[00:06:37] I. [00:08:51] THINK. SO. [00:11:58] OKAY. NOT NECESSARILY. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO. DO? YOU'RE OUT OF HERE. YOU'REF. METRO TV 30S. [Call to Order] [00:15:05] THIS. IS. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR, REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH, 1:05 P.M. CHAIR ANDREW OWEN. MY VICE CHAIR, [Roll Call] SCOTT REED, HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. I'M JOINED IN CHAMBERS BY COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. COUNCILWOMAN. RAYMOND. COUNCILWOMAN. RUBY. COUNCILMAN HUDSON AND COUNCILMAN BRAT. AND WE'LL EXPECT TO BE JOINED BY SOME SOME OTHERS HERE SHORTLY. THE FIRST PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS ZERO DASH. OH, DASH. 02625, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4217 TAYLOR BOULEVARD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.334 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0017. MOTION. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. THIS WAS [1. O-026-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4217 TAYLOR BOULEVARD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.334 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0117). 2/4/25  Planning and Zoning Committee Held 1/21/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By March 3, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ] TABLED AT THE LAST. JULIA, ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL? OR MAYBE TEE IT BACK UP A LITTLE BIT FOR US. IT WAS TABLED. I DIDN'T PRESENT LAST TIME. OH, OKAY. IF YOU CAN PRESENT FOR US, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. SURE. JULIA WILLIAMS, OFFICE OF PLANNING. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS 24 ZONE 117 AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALISTS. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 21 ALONG TAYLOR BOULEVARD, AS WELL AS LYNDHURST AVENUE. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMMERCIAL. THIS FRONT PORTION THAT IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND IT CURRENTLY HAS A HOME ON IT IS THE EXISTING ZOS R5 IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM DISTRICT. THE PROPOSALS FOR C2. THE REQUEST IS CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C2 COMMERCIAL, WITH A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THE CURRENT USE IS AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP WITH NINE BAYS TOTAL. THE C2 ZONING ALLOWS FOR MORE THAN TWO BAYS. C1 RESTRICTS IT TO TWO BAYS. THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE FRONTING ON LYNDHURST IS NOT SUBJECT TO THIS CHANGE IN ZONING, AND WILL BE SUBDIVIDED OFF. AND THAT WILL REMAIN R5. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THE AREA OF THE ZONING IS OUTLINED IN THIS DARK DASH. PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AS YOU GO DOWN THE ALLEY. THIS IS ALONG LYNDHURST. THIS IS THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE IN ZONING. AND THEN ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALONG TAYLOR BOULEVARD. SO THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SITE. THERE'S AN ALLEY AND THEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024, WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON BOTH DECEMBER 5TH, 2024 AND JANUARY 16TH, 2025. ON DECEMBER 5TH, THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R5 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 10 TO 0. AND ON JANUARY 16TH, THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM R5 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. YOU MAY BE WONDERING WHY THERE'S TWO PLANNING COMMISSIONS. THERE WAS A NOTICE ISSUE. ON THE ADDRESSES. AND SO WE WENT BACK AND HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. TO INCLUDE THOSE ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES FOR THE SITE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS. SO THIS THIS IS IN COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ DISTRICT. BEFORE WE DO THAT. SO CAN WE CAN WE HAVE TRAVIS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHY WE TABLED THIS LAST TIME? THE PARCEL ISSUE THAT THAT KIND OF ROSE UP LAST TIME. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE MORE COLOR ON THAT, PLEASE? SURE. TRAVIS. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY SO AS JULIE JUST GENERALLY INDICATED, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PARCELS HERE. AND THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT FOR THE INITIAL HEARING DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL THE PROPOSED PARCELS. THE STAFF REPORT, THE DISCUSSION AT PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T INCORPORATE THOSE PARCELS EXPLICITLY EITHER. I MEAN, THE EXHIBITS DID, BUT WE HAD SOME CONCERNS THAT THERE WASN'T PROPER NOTICE FOR COMMENT ON SOME OF THE PARCELS. AND SO [00:20:03] THAT SECOND MEETING WAS HELD. THE INTENTION BEING TO SORT OF COMBINE ALL OF THESE INTO ONE CASE, BECAUSE THEY REALLY ARE ONE PROJECT. IT WAS JUST REALLY JUST A NOTICE ISSUE AND US MAKING SURE TO DOT OUR I'S AND CROSS OUR T'S HERE. GREAT. THANK YOU JULIA. YOU DID SAY THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR ON COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THIS BUSINESS IS BEEN THERE FOR, I THINK, SINCE THE 1970S. AND IT'S INTERESTING. THE ACCESS TO IT IS ACTUALLY FROM AN ALLEY. AND THEY'VE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS, AS YOU CAN TELL BY LOOKING AT THE BUILDING. IT'S VERY CLEAN AND TIDY AND WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM. SO WE I'VE BEEN TALKING TO THEM ABOUT FINDING OUT VAPE SHOPS AND LIQUOR STORES, BUT I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET THAT AGREEMENT FROM THEM. SO I'M HOPING TO TALK TO THEM LATER THIS WEEK AFTER WE GET OUT OF COMMITTEE HERE AND ASK, ASK THAT THEY ALLOW THAT ONE TO BE ADDED. BUT AT THIS POINT I'LL ASK FOR IS A STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT ON THIS, AND THEN I RECOMMEND IT FOR APPROVAL. THE STANDARD BINDING. ARE YOU MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO ADD THAT CURRENTLY? YES. AND MISTER CHAIR AND COUNCILWOMAN, I APOLOGIZE. MY OFFICE HAD PREPARED AN AMENDMENT TO SORT OF INCORPORATE BOTH CASES ON THIS. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE GOT IT ON THE SYSTEM. THAT'S MY ERROR. BUT I CAN READ THAT LANGUAGE IN AS WELL WITH THE STANDARD BINDING IF IT WANTS TO BE MADE ALL IN ONE MOTION. IT JUST SORT OF INCORPORATES THE ADDITIONAL MINUTES. I DON'T EVEN NECESSARILY WELL, IT INCORPORATES THE ADDITIONAL MINUTES FROM THE OTHER CASES FROM THE SECOND CASE INTO THIS, TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS ALL ONE CASE, THAT THE BINDING ELEMENTS APPLY TO BOTH CASES, ETC, SO I CAN READ THAT LANGUAGE IN AS WELL IF THAT WORKS. THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. SO THE WHEREAS WOULD BE AMENDED TO READ. WHEREAS THE LOUISVILLE METRO PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 24 0117 ON DECEMBER 5TH, 2024. AND WHEREAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECEMBER 5TH, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ONLY THE 4217 TAYLOR BOULEVARD ADDRESS HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REQUIRED NOTICES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 5TH, 2024, AND NOT THE THREE LYNDHURST ADDRESSES, AND WHEREAS, AFTER THE REQUIRED NOTICES WERE PROPERLY SENT OUT FOR THE THREE LYNDHURST ADDRESSES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 24 00017 ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025 AND ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS. AND WHEREAS THE INTENT IS FOR THE TWO ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS TO APPLY TO ALL THE PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO CASE 20, ZONE 0117 SORRY 24, ZONE 0117. AND NOT JUST THE THREE LYNDHURST ADDRESSES. AND WHEREAS THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, THE COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS HELD BY THE LOUISVILLE METRO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ITS STAFF, AS SET FORTH IN THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN CASE 24 00017. AND WHEREAS THE COUNCIL CONCURS AND ADOPTS THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ZONING CHANGE IN CASE 24 ZONE 0017. 0117 AND APPROVES AND ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS SET OUT IN SAID MINUTES AND RECORDS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT AS FOLLOWS. SECTION ONE. THAT THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 40 217 TAYLOR BOULEVARD, 1059 1057 R, AND 1061 LYNDHURST AVENUE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.75 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO AS MORE PARTICULAR DESCRIBED IN THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0117 CHANGE FROM R5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C2 COMMERCIAL PARENTHESES. APPROXIMATELY 0.59 ACRES WILL BE REZONE TO C2 WITH THE REMAINING FAMILY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON THE REMAINING 0.16 ACRES TO REMAIN R5 CLOSED. PARENTHESES PROVIDED THAT SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS SET FORTH IN THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0117. TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION, THE TWO ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS ADDED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025 SHALL APPLY TO ALL THE PROPERTIES PART OF 24 ZONE 0117, NOT JUST THE THREE LYNDHURST ADDRESSES. I APOLOGIZE, AND THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL, BUT THAT WAS OUR WAY OF INCORPORATING BOTH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL HEARINGS. AND THEN WE WOULD ALSO ADD THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT, WHICH WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS. ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASES TO THE STRUCTURES E.G. INCREASES IN BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY IN THE PROPERTY, ANY CHANGES IN USE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, AND OR ANY EDITS TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS OTHER THAN I. THE ADDITION OF NEW BINDING ELEMENTS TWO I CHANGES TO BINDING ELEMENT THAT MERELY UPDATE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OR THREE UPDATING A PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BINDING ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SHALL BE REVIEWED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH FINAL ACTION TO BE DETERMINED BY METRO COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR, BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND FOR THE RECORD THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY. COUNCILMAN VACHON. THE BEFORE US HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED SO WE CAN HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. I. ALL THOSE AGAINST. [00:25:03] PLEASE SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN PASSED. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER. ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON THIS OR HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I APOLOGIZE. WE HAD A REQUEST FROM THE CLERK. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT, A SUBSTITUTION. IT'LL BE AN UNDERLYING SO YOU ALL CAN SEE THE FULL THING. I'LL GET IT ON THE SYSTEM THIS AFTERNOON. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. CAN YOU OPEN THE ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. OKAY. WE WILL CLOSE. CHAIR ON YOU OH SEVEN. YES. VOTES. THANK YOU. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS. OKAY. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS. ODE DASH 04925. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1300 BELMAR DRIVE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.29 ACRES AND BEING HELD IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0080. PROPERTY MOVED AND [2. O-049-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1300 BELMAR DRIVE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.29 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0080). Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] SECONDED. JULIA. YES? THIS IS 24. ZONE 0080. DENES. CLASSIC AUTO SALES. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TEN AT 1300 BELMAR DRIVE. THE EXISTING USE IS INDUSTRIAL. THE PROPOSED USE IS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS M2. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS M2 AND C.M. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. AS I MENTIONED, THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM M2 TO M2, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING. THERE WAS A WAIVER AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALSO. THE PROPOSALS FOR AUTO SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PORTION THAT'S MORE IN THE CURVE OF BELMAR DRIVE IS TO REMAIN M2. WITH CM LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. WHERE THERE'S ALSO CM ZONING. