUT THERE, IT STARTS TO ACCUMULATE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I DIDN'T GIVE THAT QUOTE EXACTLY. I THINK THAT WAS PARAPHRASED. AND SO IT IS. WE COULD GIVE YOU SOME ESTIMATE.

HONESTLY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE GREAT OR SMALL. IT'S SORT OF THE ACCUMULATING PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE FOR A WAIVER THAT EVENTUALLY COULD HAVE AN IMPACT OVER TIME. AND FOR IT TO BECOME A LEAN SOMEONE HAS NOT APPEARED IN FRONT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S GONE THROUGH A SERIES OF AND I FORGIVE ME, MY MEMORY IS A LITTLE RUSTY ON EXACTLY HOW OLD THE DEBT HAS TO BE, BUT IT'S NOT. LIENS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY PLACED, SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE THAT ARE ASSESSED, THE FINES TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD TO SEE IF THEY CAN BE ELIMINATED THAT WAY, AND IF NOT, IF THEY DON'T GO THAT ROUTE.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE NOTICES THAT ARE PROVIDED THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS FINE HAS BEEN ASSESSED, YOU'RE DELINQUENT. AND THAT GOES ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. AND I WANT TO SAY MAYBE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 6 AND 9 MONTHS OR LONGER. SO DON'T DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT. AGAIN, I'M SORT OF SPEAKING FROM MEMORY HERE, BUT IT IS A PERIOD OF TIME. IT'S NOT IMMEDIATE. SO THERE IS OPPORTUNITY IN BETWEEN BEFORE A LIEN IS FILED TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. WE DO ALSO OFFER PAYMENT PLANS. I KNOW THAT THAT WAS ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS THAT I SHOULD ALSO, I SHOULD ALSO

[02:10:01]

REMIND YOU OR MAKE YOU AWARE THAT WE DO OFFER PAYMENT PLANS IN OUR EXISTING PROGRAM FOR PAYMENT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY GO THROUGH THE WAIVER PROGRAM. ANYBODY CAN CALL AND SAY, HEY, I CAN'T PAY THIS IMMEDIATELY. WHAT SORT OF PAYMENT PLANS DO YOU OFFER? SO WE DO OFFER THAT AS WELL. COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YOU YOU PROBABLY DO OFFER A PAYMENT PLAN, BUT IS NOT AT A REDUCED PLAN OF 40%, WHICH STILL IS A HARDSHIP ON THESE SENIORS. WE'RE MAKING SURE IN THIS LEGISLATION THAT YOU ARE HOMESTEAD ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THIS. THIS DISCOUNT. I FEEL LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO INTERNALLY HERE. WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE INVESTORS AND THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE REACHING OUT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, TO FIND SOME OF THESE HOMES FOR THEIR INTERESTS. AND I DON'T LIKE THAT FEELING. I DON'T LIKE THA LOOK, THIS IS WHY I INTENTIONALLY DID NOT CONTACT AND CONSULT WITH OFFIC OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BECAUSE PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT. I HAVE THE INTEREST OF PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH END DISTRICTS THAT ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF THESE FEES, THAT ARE CONTINUING TO ACCRUE AND ACCRUE AND ACCRUE. NOW YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT OFFERING HOMESTEAD AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, YOU ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT OFFERING A HOMESTEAD, PLEASE. THIS ENSURES THAT PEOPLE WILL NOT BE DISPLACED AND THAT THEY WILL NOT LOSE THEIR HOMES TO THESE GREEDY INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS. SURE, I UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, I WAS NOT A PART OF ANY FORMAL DECISION ON THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. I WAS NOT IN THE ROLE. SO WHATEVER FORMER DISCUSSIONS THERE MAY HAVE HAD, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THIS. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT. MY PURPOSE HERE TODAY IS JUST TO SIMPLY MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THE WAY THERE IS A WAIVER PROGRAM THAT EXISTS, IT COULD IMPACT REVENUE, AND THAT'S REALLY MY ONLY PURPOSE HERE. AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND LET LET ME SAY THIS. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. AND LET ME SAY THIS BECAUSE I'M I'M GETTING REALLY UPSET BECAUSE WE NEED THIS LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THESE PEOPLE'S HOMES, TO PROTECT THEM IN THEIR HOMES, THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO SOMETIMES TAKE OUT, REVERSE MORTGAGES JUST TO PAY SOME OF THESE THESE FEES AND THESE LIENS. AND AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE INTERNALLY HERE WITHIN THIS GOVERNMENT, WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT MORE. WE'RE PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS WHO WANT THESE PROPERTIES. THIS IS WHY FINES KEEP YEAR AFTER YEAR, AFTER YEAR. AND I, I MUST THIS PUBLIC IF YOU ALL DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH COMPASSION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AND STOP THIS, THEN ALL OF YOU ALL ARE COMPLICIT. THANK YO. WE ONLY HAVE WELL, WE'RE RIGHT AT THE AT THE TIME LIMIT. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE. IT'S THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TABLE. SECOND BY TABLE. SECOND WITHOUT THE MOTION. RIGHT, RIGHT. SHE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT. I GAVE COUNCILMAN BAKER SOME OF MY TIME FOR MY COMMITTEE SO WE CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THIS. AND I PREFER THAT I DON'T HAVE A VOTE IN THIS ON THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I WOULD PREFER THAT WE NOT TABLE THIS. SO I DON'T HAVE A VOTE ON THIS.