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND ADJACENT PROPERTY. THERE WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING HELD ON JUNE 24TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. MEETING ■WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2024 WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025. THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM M2 TO M2 AND CM, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THIS IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TEN. COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? YES. SO I DROVE OVER LAST NIGHT JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK. SO THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS. WE'VE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO OPPOSITION FROM NEIGHBORS. THEY'RE. THEY'RE USED TO THIS SORT OF USE. RIGHT. SO YOU SAW IN THAT IN THAT DIAGRAM ON ONE SIDE IS A GOLF COURSE. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IS THE RAILROAD. SO THAT'S THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE HOMES AND THE BUSINESS. NOT NOT A GREAT BUFFER, BUT THEY'RE USED TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS THERE. SO IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES. WE'RE SUPPORTIVE IN DISTRICT TEN. WE WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE BUSINESS ON THIS NEXT PHASE. FOR THEM. AND WE WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE TO GO SLOW AROUND THAT CURVE. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ONE? SURE. I'LL OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. COUNCIL. THANK YOU. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS NUMBER THREE. DASH 05025. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO [3. O-050-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4603 EAST MANSLICK ROAD AND PARCEL ID NOS. 079100620000 AND 079100640000 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.562 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0102). Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4603 EAST MANSLICK ROAD AND PARCEL IDS NUMBER 079100620000 AND 079100640000, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.562 ACRES AND BEING HELD IN LOUISVILLE METRO [00:30:03] CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0102. MOTION. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. THIS IS IN. COUNCILWOMAN WOOLRIDGE DISTRICT. AND WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THEM. I'M SORRY. DO YOU? JULIA, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THIS, PLEASE? SURE. THANK YOU. THIS IS 23 ZONE 0102, THE AMERICAS OFFICE. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 24 AT 4603 EAST MANSLICK ROAD. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL. IN THE PROPOSAL IS AN OFFICE. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R5 AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT WITH A PROPOSAL OF OR OFFICE RESIDENTIAL. CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R5 SINGLE FAMILY TO OR OFFICE RESIDENTIAL. THERE WERE WAIVERS AND A DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO REUSE THE STRUCTURE FOR AN OFFICE. THERE'S A PART OF A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHERE ONE OF THE CURB CUTS IS GOING TO BE RESTORED. AND THE OTHER CURB CUT BROUGHT UP TO KYTC STANDARDS. SO IT'LL ONLY HAVE ONE CURB CUT. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO YOU CAN SEE THIS HATCHED AREA IS WHERE THAT ENTRANCE IS TO BE CLOSED. AND THEN THERE'S AN EXISTING THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND THEN THE PARKING IN THE REAR. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY THAT WILL BE REMOVED. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF EAST MANSLICK AND PRESTON HIGHWAY AND THEN ACROSS EAST MANSLICK. AND THEN THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE TO THE EAST. THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS HELD ON MARCH 29TH, 2023. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION MEETING WAS HELD ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025. THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE CHANGE IN ZONING, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA. BEFORE I JUMP THE GUN, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS WE RECEIVED A MESSAGE, AN EMAIL FROM COUNCILWOMAN WOOLRIDGE OFFICE SAYING THAT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. OH, WAIT, I DO. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. THANK YOU. I'VE JUST GOT ONE QUESTION. UNDERSTANDING YOUR TERMINOLOGY, WOULD YOU GO BACK TO WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CURB CUTS? WOULD THE GRAPHIC BE BETTER OR. NO. I WANT THE LANGUAGE. OKAY, OKAY. SO CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, ONE CURB CUT TO BE RESTORED. SO THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THAT PART OF THE DRIVEWAY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IT'LL BE RESTORED. THE CURB, GUTTER. SIDEWALK. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER CUT IS THE ONE THAT WILL BE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND. THAT'S WHAT WAS BEING SAID. NO. THANK YOU. SO. AND JUST SO I FULLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU JUST WENT THROUGH. RESTORING IT TO CURB AND GUTTER. AND THERE WERE NO LONGER BE A CURB CUT IN THAT LOCATION. CORRECT. GOT IT. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN. RAYMOND, SO THAT I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINE THAT YOU HAD THAT SHOWED ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND FURTHER ACTION. IS THAT ENTIRELY ON THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY? NEEDING MORE TIME TO WORK ON THEIR PLAN BETWEEN THE OWNER AND BEING ABLE TO PREPARE A PLAN? SO THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF TIME IN THERE FOR THE WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS WORKING WITH THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE THOSE PLANS. SO I REALIZE THE TIMELINE IS PRETTY, PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, BUT SO THAT'S UNUSUAL. BUT IT'S UNUSUAL. BUT IT'S THE APPLICANT. WE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS TO MAKE SURE THE PLAN IS IN ORDER. GOT YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PERRY RIGHT. YEAH. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. THE OTHER ONE IS THIS WAS ALREADY LIKE THE CHILD CARE WAS ALREADY A BUSINESS, SO. AND THAT AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT COUNCIL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WITH NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. OPEN UP. ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCILMAN. YES. CHAIR. YOU HAVE [00:35:07] SEVEN YES VOTES. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES. THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS. THANK YOU. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS NUMBER 405125. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11100 GARDEN TRACE DRIVE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 36.68 ACRES AND LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, [4. O-051-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11100 GARDEN TRACE DRIVE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 36.68 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0071). Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] ZONE 0071. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. YES, THIS IS AN APARTMENT EXPANSION UNDER 24 ZONE 0071. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 23 AT 11 100 GARDEN TRACE DRIVE. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE RESIDENTIAL. EXISTING ZONING IS R4 PROPOSED R SEVEN. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM R4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R7 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WITH A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, WHICH WAS ZONED UNDER 21 ZONE 0136. THE PROPOSAL ADDS 82 UNITS TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. IT PROVIDES A GARDEN TRACE, DRIVE CONNECTION AND OPEN SPACE, AND AMENITIES WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION. YOU CAN SEE GARDEN TRACE DRIVE. CONNECTING THROUGH THE SHADED AREA IS THE EXISTING ZONING. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE REFERENCE THAT THIS IS THE EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ELEVATIONS FOR THE SITE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE TERMINUS OF GARDEN TRACE. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALONG GARDEN TRACE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS HELD ON OCTOBER OF APRIL 16TH, 2024, WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN HUDSON'S DISTRICT. I'M SURE HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS. YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE. THE FIRST ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE TRAFFIC STUDY ONLY CONSIDERED THE IMPACT OF THE ADDITION OF THESE FOUR APARTMENT BUILDINGS AS IT IMPACTED THE TRAFFIC GOING NORTH UP TO MOUNT WASHINGTON ROAD AND OVER TO PRESTON HIGHWAY. IT SEEMS INTUITIVE TO ME THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF THE TRAFFIC GOING SOUTH THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT, DOWN TO HASBROUCK DRIVE AND OVER TO PRESTON HIGHWAY, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S AT LEAST AS AS IMPACTFUL. AND WITH WITH ALL OF THE CURRENT APARTMENTS THAT ARE NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT PROVIDES. A CLEAR PATH SOUTHWARD OVER TO PRESTON HIGHWAY. SO FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS, CAN YOU CAN YOU VALIDATE THAT THAT'S ACCURATE? SO A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WAS RELIED ON. THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE FOR THE PREVIOUS PLAN. OUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF DID NOT HAVE THEM. THEY SET THE SCOPE FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDY. AND I BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM. LOOK AT THAT INTERSECTION. YES. SO I'D LIKE TO ASK THEM TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THE PREVIOUS TRAFFIC STUDY DIDN'T DIDN'T CONSIDER TRAFFIC GOING SOUTH BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, THIS DEVELOPMENT DIDN'T EXIST AND THERE WAS NO OUTLET TO THE SOUTH. SO TO RELY ON THAT TRAFFIC STUDY SEEMS IN ERROR TO ME. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. OKAY. SO THEN THE NEXT ISSUE I HAVE TWO, I'VE GOT GOT THREE ISSUES. THE SECOND ONE IS DO YOU [00:40:09] HAVE A PICTURE THAT YOU CAN PUT UP ON THE SCREEN THAT THAT SHOWS THE, THE WHAT THE PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE? I DON'T HAVE THE COLOR RENDERING. I'M TRYING TO ORIENT MYSELF TO YOURS. SO TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN THAT'S THE EXISTING. SO LOOKING AT YOUR DRAWING THERE, THE HOW THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ARE BOTH THREE STORIES. AND JUST ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE RIGHT ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE APARTMENT BUILDING ON YOUR LOWER LEFT BACKS UP TO TREES. IT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE STICKING IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. THE LOWER PROFILE BUILDINGS WOULD BE MUCH BETTER RECEIVED IF THEY WERE NEXT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ALREADY EXIST THERE. IS THERE ANY WAY TO MOVE THE DECK CHAIRS AROUND THERE SO THAT THE LOWER PROFILE BUILDINGS, CAN YOU ASK THE APPLICANT, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING. IS THERE ANY WAY TO REARRANGE THAT SO THAT THE TWO STORY BUILDINGS ARE UP AGAINST THE HOUSES INSTEAD OF THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS? SO THERE'S THREE THESE THREE STRUCTURES HERE ARE ARE THREE STORIES. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN JUST THIS ONE IS TWO STORIES. THAT'S RIGHT. SO YOU'RE ASKING THAT THIS BUILDING BE LOCATED HERE. IS THAT THAT THAT'S MY, MY QUESTION CAN IS THERE ANY WAY TO MAKE IT LESS OBTRUSIVE ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO COUNTY ATTORNEY. THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN REACH OUT TO THE. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY OF A BINDING ELEMENT THAT DEALS WITH SORT OF A SITE REWORK. WE HAVE OCCASIONALLY GOTTEN BY THE ELEMENTS THAT DEAL WITH THE REDUCTION OF. STORIES AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THAT BEING SAID, JUST LOOKING AT THE LAYOUT HERE, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY PHYSICALLY CAN JUST DO A SWAP IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE THERE'S THEY'RE SORT OF ALIGNED DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? THERE'S A HORIZONTAL AND A VERTICAL, BUT THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THEY CAN DO. I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. YEAH. THE ANSWER MAY BE NO, BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE AT LEAST THE QUESTION ASKED. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THEN THE THIRD THING I HAD WAS THERE SEEMED TO BE A DISCREPANCY IN THE WETLAND STUDIES OFFERED BY. THE APPLICANT AND OFFERED BY A PERSON, AN INTERESTED PARTY THAT SHOWED UP AT ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETINGS. DID THAT DISAGREEMENT EVER GET RESOLVED? SO THE STUDY FOUND THAT THERE WASN'T ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANT WETLAND, SO I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE STUDY. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CONVERSATION ENDED ANY FURTHER WITH AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. THEY DIDN'T. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T PROVIDE DATA, SO I THINK IT DID. IT'S IN THE RECORD HERE. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. HE PROVIDED A STUDY FROM CORPS OF ENGINEERS THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE STUDY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. I'M JUST ASKING, DID DID THAT EVER GET RESOLVED BECAUSE ONE OF THEM OR NEITHER OF THEM HAVE TO BE CORRECT. THEY CAN'T BOTH BE CORRECT. I'M SORRY. NOT THE. YEAH. SO TINY. I CAN'T SEE IT. YEAH, IT WAS CORPS OF ENGINEERS THAT. I DO SEE THAT. LET ME TAKE A LOOK. [00:45:26] WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT COUNCILWOMAN. DO YOU WANT TO. IS THAT OKAY? COUNCILMAN HUDSON, YOU'RE. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. COUNCILWOMAN MARIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY GENERAL KIND OF QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ON THIS? WHERE? IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, RATHER THAN PUT YOU ON THE SPOT HERE, WOULD WOULD YOU PREFER THAT WE JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS HERE. WOULD YOU PREFER THAT WE SEND THIS BACK IN? HAVE YOU COME BACK WITH ANSWERS? SURE. OKAY. SO HOW DO WE DO THAT? TABLE IT? YEP. COUNTY ATTORNEY HOW DO WE DO THAT? SORRY. I WAS ALSO READING THROUGH THIS LETTER FROM THE COURT. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IN ORDER TO GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, SHOULD WE JUST SEND IT BACK AND COME BACK AT ANOTHER MEETING TO GET THE ANSWERS? SO GENERALLY, SENDING CASES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN AVOIDED. SLASH NOT DONE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TABLE IT. I CAN REQUEST A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BINDING ELEMENTS, SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMETHING DRAWN UP THERE, AND THAT'LL GIVE STAFF TIME TO REVIEW THE LETTER FROM THE COURT. AND WE CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF COMMENTARY ON THAT AS WELL. OKAY. THEN MOVE TO TABLE. AND JUST SO WE IT LOOKS LIKE WE DO HAVE SOME TIME ON THIS ONE TO. YES. THE DATE ON THIS IS APRIL 16TH. SO WE GOT A COUPLE MORE MEETINGS TO DEAL WITH IT OKAY OKAY. SO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO TABLE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE AGAINST SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. SO THIS HAS TO BE TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 50-05225. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING [5. O-052-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 KURZ WAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 34.56 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0003). Action Required By April 21, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 KURTZ WAY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 34.56 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24 003. OH SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. YES, THIS IS 24 00003 OAK POINT. THIS IS LOCATED AT 1600 KURZ WAY, COUNCIL DISTRICT 12. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R4 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. PROPOSED R6 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE CHANGE IN ZONING WAS REQUESTED FOR R4. SINGLE FAMILY TO PRD. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND R7 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THERE WAS A VARIANCE REQUESTED AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PROPOSAL WAS FOR 16 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 38 SEMI-DETACHED TOWNHOMES AND 368 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS. ACCESS WAS VIA DAWN DRIVE AND MYERS LANE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND CONTAINS STEEP SLOPES AND UNSTABLE SOILS. THIS WAS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THESE ARE THE ACCESS POINTS OFF OF DAWN DRIVE AND MEYER. THESE WERE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE TOWNHOMES. THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS WAS THE ENTRANCE OFF OF DAWN DRIVE. AN ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME. ANOTHER ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME ADJACENT TO THE OTHER ENTRANCE OFF MEYER, ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SITE. THIS IS ACROSS DAWN DRIVE AND THIS IS DOWN KERR'S WAY AT THE TERMINUS, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS HELD ON APRIL 16TH, 2024. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION MEETING WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2024, AS WELL AS DECEMBER 12TH, 2024. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 21ST, 2025. THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 3. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SO JUST TO REITERATE WHAT JULIA JUST SAID. THAT THIS WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 3. SO A YES VOTE WOULD BE [00:50:07] UPHOLDING THE DENIAL ON ON THIS CASE, WHICH I ALWAYS I ALWAYS FEEL THE NEED TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NEVER AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS FOR SOME REASON. COUNCILMAN BACHON, ARE YOU ARE YOU SPEAKING ON BEHALF? THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN JOSEPH'S DISTRICT. HAS HE ASKED YOU TO SPEAK? YES TO IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ON BEHALF OF COUNCILMAN JOSEPH, WHO HAD SCHOOL WORK TO DO TODAY. AND WE REGRET HIM NOT BEING HERE, BUT HE'S HE SENT ME THIS IN IN REGARDS TO THE FINDINGS. DUE TO THE FINDINGS IN THE RECORD, COUNCILMAN JOSEPH SUPPORTS THE DENIAL SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HE BELIEVES THAT THE SITE WAS NOT PROPERLY TESTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE, AND IT WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS AND PROPER PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE ON AND AROUND THE SITE. SO WE LOOK FOR YOUR YES. VOTE ON THE DENIAL, PLEASE. COUNCILWOMAN REED. YEAH, JUST VERY QUICKLY, I LOOKED AT THE DESIGN OF THAT. AND BOY, I WISH WE COULD BUILD THINGS LIKE THAT OTHER PLACES BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU DIG THROUGH THAT VERY LONG, EXTENSIVE FILE AND YOU REALIZE YOU'RE UP ON A HILL AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF DRAINAGE ISSUES. AND I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DENIED IT. AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF THAT DENIAL. BUT BOY, I WISH WE COULD BUILD THINGS LIKE THAT IN OTHER PLACES. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN RUDY. I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING THAT I, I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT WE'RE STARTING TO GET MORE PROJECTS THAT ARE OFFERING DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES. AND I REALLY WANT TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD THAT WE APPRECIATE THAT WE'VE SAID IT CLEARLY. PEOPLE HAVE HEARD THAT. AND SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT THAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE. THE ONLY THING THAT SURPRISES ME, I GUESS, IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DO READ THROUGH THE FILE AND YOU READ ABOUT THE SOILS AND ALL OF THAT, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I'M SURPRISED THAT THAT VOTE IS 6 TO 3, BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THE FILE, IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S INCREDIBLY STEEP AND UNSTABLE AND ALL OF THE THINGS. AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IT'S NOT SPLIT EVENLY, BUT IT WAS 6 TO 3, WHICH WAS SURPRISING TO ME. SO THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT ANY OTHER PEOPLE, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS? YES. COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I TOO, I WASN'T I DIDN'T GET TO SEE THIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THIS, BUT 16 PEOPLE SPEAKING AGAINST IT SAYS A LOT. AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WHOEVER WAS THERE OR IF THERE'S NOTES, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THOSE NOTES. WHAT WERE THE MAIN ISSUES? WAS IT THE DRAINAGE, AS COUNCILWOMAN RUBY DISCUSSED? JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT WHAT MAINLY THE 16 PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED WITH. IF ANYBODY KNOWS. IS THAT SOMETHING. YOU SURE. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE STEEP SLOPES ON THE SITE AND THE STABILITY. SO THERE WAS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. THERE'S ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT THE DENSITY OF THE OF THE SITE. IF I HAD TO PICK THE TWO MAIN ONES, THOSE, THAT WOULD BE IT AMONGST, YOU KNOW, ACCESS WAS ANOTHER CONCERN BECAUSE IT HAD TWO ACCESS POINT, KIND OF ON THE SAME ROAD, EVEN THOUGH ONE PORTION WAS MEYER AND THE OTHER PORTION WAS DON. BUT THEY WERE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER. SO YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ISSUE. COUNCILMAN VACHON, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE AND THIS AREA. MY FIRST HOME WAS ON CAUSEWAY. THE ACCESS TO WHAT JULIA SAID IS, IS EXTREMELY TROUBLING. IN AND OUT. THERE'S A RAILROAD TRACK THERE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT THROUGH, AND YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THAT. THAT SOIL IS VERY UNSTABLE AND IS ON A SEVERE SLOPE. SO IT IS VERY WISE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED THIS. IT JUST IT DOES NOT WORK. THIS PROPERTY IS SET FOR SALE AND VACANT FOR OVER 30 YEARS, WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT SIMILAR OR EVEN IN THE SINGLE FAMILY REALM, AND IT JUST DOES NOT WORK. SO AGAIN, LET'S SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS? COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND, I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE NEW TO THE COMMITTEE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE WE UPHOLD A DENIAL, WHAT GENERALLY HAPPENS, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S BEHIND THIS PROJECT, BUT DO THEY OFTEN REWORK IT AND BRING IT BACK, OR DO THEY LOOK FOR A NEW PIECE OF LAND WITH THE SAME PROJECT? WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE, PER PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS TO APPLY FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING ON THE SITE. AGAIN. BUT THEY ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE PLAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD HEAR THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY'RE ASKING FOR DIFFERENT [00:55:03] ZONING, MAYBE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, LESSENING THE DENSITY, FIGURED OUT ANOTHER WAY TO ACCESS THE SITE, AND THEY COULD ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WAIVE THAT ONE YEAR OR THAT TWO YEAR RULE. AND THEN IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTS THAT, THEN THEY CAN COME BACK WITH ANOTHER CHANGE IN ZONING. OTHERWISE THEY WOULD LIKELY WALK AWAY FROM THE PROPOSAL. I WOULD JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT. NOT A LOT, BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, I GENERALLY SPEAKING AT COUNCIL, WE TRY TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OF BOTH THE PLANNING STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. RIGHT. AND SO WE TRY NOT TO GO AGAINST WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY RECOMMEND, GENERALLY SPEAKING. AND THEN IT'S, IT'S WE I DON'T I CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. I MEAN IT IS NOT CHEAP TO PUT TOGETHER THE KINDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT YOU NEED TO PUT, PUT TOGETHER TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE'RE TALKING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF MATERIALS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE. SO IT CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN JUST PICK UP AND MOVE TO A DIFFERENT SITE AND BUILD IT THERE. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN. SO JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR TO YOUR QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, SHERIFF, YOU CAN OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. JUST TO WEIGH IN AGAIN. AND YES, IS TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL ON THIS. CHAIR. YOU'VE GOT SEVEN YES VOTES. WITH SEVEN VOTES. THIS WILL BE PASSED OUT AND MOVED TO THE MOVE TO OLD BUSINESS. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS GOING TO BE HELD TODAY AT THE REQUEST OF THE SPONSORS. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS OUR NEXT ORDER [7. O-023-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.4.7 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS (CASE NO. 24-LDC-0009). 2/4/25  Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled 1/21/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By June 9, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ] OF BUSINESS. IT'S O-02325. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11 .4.7 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS, CASE NUMBER 24, LDC DASH 0009. SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK TO THIS AT ALL? I BELIEVE IT WAS HELD SO THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD LOOK INTO THE REQUEST MORE, BUT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION FOR STAFF. THANK YOU. THIS IS WE DID HAVE SOME KIND OF EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO KIND OF WEIGH IN ON THIS? AT THIS POINT I DON'T HAVE I DON'T THINK I'VE GOT ANYONE IN THE QUEUE. I'M GOING TO GET. I'M UPDATING MY QUEUE. BUT IF COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. YEAH. I JUST RECALLING THE CONVERSATION WE HAD ON THIS DISCUSSION, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE HARDER FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT SHOULD GET SOME MORE CHANGES FOR COMMUNITY ABILITY FOR COMMUNITY INPUT. IS THAT MAINLY THE THING THAT IT WAS THE COMMUNITY INPUT THAT WAS THE ISSUE. SO, JULIA, I MEAN, YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT WE HAD A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION AT THE LAST MEETING THAT AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPHRASE IT EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS PHRASED LAST TIME. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION WAS, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS MEETING IF YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME AND SPEAK, TO SPEAK TO THE PROJECT, DO THE SPONSOR, DOES THE SPONSOR OR THE DEVELOPER HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HEAR AT THAT MEETING, OR DO THEY HAVEO DO ANYTHING, OR DO THEY JUST MOVE FORWARD AS THEY WISH? AND I THINK, JULIA, THE RESPONSE WAS THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. AND SO I THINK SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD HERE WAS HOW VALUABLE IS A MEETING, A PUBLIC MEETING THAT WHERE WE INVITE PEOPLE TO COME AND SAY HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT SOMETHING, WHEN IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT. THERE'S NO THERE'S NOTHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE BASED ON, ON, ON THAT PUBLIC MEETING. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT AND WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK ABOUT, AND I THINK IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION. MY VICE CHAIR LAST, LAST MEETING SAID HE THINKS IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE PEOPLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. I AGREE WITH THAT COMPLETELY. WHAT I'M [01:00:01] NOT SURE IS A GREAT IDEA IS TO PACKAGE THESE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AS A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE THE PROCESS. WHEN, ESPECIALLY LATER IN THE PROCESS, GENERALLY, NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE. AND SO WE PRESENT THESE, THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS AS A WAY THAT YOU CAN COME IN AND, AND VOICE YOUR OPINION. AND THEN PEOPLE FEEL COMPLETELY UNHEARD. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION. I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD DISTRIBUTE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE, BUT THE STATUTE REQUIRES A SINGLE PUBLIC MEETING. WE ARE THE ONLY PLACE IN KENTUCKY, OR ONE OF THE FEW PLACES IN KENTUCKY THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE PUBLIC MEETING. AND I THINK WE SET OUR CONSTITUENTS UP FOR FRUSTRATION AND OUR SELVES UP TO BE PUT IN A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS LATER IN THE PROCESS. AND SO WE HEAR ALL THIS I DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT, BUT IT MAY NOT BE A FINDING OF FACT. IT MAY JUST BE AN OPINION. IT'S GOING TO BE THIS, THAT OR THE OTHER. AND SO ALL OF THE BOXES HAVE BEEN CHECKED FOR THE FOR THE PROJECT TO BE APPROVED. AND WE'RE HEARING, I DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S YELLOW OR I DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S TOO TALL, OR I DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC OR SOME VERY GENERAL THINGS. BUT NONE OF THAT INPUT HAS TO BE LISTENED TO OR HEARD AT THAT POINT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST SETTING PEOPLE UP FOR FRUSTRATION. SO THAT'S THAT WAS MY ONLY CONVERSATION THAT I WAS TRYING TO HAVE US HAVE AS A COMMITTEE IS HOW DO WE IF WE CONTINUE TO HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS, MULTIPLE PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE. I THINK WE NEED TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE PROCESS. BUT THE PROCESS IS KIND OF COMPLICATED. AND SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. SO I MEAN, IN THIS CASE, I WAS MY OPINION WAS KIND OF TO SAY I DON'T I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THAT ADDING A PUBLIC MEETING AT THE BACK END ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS I THINK IT SETS US UP FOR A FRUSTRATION AND FAILURE AGAIN, RATHER THAN MORE TRANSPARENCY. AND SO I LIKE THAT I DON'T YOU GUYS CAN WEIGH IN ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WE HAD LAST TIME. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. SO MY RESPONSE IS THAT I AGREE THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN CONFUSING AND FRUSTRATING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANOTHER MEETING OR TWO WOULD ALLEVIATE OR MAKE IT BETTER. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES ABOUT WHAT'S COMING IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. SOMETIMES PEOPLE FIND OUT LATE. I THINK AT THAT MEETING WE ACKNOWLEDGE SOME LANGUAGE BARRIERS BASED ON SOME OTHER LEGISLATION THAT HAD HAPPENED AND PEOPLE NOT KNOWING AND THEN BEING ABLE TO BE PREPARED. AND I THINK FOR US AS PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT OUR DISTRICTS, YOU KNOW, TO ME, IT BEHOOVES US TO CREATE MORE SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. AND LIKE YOU SAID, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DEVELOPER OR WHOEVER CAN CHOOSE TO LISTEN OR NOT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD LISTEN AND THEY SHOULD HEAR IT. AND FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN COUNCILMAN SAM HAD THAT ISSUE IN HIS DISTRICT, I WATCHED TRAVIS, I WATCHED EVERYBODY COME TOGETHER, AND WE ALL CAME TOGETHER AND GOT A BETTER OUTCOME FOR THEM. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT ATYPICAL, RIGHT? THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. BUT THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF RIGHT HERE IN THE MOMENT WHEN PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER AND US AS COUNCIL PEOPLE, EVERYBODY ADVOCATED. AND THAT DID CHANGE THE SITUATION. I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME UNIQUENESS, AS I'VE DONE WORK OVER THE STATE AND WE HAVE TO FORMER STATE LEGISLATORS HERE. IT IS COMPLICATED IN DIFFERENT PLACES AND HOW WE GET THINGS DONE. BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF THE UNIQUENESS OF LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, THAT SINCE MERGER, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING WE DO IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT CREATING MORE SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND YOU KNOW, AND AT LEAST KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S JUST WORK BETWEEN WORK SCHEDULES AND SCHOOL SCHEDULES AND ALL OF THAT, PEOPLE JUST DON'T ALWAYS KNOW. SO SOMETIMES THAT FINAL MEETING MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME THAT SOMEBODY IN THAT COMMUNITY HEARS ABOUT THIS. SO THAT WAS MY BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS GOING TO COME FROM AN ADVOCACY LENS. AND THE MORE TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE I THINK THAT. BUT I DO THINK MORE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN HOW THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING. NOW, IF THERE'S A COMMUNITY BUILDING AGREEMENT, ALL OF THOSE THOSE THINGS, I AGREE WITH YOU. THERE'S PROCESSES TO START THAT SOONER, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD HURT TO HAVE THIS. BUT I AGREE, FRUSTRATIONS ARE GOING TO BE THERE. I WISH WE COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO THAT, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU BREAKING IT DOWN ON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I TRUST YOUR EXPERTISE ON HOW THE WORK THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO. I HAVEN'T DONE WORK IN THE WAY THAT YOU ALL HAVE, BUT I HAVE DONE IT FROM THE COMMUNITY LEVEL. AND I DO KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE LEFT OUT OF CONVERSATIONS OR NOT KNOW SOMETHING THAT'S COMING. SO THAT'S THE PART THE LENS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN VACHON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M GOING TO DIVERT MY QUESTION [01:05:03] TO COUNTY ATTORNEY TRAVIS FEASTER, IF THAT'S OKAY. TRAVIS, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS. AND I REMEMBER WE DISCUSSED SOMEWHAT SOME DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN KIND OF COME TO THE MIDDLE GROUND. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT HAS TRANSPIRED ON THAT CONVERSATION? WE IT WAS OVER THE PHONE, BUT A SUPER BIG OFFICIAL CONVERSATION. WE TALKED BRIEFLY AND WE WERE GOING TO WE DISCUSSED SOMEWHAT OF SEEING IF THERE'S ANY LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS AND, AND COME UP WITH A MIDDLE, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD GROUND HERE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE I THINK MOST OF THIS COUNCIL IS 100% THIS WAY OR 100% THIS WAY, ON THIS SIDE DEAL. AND I FEEL LIKE WE CAN PROBABLY SOMEWHAT WORK TOGETHER ON FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND ON THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION. I FEEL LIKE IN ONE SENSE I'M IN AGREEANCE FOR IT. AND IN IN THE OTHER SENSE, I'M 100% AGAINST IT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT JUST IT HAS A REVERSE EFFECT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY AND FOR YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FOR THE CONSTITUENTS TO COME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF, OH, YES, THERE'S ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. WE CAN STOP THIS, OR WE CAN WE CAN PUSH THIS ALONG OR, OR WE CAN HAVE ALL THESE CHANGES MADE AND NONE OF THEIR VOICES ARE HEARD. NONE OF I MEAN, IF THEY ARE GREAT, BUT IN ONE, IN THE SENSE OF HAVING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AS A REQUIREMENT TO JUST CHECK A BOX AND 50 OR 100 PEOPLE SHOW UP FRUSTRATED AND NONE OF THEIR WORDS MATTER. IN A SENSE. I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND COLD, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY EITHER. SO I, I RECOMMEND THAT YOU AND I, WE KIND OF WORK WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND TRY TO MAYBE FIND A MIDDLE GROUND HERE. SO I THINK IN OUR CONVERSATION, WE SORT OF DISCUSSED TWO MAIN LEVERS THAT COULD BE PULLED HERE, ASSUMING THE LIKE I SAID, THERE'S SOME FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS CONCEPT AND SOME THAT AREN'T. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN TWEAKING THE CONCEPT, THE TWO MAIN LEVERS TO PULL ARE ONE THAT SORT OF THREE YEAR PERIOD THAT THIS COVERS, RIGHT? IT'S THREE YEARS AFTER REZONING. YOU CAN SHORTEN THAT, MAKE IT APPLY TO LESS PROJECTS. YOU CAN MAKE IT LONGER AND APPLY TO MORE. THE SECOND IS CONTAINED IN SECTION. WELL, IT'S SECTION ONE OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S SUBSECTION TWO OF SUBSECTION E OF A COMP PLAN. ARE THOSE MEASURES THAT TRIGGER THIS RIGHT. THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION AT THIS COMMITTEE LAST TIME ABOUT THE INCREASE IN DENSITY BY 10% OR MORE. YOU COULD DIAL THAT UP TO 20%, 25%. IT WOULD CATCH LESS SMALL INCREASES. SIMILARLY THE FOLLOWING ONE DEALING WITH 25% FOOTPRINT OR 500FT■!S 500FT■!S S NOT A NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT FOR SOME OF THESE LARGER PROJECTS. SO THERE ARE WAYS TO, YOU KNOW, FOCUS THIS IN OR OUT TO MAKE IT ONLY APPLY TO LARGE CHANGES. HOWEVER, YOU ALL LOOK TO DEFINE THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE PLAYING WITH SORT OF THOSE NUMBERS AND IDENTIFYING FACTORS, I THINK YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT GOING A DIFFERENT ROUTE ENTIRELY RATHER THAN AMENDING THIS ORDINANCE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND, TRAVIS, CAN YOU REMIND US AND WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A CERTAIN THING, AND THEN IT WAS TWEAKED AT THEIR MEETING AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING. IS THAT, YES, I BELIEVE STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS 25% ON THE DENSITY FIGURE, AND THAT WAS AMENDED DOWN TO TEN. JULIE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THERE. YES. AND I'LL RESTATE MY OPINION ABOUT THAT. FOR IN A, IN A IN A DECENT SIZED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 10% DEVIATION OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOTHING. AND SO I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH ACCOUNTS BECAUSE I AGAIN, I THINK WHEN YOU'RE DOING A LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, EVEN 25% IS NOT A HUGE DEVIATION. SO BUT 10% IS LITERALLY ALMOST NOTHING. SO I JUST THINK CATCHING ANY PROJECT THAT HAS A 10% DEVIATION OR 500FT■!S OR ONE OR THE OTHER IS WAY TOO BROAD ON THIS, ON THIS SUBJECT, I'VE GOT COUNCIL MEMBER BRATCHER IN YOU. YES, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS COMMITTEE, MISTER CHAIR, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK ALLOWING PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON WHAT'S AFFECTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS IS A BAD