I THINK IT'S A MOTION TO TABLE IS NOT DEBATABLE TABLE. THAT MOTION IS NOT IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. SO IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. SO IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF SIGNIFY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLE AND SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. I. I. THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIG.

NAY HEARING. NONE. CHAIR WILL SAY THAT IT'S BEEN TABLED. THANK YOU. ARE YOU GIVING US TWO MINUTES OF YOUR COMMITTEE SO WE CAN NOT FIVE MINUTES BACK. I'M TALKING TO COUNCILMAN BAKER. TWO MINUTES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER TEN IS A RESOLUTION DIRECTING LANDMARKS COMMISSION

[10. R-137-24 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING LANDMARKS COMMISSION STAFF TO BEGIN THE LANDMARKS REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE HISTORIC WAGNER’S PHARMACY LOCATED AT 3113 SOUTH 4TH STREET. Action Required By: May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Jennifer Chappell (D-15) ]

STAFF TO BEGIN THE LANDMARKS REVIEW PROCESS FOR HISTORIC WAGNER'S PHARMACY, LOCATED AT 3113 SOUTH FOURTH STREET. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. WAIT A MINUTE, I CAN'T. SECOND. SORRY. I'M A SPONSOR. OH, RIGHT. YES YOU CAN. OKAY.

OKAY, GREAT. WE'LL MAKE THIS REALLY QUICK TODAY. IS DERBY IN DECEMBER, SO I ACTUALLY JUST CAME FROM THE KENTUCKY DERBY MUSEUM. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, BUT IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO WAGNER'S PHARMACY. NEXT YEAR, WAGNER'S PHARMACY WILL BE GOING INTO ITS 103RD YEAR OF BUSINESS. IT'S A TREASURED PLACE IN DISTRICT 15. IN LOUISVILLE, IT'S BEEN SERVING BACKSIDE WORKERS, HORSEMEN AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC EXCITED TO LANDMARK IT. AND

[02:15:08]

THEY'RE EXCITED TO DO THAT AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS? ALSO, HERE'S THE NEW DERBY PIN. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO METRO TV. YOU WANT TO GET THIS. IT'S REALLY PRETTY. AND DID YOU BRING ENOUGH TO PASS AROUND? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL GET YOU ALL. OKAY. THIS IS A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED BY, LIKE, SIGN. HEARING NONE, THE RESOLUTION WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS OR. EXCUSE ME. CONSENT CALENDAR AT OUR NEXT MEETING. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A RESOLUTION DIRECTING LANDMARKS COMMISSION STAFF TO BEGIN THE LANDMARKS REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE HISTORIC COASTER FOR KIDS. LOCATED AT 982

[11. R-143-24 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING LANDMARKS COMMISSION STAFF TO BEGIN THE LANDMARKS REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE HISTORIC KOSAIR FOR KIDS LOCATED AT 982 EASTERN PARKWAY. Action Required By: May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Jennifer Chappell (D-15) ]

EASTERN PARKWAY. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER CHAPPELL. SURE. WE WEREN'T PLANNING ON DOING THIS ONE NEXT WITH OUR BATCH OF LANDMARKS RESOLUTIONS, BUT KOSAIR CHARITIES ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO US AND THEY SAID, HEY, IT WOULD BE REALLY? WE HEARD YOU'RE DOING THESE LANDMARKS. WE'D LOVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR YOUR NEXT ONE, ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR 100TH ANNIVERSARY AT OUR LOCATION ON EASTERN PARKWAY IS GOING TO BE CELEBRATED IN 2026. SO THIS LANDMARK DESIGNATION WOULD BE JUST A REALLY GREAT WAY TO CELEBRATE THEIR CENTENNIAL IN DISTRICT 15. SO I WOULD LOVE YOUR VOTE FOR THIS. THANK YOU.

NO ONE IS IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED BY LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES. AND BEFORE WE LEAVE FOR THE DURATION, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS CAME FROM, BUT THANK YOU.

WHOEVER THAT WAS ON THE DESK WHEN I CAME IN TODAY. I'VE BEEN ON ZONING SINCE 2003, AND IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU, ALL. THANK YOU. THANK. YOU DON'T MAKE ME. I HAVE A POINT OF PRIVILEGE. DON'T MAKE ME UGLY. CRY. WHAT A PRIVILEGE. MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR FOR BEING PATIENT WITH ME OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE. I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM HER, AND I AM REALLY GOING TO MISS YOU. POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. PLEASE. MADAM CHAIR, I THINK YOU'VE EDUCATED ME. YOU'VE EDUCATED US. I THINK WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY BE FAIRLY COMPETENT IN OUR DISCUSSION OF PLANNING AND ZONING. BECAUSE OF YOU. WE MEAN THAT SINCERELY. AND IF I COULD, I WANT TO JUST 30S TO MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN OWEN. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE IF I IN ANY WAY MY TONE. YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE THIS SORT OF WISCONSIN ACCENT A LITTLE BIT, BUT BUT IN DISCUSSING THE FORMULA OF FIFTHS, I DIDN'T WANT TO DOWNPLAY MY COLLEAGUES INTEREST IN STILL PURSUING THAT. AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN MIGHT HAVE BEEN TIRED OR SOMETHING. LAST TIME, BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, ALWAYS PURSUE WHATEVER YOU YOU DEEM NECESSARY BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY. YOU NEVER KNOW. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN FANTASTIC. AND THANK YOU ALL.

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU PERSONALLY, COUNCILWOMAN, OUT OF EVERYBODY UP HERE, MY FIRST COUNCIL MEETING WAS THE PLANNING AND ZONING CHANGE OF THE URBAN GOVERNMENT CENTER. SO IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AND THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM AND EVERYBODY FOR JUST GUIDING ME THROUGH THAT. BUT IT MEANS MORE THAN ANYTHING, JUST HOW YOU GOT ME ALONG. AND WHEN THINGS WERE HARD, ALWAYS ENCOURAGING AND ALWAYS BEING THE FLYEST COUNCILWOMAN UP HERE. SO THANK YOU. SO WITH WITH WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS COMMITTEE WILL STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL YOUR ALL'S NEXT COMMITTEE IS APPOINTED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. AND

[Adjournment Note: Agendas are followed at the discretion of the Chair. While an item may be listed, it does not mean all items will be heard and/or acted upon by the Committee.]

THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMITTEE. Y'ALL. Y'ALL HAVE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH OVER THE YEARS. IT'S NEVER A DULL MOMENT, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO MISS MOST ABOUT COUNCIL IS PLANNING AND ZONING, BECAUSE IT IS A REAL INTEREST OF MINE. THANK YOU ALL.

GOODBYE. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Pending Legislation

Dec 03, 2024 Planning and Zoning Committee

Pending Legislation

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item