THING. IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, THEN COME BACK AND TELL THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT THE CHANGE IS. USING YOUR FIRST DEFINITION. I KNOW YOU REVISED IT, BUT YOUR FIRST DEFINITION YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY HAVE A MEETING TO BEGIN WITH? THEY'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES FROM THE FIRST MEETING. AND YOU KNOW, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE RECENTLY HAD ONE WHERE A PUBLIC COMMENT ACTUALLY SPAWNED A CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IT WAS THE WETLAND, OR I CAN NAME SEVERAL. [01:10:06] I'VE SEEN THROUGH THE YEARS WHERE THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THEY COME BEFORE US BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR THE DEVELOPER AND, AND SURE, THEY'RE VENTING A LOT AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THAT'S THE BUSINESS WE'RE IN. THAT'S THE BUSINESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE UPSET WITH US. THERE WERE TWO THINGS YOU SAID OR ONE THING YOU SAID. YOU SAID WE ARE THE ONLY COMMUNITY THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE MEETING IS THAT CURRENTLY WE JUST HAVE ONE. WE TYPICALLY HAVE AT LEAST THREE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS TO SPEAK TO THAT. NO, WELL, NO PUBLIC MEETINGS, RIGHT. THEN THERE'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THAT THE APPLICANT CONDUCTS, AND THEN THERE'S THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THERE'S TWO CONDUCTED BY GOVERNMENT METRO, AND THEN THERE'S ONE CONDUCTED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. WELL, BECAUSE OF CARS, EVERYONE MAKES A THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S STATEWIDE COMMONWEALTH WIDE. NO, NO. SO THERE'S NOT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS IN OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION AREAS. ONLY IN A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT. I FORGET THE EXACT LANGUAGE IN THE US, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S JUST WELL, THAT MUST BE THE DENSITY OF THE AREA. I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE LEXINGTON DOESN'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEIR REGULATIONS ON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO HAVE ONE. BUT THEY MAY. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THE POINT OF 10%, I CAN SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S 10%. BUT, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU GET UP TO THE 25, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A QUARTER OF A CHANGE. AND JUST LIKE COUNCILMAN BASHAM SAID, THAT MAYBE WE'RE JUST TALKING. ISSUE OF DEGREES. AND I'D BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THAT, BUT I'M I'M VOTING YES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE EXTRA NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. COUNCILMAN HUDSON, THANK YOU. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE. AND I SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. I COULD SUPPORT IT MORE, PROBABLY IF WE COULD EVER ANSWER THE QUESTION, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? WE DO HAVE TO THE POINT THAT WAS JUST MADE THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT ALREADY IS FOUR. ENOUGH IS FIVE, ENOUGH IS SIX ENOUGH? THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMEONE THAT WILL SAY, WE NEED ONE MORE, NO MATTER WHAT THAT NUMBER IS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A SYSTEM. WE LIVE IN A SYSTEM OF TRADE OFFS, RIGHT? WE HEAR THE ENDLESS CONVERSATION ABOUT WE NEED MORE HOUSING. WELL, GUESS WHO BUILDS THOSE HOUSES? DEVELOPERS. WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR PROCESS ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH TO DEVELOPERS SO THAT THEY'LL COME AND BUILD THOSE HOUSES. AND IF WE MAKE IT SO ONEROUS ON THEM THAT WE CAN'T GET THEM TO COME AND BUILD THOSE HOUSES, THEN WE'RE WE'RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT. I PERSONALLY, I THINK THREE IS ENOUGH. AND I THINK ALSO HERE TODAY WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE TO COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW'S POINT, I HAVE BEEN ON IN MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS WHERE COMMUNITY INPUT WAS HEARD, WAS ACTED UPON. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO WANT. SO THE EXCEPTION IS WHEN THE DEVELOPER JUST GIVES THEM THE FINGER AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I WANT. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, A SINGLE ONE WHERE THAT'S HAPPENED. SO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS I DON'T THINK IS THE ANSWER. MAYBE ADVERTISING THE MEETINGS THAT WE DO HAVE BETTER WOULD BE MORE MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE EFFECTIVE. BUT I'M I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAIR ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY MIND IS GOING BACK AND FORTH AS TO WHETHER TO SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY MEETING, BECAUSE IT GIVES OUR PEOPLE A CHANCE, OUR CONSTITUENTS, A CHANCE TO HAVE A SAY VERSUS NOT HAVING A MEETING BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ACTUALLY TAKE ANY OF IT INTO ACCOUNT. SO I'M KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THAT. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS AND INCREASE IN THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND [01:15:02] OR, OR AN INCREASE IN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, AND TO ME THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS, BECAUSE YOU CAN INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT, THE DENSITY BY MAKING APARTMENTS SMALLER VERSUS FOOTPRINT IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAVE, I THINK, A GREATER IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORS. AND THAT TO ME IS THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE. AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH INCREASING THE INCREASE OF THE DENSITY BY, LET'S SAY, 15% INSTEAD OF 10%, BECAUSE TO ME THAT SOUNDS REALLY SMALL. THAT'S PRETTY MINUSCULE, AND I'M STILL STUCK ON OUR INCREASE IN BUILDING FOOTPRINT BY 500FT■!S. WHY WOULD ANYBODY EVEN TALK ABOUT THAT? THAT'S THE SIZE OF MY OFFICE. SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY THAT ONE'S IN THERE. THAT SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1000FT■!S. I MEAN, THAT'S LIKE AN OUTBUILDING. I WOULD WANT TO IF IN A IN A PERFECT WORLD, I WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THAT ONE TOO. BUT I WOULD ENDORSE INCREASING THE DENSITY TO 15% IF THAT MAKES IT MORE APPEALING TO PEOPLE. SO THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. I'LL GET RIGHT BACK TO YOU. TRAVIS, CAN, CAN WE? I THINK WE'RE CONFLATING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. AND SO THIS THIS IS VERY WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY IS VERY SPECIFIC TO PROJECTS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN COME BACK. AND WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF THIS. WE'RE DEALING WITH WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS TO BRING SOMETHING BACK AND HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OR NOT. AND SO CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT AGAIN. SO I CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE OF WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE. SURE. SO WHEN THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY GETS REZONED, THAT'S WHEN THE SORT OF THREE PART, THE THREE TWO SEPARATE MEETINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OCCUR. RIGHT? THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON THE FRONT END. THEY GO TO LDMTX, WHICH EFFECTIVELY MAKES SURE THE PLAN IS TECHNICALLY READY TO BE HEARD. THEY THEN SCHEDULE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLDS THE ACTUAL MEETING ON THE REZONING CASE. RIGHT. AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION ULTIMATELY COMES TO US. SO IF YOU WANT TO I MEAN, THIS ISN'T WE DON'T TAKE TESTIMONY. THIS IS SORT OF A FOURTH MEETING. ONCE THAT'S DONE, ONCE A PROPERTY IS REZONED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, LET'S SAY THEY REZONE TO C-2 AND THERE'S NO BINDING ELEMENTS RESTRICTING ANY OF THEIR USES. THAT PROPERTY IS NOW ZONED C-2. THIS BODY HAS DETERMINED THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ANY C-2 USE. AND SO THEY COULD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED A COFFEE SHOP AND DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT? ACTUALLY, I'D RATHER BE A TIRE STORE. THEY COULD DO THAT ONE MONTH AFTER GETTING APPROVED, AND THEY CAN GO TO PLANNING AND DESIGN, AND THEY COULD FILE A NEW PLAN THAT REWORKS THEIR PROJECT IF NECESSARY AND SAYS, HEY, I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY BE A TIRE STORE. I'M NOT GOING TO BE A COFFEE SHOP, I'M ZONED C-2. I SAID 31 MONTH. THE APPEAL PERIOD MIGHT NEED TO PASS, BUT REGARDLESS, THAT'S THE CONCEPT, RIGHT? AND THERE'S A PROCESS THAT GO THROUGH FOR THAT. AND IF THEY MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THEY MIGHT GO TO DRC FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. IF IT'S SMALL ENOUGH CHANGE, THEY MIGHT JUST BE ABLE TO CHANGE WHATEVER USE THEY'RE PROPOSING. THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR BUILDING FOOTPRINT A BIT. THE BUILDING HEIGHT, THOSE THINGS THAT ARE LISTED HERE, SOME OF THESE CAN BE DONE WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC HEARING AT ALL. AND SOME OF THEM MIGHT GO TO DRC FOR A SINGLE ROUND OF A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT IF IT IS WITHIN THAT THREE YEAR WINDOW AFTER PROPERTIES ARE ZONED, ANY OF THESE TRIGGERING CONDITIONS WOULD ALSO TRIGGER A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. SO INSTEAD OF A ONE STEP PROCESS OR A STAFF APPROVAL PROCESS, THIS WILL GO TO A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND A GUARANTEED PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANY OF THOSE CHANGES WITHIN THREE YEARS. SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ONE, MAYBE TWO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS, SORT OF DEPENDING ON WHAT THESE TRIGGERING CONDITIONS MATCH. I THINK A SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT AT THE REZONING PHASE, WE'RE DEALING WITH A LARGER DISCRETIONARY DECISION, RIGHT? I MEAN, OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT YOU ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S NOT HARD AND FAST REGULATIONS. IT'S NOT YOU NEED TO BE WITHIN 1000 FOOT OF AN ACTIVITY CENTER. IT'S YOU NEED TO BE NEAR AN ACTIVITY CENTER. WELL, WHAT'S NEAR WHAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH SO THAT AS THE CROW FLIES, WALKING DISTANCE, ETC, WE GET TO SORT OF PLAY WITH THOSE IN A ZONING CASE AND A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE. WE ARE LOOKING AT MINISTERIAL REVIEW, RIGHT? ARE YOU AT AN APPROPRIATE PLAN? DO YOU CHECK THE BOXES? ARE YOU SET BACK ENOUGH? IS YOUR BUILDING THE PROPER HEIGHT? UNLESS THEY HAVE SOME WAIVERS OR VARIANCES, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME REASONS TO DENY A CASE. AND SO I HAVE HEARD FROM SOME DEVELOPERS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS CAN BE BENEFICIAL IN THE REZONING PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY GET A SENSE ON THE FRONT END OF WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE UPSET ABOUT AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND ADJUST THEIR PLAN FOR THAT. AND SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS, AND SOMETIMES NO COMPROMISE IS MADE. BUT I HAVE HEARD THERE HAVE BEEN OCCASIONAL PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING BEFORE A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THERE'S EVEN LESS TEETH THAN THERE WOULD BE OTHERWISE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A DISCRETIONARY DECISION. IT'S A MINISTERIAL ONE, SO WE DON'T. THAT'S WHY WE CURRENTLY DON'T REQUIRE PROBABLY REASON. WE DON'T CURRENTLY REQUIRE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS IN FRONT OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS. BUT THERE IS CONCERN WITH WITH BAIT AND SWITCHES, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON THAT THE ORIGINAL [01:20:05] RESOLUTION THAT WAS FILED ON THIS REALLY GOES THROUGH STEP BY STEP, WHY THE SPONSORS THOUGHT ADDITIONAL NOTICE, ADDITIONAL PARTICIPATION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THESE QUICK TURNAROUND, QUOTE UNQUOTE, POSSIBLE BAIT AND SWITCH SITUATIONS WHERE A PROJECT GETS ZONED AND THREE YEARS LATER THEY CHANGE THEIR USE OR CHANGE THEIR SIZE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. SO I THINK THAT KIND OF LAYS OUT THE SITUATION AS I SEE IT IN ANY COMMENTARY, I MIGHT ADD. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. I HOPE I DIDN'T MUDDY THE WATERS TOO MUCH. SO LET ME BE CLEAR, I DON'T THINK. I THINK THERE ARE. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THIS OCCURS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. IF YOU HAVE COMPLETELY REVAMPED YOUR PLAN, THEN FINE. I THINK IT SHOULD COME BACK AND HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. FOR ME, IT'S PRIMARILY THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE USING, AND THREE YEARS IS A LONG TIME. IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT REALLY BAIT AND SWITCH TO ME. LIKE IF YOU GET SOMETHING THROUGH AND THEN THREE YEARS LATER YOU COME BACK THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE BAIT AND SWITCH TO ME, MAKING A 10% CHANGE TO ME AGAIN IS SMALL ENOUGH. IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE BAIT AND SWITCH TO ME. SO WHAT I WOULD BE, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS TO GO BACK TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS CHISELED, WHAT WAS ADDED TO IT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON JUST A FEW PEOPLE SHOWING UP AND RECOMMENDING IT. COUNCILMAN VACHON, THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND TO THE POINT, I THINK, THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED AND WHAT TRAVIS MENTIONED IS AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE ADD THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT INTO THESE DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL. AND IN THE ZONING CASES. GUYS. AND WE KEEP COMING BACK TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, CHAIR, INTO THE PERCENTAGES AND THE NUMBERS AND HOW MINUSCULE THOSE ARE. TRAVIS AND COMMITTEE, I MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE SO WE CAN GO BACK TO THE TABLE AND, AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION ON WHAT THE NUMBERS CAN BE, WHERE MAYBE WHERE WE CAN FIND SOME OF THAT MIDDLE GROUND AND, AND GET A WIN WIN FOR, FOR EVERYONE HERE, THE DEVELOPERS AND THE CONSTITUENTS. SO I STAND BY THAT MOTION TO TABLE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION OVER THESE NEXT TWO WEEKS. AND CAN YOU HOLD THAT MOTION FOR JUST A SECOND? LET ME GIVE COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOUR MOTION. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, MY DISTRICT TWO, THREE YEARS AGO, ONE OF ONE OF THE ONE OF THE CHECKLIST REASONS I RAN FOR THIS OFFICE WAS BECAUSE THE PLANNING AND ZONING TURNED DOWN A PROJECT IN MY AREA, AND THE METRO COUNCIL OVERTURNED THE PLANNING RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT'S FINE. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. AND ULTIMATELY, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY, IN MY OPINION. BUT I TELL YOU WHAT, MAN, THAT BRENTLINGER BARDSTOWN ROAD CEDAR CREEK INTERSECTION IS JUST ABSOLUTELY. I DON'T MEAN TO GO OFF ON A TANGENT, BUT I'M GOING TO IS AN ABSOLUTE PARKING LOT EVERY MORNING AND PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN GET OUT OF THEIR AREA BECAUSE THAT LITTLE SMALL INTERSECTION IS JUST BEING OVERTOOK WITH WITH OUT OF CONTROL DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THE LEAST WE COULD DO IS LET THE PEOPLE HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK OUT. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY CAME, THEY THEY WENT. THE PEOPLE OF THAT AREA WENT THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES. THEY WENT TO THE PLANNING. THEY WENT TO THE LDC, THEY WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEY MADE THEIR CASE THAT THE TRAFFIC WAS JUST TOO OVERWHELMING. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED IT. AND THEN BUT IT GOT OVERTURNED. AND THEY'RE ALL SAYING, WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT HAPPENED? WELL, AT LEAST WE COULD HAVE A CHANCE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. SO THAT'S WHY I AM IN FAVOR OF LETTING THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. AND IT ISN'T JUST THREE MEETINGS THAT WE'RE ADDING ANOTHER MEETING. WE'RE ADDING ANOTHER MEETING AFTER THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE. WE'RE NOT JUST ADDING A MEETING FOR NO REASON. THERE'S BEEN CHANGE. AND THE DEGREE OF THAT CHANGE IS WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE SO AND TALK ABOUT AND MAYBE COME BACK AND, AND COME TO A CONCLUSION. SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR LETTING ME VENT A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE AND A SECOND TRAVIS DO WE HAVE DOES IT. THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF TIMELINE ON IT THAT WE'RE OR WHAT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE. RIGHT. SO THIS HAS NO TIMELINE OTHER THAN THE STANDARD SORT OF IN SIX MONTHS IT WOULD DIE. OKAY, OKAY. SO WE'LL IT'S BEEN MOTION AND SECONDED TO TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT, NEXT MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE AGAINST SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. WELL I'D LIKE TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU HAVE BOTH. SO IF WE CAN OPEN THIS UP FOR A ROLL CALL, VOTE SECOND. COUNCILWOMAN LORI. YES. SURE. ONE, YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES AND [01:25:15] ONE NO. THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. ACTUALLY, GO GO AHEAD. WE'LL GIVE YOU A MINUTE HERE TO SPEAK. I VOTED NO TO TABLE IT. I THOUGHT WE WERE COMING IN TODAY TO LOOK AT AN AMENDMENT ON THIS ITEM. I THOUGHT WHEN WE TABLED IT LAST TIME THAT SOME WORK WAS BEING DONE, AND THIS IS MY FAULT FOR MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION AND NOT BEING INVOLVED IN THE WORK MYSELF. BUT NOW THAT WE'RE HERE DISCUSSING IT FOR THE SECOND TIME OR THIRD, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT WORK TO DO, RIGHT? LET'S GIVE IT A THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN OR CAN'T WE AMEND IN COMMITTEE? WE CAN. WE COULD AMEND IN COMMITTEE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT WELL WE'RE TABLING IT. IF IT'S NOT READY FOR A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN IN TWO WEEKS, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE A COMMUNITY MEMBER WHO WAS JUST INVITED TO A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHERE I GAVE INPUT AND WAS COMPLETELY DISREGARDED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER. WHERE ARE WE? ITEM NUMBER 80-02725. AND THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE NEWLY REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 162. IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES. OKAY. SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED AND [8. O-027-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE NULU REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 162 IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”). 2/4/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By:  July 30, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ] SECONDED. JOE, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THIS? I CAN JOE HABERMAN, OFFICE OF PLANNING. I GAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. I CAN GIVE A HIGHLIGHT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS AMENDMENT, OR BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THAT'S WHERE THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GO WITH THIS. SO WE DID HAVE A PRETTY EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS LAST TIME TOO. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS TO KICK THIS OFF? AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE. OKAY. COUNCIL VACHON, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I MADE THE MOTION TO TABLE LAST TIME FOR JUST SOME CLARIFICATION AND I NEEDED TO HAVE WITH TRAVIS AND UNDERSTANDING, AND I THINK WE'VE MOVED TO THE DIRECTION THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS GOING AND WHAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROWTH IS GOING TO CREATE. OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT A FAN OF ADDING ANOTHER LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY AND COMMITTEES AND THINGS FOR A DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IT SHOUL JUST HAPPEN, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. I THANK YOU. I AGREE, I THINK WE SHOULDN'T BE ADDING LAYERS, ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE ARE A MILLION DIFFERENT PLACES THAT WE CAN REMOVE BUREAUCRACY AND SHORTEN THE PROCESS OTHER THAN FOCUS ON DISTRICTS LIKE NULU ART CENTER. I MEAN, IT'S JUST THOSE DISTRICTS ARE VERY, VERY GRASSROOTS AND THEY'RE BASICALLY THE RESIDENTS HAVE CHOSEN TO DO THAT IN THOSE PLACES. AND SO IF THERE WAS EVER SOMETHING THAT'S LOCAL, IT'S THOSE THINGS. I THINK THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT THAT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. CHAIR, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID? WHAT WHAT DO YOU MEAN GRASSROOTS. SO. WELL, SO A OVERLAY DISTRICT AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT HAS TO BE INTRODUCED. JOE, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. SO THE THREE DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICTS WE HAVE ARE DIFFERENT AGES. BUT AND THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE PRESERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT AT THE LAST MEETING. THE PRESERVATION DISTRICT REQUIRES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF OWNERS TO SIGN ON. I THINK IT'S 50% OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF THAT DISTRICT. SO OUR SEVEN LOCAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS, THEY ARE VERY INTENSIVELY COMING FROM THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF BUY IN FROM THE OWNERSHIP OVERLAYS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE ORDINANCE. HOWEVER, THEY USUALLY COME OUT OF SOME NEIGHBORHOOD PROCESS AND WANTING ADDITIONAL DESIGN PROTECTIONS ON TOP OF WHAT IS OFFERED IN THE ZONING CODE. SO WITH NULU, IT WAS CREATED IN 2015 WHEN THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS GOING, AND THEY WANTED ADDITIONAL CONTROLS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS GOING IN THE DIRECTION THAT EVERYBODY WANTED. AND I DON'T REALLY RECALL I WAS HERE FOR THAT. THERE BEING ANY REAL OPPOSITION TO THE CREATION OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PLAN PROMPTED IT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WITH THIS SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE OFFERING TO THE COMMITTEE [01:30:02] NOW TO CONSIDER, THEY CAME OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND AS PART OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PROCESS, WHICH WAS BROADER THAN NULU, IT ALSO INCLUDED BUTCHERTOWN AND OTHER PARTS OF PHOENIX. SO THEY WANTED NOT ONLY TO KEEP THE GUIDELINES. THERE WAS NO REAL COMMENTS THAT I SAW OF REPLACING THEM OR GETTING RID OF THEM. THEY WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE ZONING AND THE OVERLAY WORKED TOGETHER A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AND THAT WAS THE SPIRIT OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE TO KIND OF LINE THEM UP A LITTLE BIT. BUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REPEATEDLY MENTIONS THESE GUIDELINES AS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY VALUES. AND HOW LONG IS BARDSTOWN ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT BEEN IN PLACE? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT SINCE THE 90S AT LEAST, IT'S BEEN THAT'S, I BELIEVE, OUR OLDEST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT. RIGHT. SO THAT'S GENERALLY THEY COME OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH COMES OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT I MEAN, THAT IT COME UP OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING A TOP DOWN THING. YES. COUNCILMEMBER BRASHER, MAYBE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS IS WHAT SOME MORE AREAS NEED TO HAVE THE VALUE OF THE INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEIGHBORS WHICH LAST EVENT ON THIS SCHEDULE, WE SAID THEY'RE JUST SLOWING THE PROCESS DOWN. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY SAY. AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME THE NEIGHBORS ARE THE ONES DICTATING SOME OF THE ZONING? IS THAT AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT OR WRONG? IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES, BUT. SO PLEASE EDUCATE ME. WELL, I MEAN, THIS AN OVERLAY HAS MORE TO DO WITH WHAT A WHAT A WHAT SOMETHING LOOKS LIKE HAS REALLY VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ZONING. IT'S A OVERLAY. SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU TRAVEL TO A TOURIST TOWN AND YOU SEE A MCDONALD'S AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOUR TYPICAL MCDONALD'S, THEY'VE GONE TO SOME EFFORT TO MAKE IT FIT INTO THAT TOWN OR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY THAT THEY DON'T NORMALLY DO. THAT ALMOST GUARANTEE YOU IS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT. THEY WANT IT TO LOOK A CERTAIN WAY. AND SO IT'S KIND OF A DIFFERENT IT'S A DIFFERENT THING. AND AGAIN, IT COMES UP OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PEOPLE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS ALONG BARDSTOWN ROAD DECIDED THEY WAED BARDSTOWN ROAD TO LOOK A CERTAIN WAY. AND THAT'S WHY THEY PUED THAT.HEREOES THAT D GO EAS OR S I LI TO TCL W E NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKSIKE,WHAT LIKE SOME OTHER AREAS SEEM TO BE HAVING. HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR MOORETOWN ROAD GOES? I BELIEVE IT CONCLUDES RIGHT THE BLOCK AFTER TREVILIAN. THE BLOCK AFTER TREVILIAN. YEAH, I THINK IT INCLUDES THAT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AT THAT INTERSECTION WHERE THAT MCDONALD'S AND IS RIGHT THERE, AND IT ENDS PRETTY MUCH THERE AND GOES DOWN THE OTHER DIRECTION TO BROADWAY. SO THERE IS A FAIRLY CLEAR PROCESS THAT YOU GUYS COULD GO THROUGH TO CREATE A VERY BASICALLY AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING, EXTENDING. SO YOU WOULD HAVE A CHOICE IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS APPLY TO THAT MORE SUBURBAN PART OF BARDSTOWN, THEN IT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MAP AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS, WE WOULD ALSO NEED AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF METRO CODE. SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT THE SAME STANDARDS WHICH WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT. I CAN SHARE THOSE WITH YOU. THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE PRESENTED WITH NULU. VERY INTERESTING. I APPRECIATE THAT. MY RESEARCH IS I GOTTA DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COUNCILMEMBER BATSON. AND THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST CORRECT ME AGAIN. ONCE AGAIN IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT PLEASE OVERLAY DISTRICTS WERE ORIGINALLY SET FORTH, I GUESS, EARLY, YOU KNOW, 1980S, YOU KNOW. 1990S. SO ON TO ORIGINALLY PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC HOMES AND LAND AND, AND STRUCTURES IN COMMUNITIES. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY IS CREATING AN OVERLAY DISTRICT IN NULU TO RECREATE WHAT COULD COME IN. COULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OR OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, RATHER THAN I MEAN, WE'RE NOT PRESERVING ANYTHING. WE'RE WE'RE GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEAR THESE, THESE STRUCTURES DOWN AND REBUILD. THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN STORY HOTELS AND CONDOS AND SO [01:35:06] ON, WHICH ARE GREAT. I LOVE THE DEVELOPMENT. I LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY. BUT I GUESS WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS SET FOR A OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO THE NULU DISTRICT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 2015. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO AMEND THE GUIDELINES A LITTLE BIT TO LINE UP WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE ZONING A LITTLE BIT MORE AFTER IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE TEN YEARS. WE'RE KIND OF SEEING WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK. THE PURPOSE OF THE NULU DISTRICT, WHEN YOU READ INTO THE INTENT AND THE FOUNDATION ORDINANCE THAT CREATED IT, IT WAS TO ADD ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONTROLS BECAUSE THAT AREA WAS EXPERIENCING A LOT OF CHANGE, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO LOUISVILLE METRO THAT IT GET DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT WAS COHESIVE. BUT IT ALSO HAS A LOT OF LANGUAGE ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOW A UNIFORM OR BETTER DESIGN STANDARDS COULD HELP WITH THAT. BUT TO THE POINT OF IT BEING A PRESERVATION DISTRICT, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF THAT. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT NULU AND ALL THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS THERE, IT'S NOT AS INTACT AS OUR OTHER PRESERVATION DISTRICTS, LIKE RIGHT ACROSS MAIN STREET AND BUTCHERTOWN VERY INTACT. AND THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT A PRESERVATION DISTRICT WAS THE RIGHT APPROACH THERE, BEC ENTIRN PRESERVING BUILDINGS AND MAKING SURE THAT NEW BUILDINGS THAT COME IN ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THE OVERLAY DISTRICT ISN'T. THERE'S A LOT OF GUIDELINES THAT SUPPORT PRESERVATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT ITS PRIMARY FOCUS. IT'S A LOT MORE FLEXIBLE WITH NEW BUILDINGS AND HOW THEY THEY LOOK AND HOW THEY ARE INTRODUCED INTO THE AREA. IT'S NOT AS STRINGENT, I WOULD SAY, AS A LOCAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT WHEN IT COMES TO HOW YOU WOULD REVIEW AN APPLICATION INVOLVING A HISTORIC BUILDING OR NEXT TO A HISTORIC BUILDING. SO THEY'RE SIMILAR, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. I WOULD SAY IT'S MORE FLEXIBLE AND NOT, AS YOU KNOW, FOCUSED ON THAT SINGULAR ISSUE. CAN YOU REMIND US HOW MANY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THEY WENT THROUGH TO MAKE THIS TWEAK? I MEAN, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE'RE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THIS. HONESTLY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASICALLY HAS HAD THIS IN PLACE FOR TEN YEARS. THEY'RE MAKING A TWEAK. THEY'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE THE TWEAKED. IT'S NOT HOW MANY CAN YOU REMIND US HOW MANY COUNTS THEY WENT THROUGH TO DETERMINE THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE. SO NOT COUNTING ALL THE MEETINGS INVOLVED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WERE SEVERAL AND I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER, I CAN SAY TO THE GUIDELINE CHANGES. WE HAD ONE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IN NULU ON A SATURDAY, AND THEN WE HAD FIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS THAT WERE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. SO SIX MEETINGS TOTAL. SO THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THIS. AND THEN I CAN SAY JUST FROM EXPERIENCE, THE CLIFTON CLIFTON CRESCENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE PROBABLY HAD A DOZEN DIFFERENT MEETINGS TO MAKE THAT TWEAK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. SO THIS IS ALL THINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED AND ARE ASKING US TO APPROVE THOSE CHANGES. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS, MR. CHAIR, NOT TO DELAY. A LOT OF US ARE NEW AND WE'RE DEEP DIVING INTO THIS, SO I KNOW IT'S REQUIRING PATIENCE. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT I'VE WATCHED THIS NEW STUFF FOR A LONG TIME, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S VERY HANDS ON AND PEOPLE HAVE COME IN AND OUT. I THINK AS WE GET MORE CLARITY ABOUT ALL THESE PROCESSES, I THINK IT WILL GET BETTER. BUT YEAH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ASK. I THINK MORE OF THE QUESTIONS ARE THE DIFFERENT INS AND OUTS. LITERALLY. I LEANED OVER TO TRAVIS AND SAID, SO HOA AND THE OVERLAY WITHOUT THE PAYMENTS LIKE WE WERE TRYING TO. SO JUST UNDERSTAND THAT LIKE IT'S HARD. AND REALLY A LOT OF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN AS MANY NEW PEOPLE ON PLANNING AND ZONING. SO AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, I'M ONLY I'M ALSO A NEW CHAIR. YEAH. AND SO I'M AWARE OF HOW MUCH TIME WE'RE SPENDING IN THESE MEETINGS. AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO WAY CONVERSATION OVER AND AGAINST KEEPING KEEPING IT MOVING. I GET YOU NOT REALLY ABOUT FRUSTRATION. IT'S MORE ABOUT TRYING TO KEEP THE MEETING MOVING. SO THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? OKAY CAROL, IF YOU CAN OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE VOTE IS OPEN. CAN I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER, CHAIR, FOR A SECOND? SURE, COUNCILMAN. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO I'M I'M REALLY TORN ON THIS VOTE. I'M OBVIOUSLY I'M GOING TO VOTE YES IN SUPPORT OF THIS OVERLAY, BUT IT DOESN'T GO PAST MY FRUSTRATIONS. AND WHAT I'VE GOT TO SAY HERE. RIGHT. I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO ALLOW AN OVERLAY TO HAPPEN FOR WHAT IS TO [01:40:08] COME AND WHAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN IN THE OUTSIDE THE WATER CENTER. A LOT OF TIMES WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS FROM CREEK AND IN OTHER DISTRICTS TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF OVERLAY DISTRICT OR, OR SOMETHING OF THIS FASHION TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND WE WERE TOLD NO. OR THERE'S ANOTHER WAY THERE, WE SHOULD DO THIS OR A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OR OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, OUT OF OUT OF THE RIM OR SCOPE THAT WE DIDN'T DO IN EARLY 2000 AND THAT. SO NOW WE CAN'T DO IT. SO I'M RELUCTANT ON MY YES VOTE, BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE YES ON THIS. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT MAKE THAT CLEAR. THANK YOU. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ABOUT THAT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW COULDN'T CREATE AN OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE AREA HE JUST SPOKE ABOUT. THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU COULDN'T OR SHOULDN'T. SO IF SOMEBODY HAS TOLD YOU THAT THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WAY, I THINK YOU SHOULD PUSH BACK. AND WE SHOULD HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I GOT. MR. CHAIR. YOU HAVE FIVE YES VOTES, ONE PRESENT AND ONE NO THANK YOU. THIS WILL THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS. MOVING ON TO NUMBER NINE. 0-04425. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH RESPECT TO EXTERIOR PROPERTY AREAS, CODE ENFORCEMENT. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. CODE VIOLATIONS. CAN I GET A MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS? YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING. MY [9. O-044-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) WITH RESPECT TO EXTERIOR PROPERTY AREAS CODE ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE VIOLATIONS. Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Jeff Hudson (R-23) ] NAME IS WESLEY BARBER. I'M THE MANAGER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND I'D ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON GETTING THIS AMENDMENT TO 156 PRESENTED. THANK YOU. THIS FLOOR IS YOURS. ALL RIGHT, SO THE INTENT BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 156 IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING. SO UNDER CHAPTER 156052 SECTION I WE'RE ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PARKING STANDARDS TO CITE UNDER THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE ALREADY. RIGHT. SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THE INTENT BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW OTHER EXTERIOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE CITED BY OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS WELL. AND PART OF THE REASONING FOR THAT IS, ONE, THERE'S BEEN A RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE EITHER PROPOSED OR GONE THROUGH. I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN THAT ALLOWS FOR THOSE FINES TO GO BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD UNDER CHAPTER 32, WHICH IS ALREADY WHERE CHAPTER 156 GOES. AND SO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ONE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE VIOLATIONS ARE. BUT TWO, WE HAVE MANY, MANY MORE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE ZONING OFFICERS. THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT HAS NOW FALLEN UNDER CODES AND REGULATIONS. AND SO NOW WE'RE ALL ESSENTIALLY ONE SHOP. AND SO ALLOWING SOME OF THESE SIMPLER VIOLATIONS TO BE CITED BY ALL OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WOULD MAKE GIVE US MUCH GREATER COVERAGE OVER THE LOUISVILLE METRO AREA AND THEN THE MORE COMPLEX TYPES OF THINGS LIKE BINDING ELEMENTS OR LANDSCAPE PLANS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THOSE WOULD STILL BE RESERVED FOR THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FOR THE PLANNERS TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS ARE. BUT MANY OF US CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, IF A TRAILER IS ILLEGALLY PARKED OR A BOAT IS ILLEGALLY PARKED, OR ANY OF THESE OTHER SMALL, IN MY MIND, SMALL THINGS THAT ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TO ALLOW US TO HAVE GREATER COVERAGE AND MANY MORE OFFICERS TO CITE THOSE THINGS, I THINK IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYONE. SO. THIS IS BEING SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN HUDSON, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS. YEAH. FIRST OF ALL, CAN WE GET THE SYSTEM UP TO THE SYSTEMS ON ITEM NUMBER NINE SO WE CAN'T GET INTO THE QUEUE? I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER TEN. YES. I IS THAT NOW THIS IS WHAT ITEM NINE. YES. NUMBER NINE ON THE SCREEN. YES. SO THINGS LIKE THAT OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR ASKED FOR. THIS IS NUMBER ONE POINT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE DIFFERENT SCREENS HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS BUT BUT REGARDLESS THANK YOU FOR THE SUMMARY YOU GAVE. YES SIR. NOT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN BUT MAYBE YOU READ A DIFFERENT TITLE. THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT IN THE CLOSURE. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YEAH. YEAH, YEAH. SO BOTH THE PRINTED [01:45:05] AND ELECTRONIC AGENDAS SHOW THAT NUMBER NINE IS THE LEMKO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, EXTERIOR VIOLATIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHY. THE SCREEN SHOW I DON'T KNOW IF YOURS IS INTERNAL SYSTEM WASN'T UPDATED. BUT YOU KNOW I'M ON PRIME ONLINE AT THE MOMENT. IT SHOWS THE NUMBER NINE IS WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY TALKING ABOUT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MY SCREEN IS DIFFERENT. SO REGARDLESS WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. ZERO 44 SO THE 40 4-25 THE ITEM BEFORE US JUST DRIVES EFFICIENCY INTO INTO OUR OPERATIONS AND OUR PROCESSES. WHERE WHAT WHAT BROUGHT ALL OF THIS UP TO ME WAS I HAD A CONSTITUENT COMPLAINING ABOUT THESE THINGS. I THINK THEY'RE CALLED FEATHER FLAGS BESIDE THE ROAD THAT OUT IN FRONT OF A BUSINESS AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER COMES UP AND SAYS, WELL, IT'S THREE FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IT'S NOT A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION. IT'S A ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION. SO I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. BUT IF YOU MOVE IT THREE FEET THIS WAY, THEN I CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. OR MAYBE I GOT THAT BACKWARDS, BUT. AND THEN ANOTHER CASE CAME. THERE WAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT GRASS BEING NOT CUT. GRASS WAS TOO HIGH. THE BOAT PARKED IN THE IN THE YARD CODING CODE ENFORCEMENT SHOWS UP AND SAYS, WELL, I CAN WRITE YOU A CITATION FOR THE GRASS, BUT THE BOAT IS NOT MY JOB. SO YOU HAD TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE COME OUT. WE CURRENTLY HAVE, I THINK, AROUND 50 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. WE HAVE FOUR ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CROSS POLLINATE AND DO EACH OTHER'S JOBS. SO IT'S ONE STOP SHOPPING. YOU GOT A ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR A CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEY COULD BOTH CITE THE GRASS AND THE BOAT. IT JUST DRIVES EFFICIENCY INTO THE PROCESSES. I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HUDSON. I HAD REVIEWED THIS AND WANTED TO BE A SPONSOR FROM THE BEGINNING AS WELL. WE'D LIKE TO ADD MY NAME AS A SPONSOR. I WANT TO THANK WEST FOR BRINGING THIS UP AND PUSHING THIS THROUGH. ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO LIKE THIS. AND YOU GUYS SEE IT, RIGHT? WE WOULD NEVER KNOW. WELL, IT WOULD BE MUCH HARDER FOR US TO KNOW THAT IT WAS WHAT YOU GUYS WERE DOING WAS INEFFICIENT. YES. AND SO BRINGING STUFF LIKE THIS TO US I THINK IS FANTASTIC. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT. I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR AND BE FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING OUR ATTENTION. LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK THIS SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NEEDED. MY CONCERN IS THE INFORMATION TO THE PEOPLE THAT THIS COULD AFFECT. HOW ARE WE GOING TO INFORM THEM? DO YOU HAVE A PROCESS OF UPDATED THAT UPDATES FOLKS TO KNOW WHAT? BECAUSE I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. WHAT IS THIS THING THAT HE MENTIONED? FEDOR. WHAT DID YOU CALL IT? THE FEATHER FLAGS. WHAT IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, COUNCILMAN HUDSON. OH, THE FEATHER FLAGS. IT'S LIKE AN ADVERTISING FLAG THAT GETS PUT IN THE GROUND. SO IT WAS. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HOW TO HOW IT GETS IN, HOW HOW DO PEOPLE GET INFORMED OF THE CHANGE? IT WOULD BE TRANSPARENT TO THE CITIZENRY. THEY CALL 311311 FROM THERE, TAKES IT AND SENDS IT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR ZONING. AND EITHER ONE CAN CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A PREVENTION. AND BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE, AND AS WE ARE ADJUSTING THESE RULES, HOW ARE BUSINESSES AND OTHER FOLKS BEING INFORMED. SO THIS ADVERTISING FLAG WAS THE MAIN ISSUE THAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS HAD CONCERNS? WAS THAT WHERE THEY WERE PLACING IT WAS TOO FAR INTO ANOTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY? I WAS JUST USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY RULES. WE'RE JUST CHANGING HOW THOSE RULES ARE ENFORCED. OKAY, OKAY. YES. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT I THINK YEAH I OKAY. SO THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS HERE. ONE, MANY YEARS AGO BEFORE THE TWO DEPARTMENTS SPLIT OUT, ALL THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS STILL DID THE SAME WORK WE ALL DID CODE ENFORCEMENT, ZONING ENFORCEMENT, HQ INSPECTIONS, ALL THAT. SO WE WERE ALL ONE STOP SHOP. ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE GETTING BACK TO THE ONE STOP SHOP. SO NONE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE CHANGING. IT'S JUST WHO'S ABLE TO GO OUT AND ENFORCE. SO WE'RE HAVING MORE EYES ON BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE THOSE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS. RIGHT. AND LIKE I SAID, 1560 5:02 A.M. OR I ALREADY ALLOWS US TO DO THAT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. WE'RE JUST ESSENTIALLY BROADENING THAT A LITTLE BIT. BUT THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS COULD ALREADY CITE THAT. SO WE ALREADY HAVE OFFICERS IN METRO THAT DO IT. SO NO RULES ARE CHANGING. IT'S JUST THE MECHANISM FOR US TO ENFORCE THAT WITH THE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL THAT WE HAVE THAT'S CHANGING. AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU RECEIVE A CITATION FIRST WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE? YES. WELL, OFTENTIMES WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO A VIOLATION. NOTICE [01:50:04] IF WE NEED TO ADD THAT CHAPTER 32 ALLOWS THAT DISCRETION OF THE OFFICER. THERE ARE CERTAIN VIOLATIONS WE DO A CITATION WITH FIRST. BUT REGARDLESS, IF I HAVE A CITATION WITH A CHANCE TO CURE AND THEN THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAL TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, WHICH IS THE WAY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GOING REGARDLESS. SO IT KIND OF STREAMLINES EVERYTHING INTO ONE THING WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. SO WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE CHANGES WE MAKE, WE UNDERSTAND AT ONE LEVEL IT MAY NOT BE UNDERSTOOD. SO I'LL DO MY PART IN MY DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS UNDERSTAND. AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO ASSUAGE YOUR FEARS A LITTLE BIT ON THAT, BECAUSE THE RULES AREN'T CHANGING. IT'S JUST THE NUMBER OF EYES WE HAVE OUT THERE THAT ARE ABLE TO DO THIS. OKAY. GREAT TO KNOW. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? OKAY. OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. THE. COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER CHAN. YES, PLEASE. SARAH. CHAIR, WHEN YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE PASSED TO ON TO OLD BUSINESS WEST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. REALLY APPRECIATE IT SIR. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT ITEM [10. O-047-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF APPROXIMATELY 300 LINEAR FEET OF IMPROVED ALLEYWAY BETWEEN SOUTH BROOK STREET AND SOUTH FLOYD STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 6,113 SQUARE FEET AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0031). Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] IN FRONT OF US IS ITEM TEN. OH 0-04725. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF APPROXIMATELY 300 LINEAR FEET OF IMPROVED ALLEYWAY BETWEEN SOUTH BROOK STREET AND SOUTH FLOYD STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 6113FTS AND MADE IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24 STREET STR CLO SURE0031. THE MOTION SECOND BY ME. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. SO THIS IS 24TH STREET CLOSURE 0031. THIS IS AN ALLEY OFF OF EAST BROADWAY, LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THERE'S ABOUT 300 LINEAR FEET OF IMPROVED ALLEY THAT SERVES NORTON HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WHICH IS OFF OF EAST BROADWAY. SO THE PROPOSALS FOR THE CLOSURE, LIKE I JUST MENTIONED, ABOUT ABOUT 300 LINEAR FEET OF IMPROVED ALLEYWAY, THAT ALLEY CURRENTLY SERVES THE ADJACENT USES, AS I MENTIONED, NORTON HEALTHCARE RESEARCH, AND THERE'S SOME ASSOCIATED FACILITIES OFF OF EAST BROADWAY. THE CLOSURE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY MEASURES TO THE BUILDING AND PARKING GARAGE THAT ARE USED STRICTLY BY THE NORTON HEALTHCARE. SAID THE PROPOSED CLOSURE WILL STILL MAINTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THAT, BUT THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE EXISTING FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED CLOSURE AREA, WHICH MAY REQUIRE EASEMENT AGREEMENTS. SO THIS IS THE ALLEY IN QUESTION. SO THIS IS FLOYD STREET, EAST BROADWAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S JACOB STREET. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA THERE'S A WALGREENS OR IT USED TO BE A WALGREENS. NO WALGREENS ANYMORE. DOLLAR GENERAL THANK YOU. RIGHT HERE. AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE STRIP CENTER THAT HAS A SUBWAY IN IT OVER HERE. IF YOU. THAT'S WHAT THIS AREA. SO THIS WOULD BE THE DOLLAR GENERAL AND THE, THE STRIP CENTER WITH THE SUBWAY. SO THIS IS THE ALLEY IN QUESTION WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE ALLEY BUT STILL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THEIR PARKING. AND THIS IS THE CLOSURE PLAT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE ALLEY ENTRANCE FROM SOUTH FLOYD. AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE NORTON BUILDING FROM BROADWAY AND THE PARKING GARAGE WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE ALLEY. ANOTHER ADJACENT PROPERTY. THIS IS IF YOU GO THROUGH THAT ALLEY. THIS IS AT THE TERMINUS OF THAT ALLEY OR NOT THE TERMINUS. BUT THE ALLEY FLOWS INTO THIS PARKING LOT THAT IS BEHIND THE DOLLAR GENERAL. AND THAT STRIP CENTER. SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD A MEETING ON JANUARY 9TH, 2025, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025. AND THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I KNOW THIS AREA TOO WELL BECAUSE I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VOCAL KENTUCKY AND OUR BUILDING IS LOCATED IN THIS WAY. RIGHT OFF, YOU ACTUALLY SHOWED THAT WE IT USED TO BE A SUBWAY THERE. THAT [01:55:06] LOCATION HAS LEFT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMITTEE AWARE THAT THIS IS A PLACE WHERE A LOT OF UNHOUSED PEOPLE ARE, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, MORE THAN 20 YEARS WHERE BECAUSE THE HOSPITAL, THE UNIQUE DESIGN OF OUR CITY, A LOT OF THE HOSPITALS AND SERVICE PLACES ARE ALL IN THE SAME PLACE. SO THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND HOUSING ISSUES TEND TO STAY IN THAT AREA. I IMAGINE THAT PART OF THIS IS WHEN IT SAYS SECURITY, THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO LOCK IT UP SO THEIR PEOPLE CAN GO FROM TO AND FRO. I'M NOT AGAINST THIS, I AM. I DID REACH OUT TO SOME OF THE AREA ORGANIZATIONS. THERE IS A CHILD CARE FACILITY THERE. THERE'S ANOTHER ORGANIZATION, KENTUCKY HARM REDUCTION COALITION, THAT'S NEXT DOOR. THERE'S ALSO WHERE THE COMMUNITY CAMP IS GOING TO BE. SO THIS THIS IS AN ACCESS POINT FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS. BUT AS FAR AS THE GARAGE AND THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CLOSE TO HERE, THAT PART MAKES SENSE. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S A WALK THROUGH FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. A LOT OF PEOPLE WALK THROUGH THERE, NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH NORTONS AND NOT JUST UNHOUSED PEOPLE, BUT A GREAT DEAL OF PEOPLE USE THAT AREA TO WALK THROUGH. AND SO, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT KNOWN THAT IT'S NOT IN MY DISTRICT. I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM COUNCILMAN HERNDON ABOUT THIS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAS GOOD SUPPORT, SO I'LL SUPPORT IT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM? THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. VOTE IS OPEN. VOTE IS CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES. THIS WILL BE PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE TO THE TO OLD BUSINESS. MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S UP TO YOU. BUT THIS CAN GO TO CONSENT CALENDAR AS A STREET CLOSURE. BECAUSE COUNCILMAN HERNDON WASN'T HERE TO SPEAK TO IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DISCUSS IT WITH HIM. THANK YOU. NUMBER 11 IS OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS. 004625, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE [11. O-046-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF APPROXIMATELY 220 LINEAR FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ALONG SHIPLEY LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8,684 SQUARE FEET AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0026). Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] CLOSURE OF APPROXIMATELY 220 LINEAR FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY, LOCATED ALONG SHIPLEY LANE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8684FTS AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, STR 0026. SIX. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. THIS IS 24TH STREET CLOSURE 0026 JEANNIE SHIPLEY LANE CLOSURE. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 14. THEIR REQUEST IS THE CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE SUMMARY IS THAT THEIR LGA WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE 220FT OF SHIPLEY LANE, ADJACENT TO THEIR LGA POWER PLANT. THE SITE IS LOCATED NEAR DIXIE HIGHWAY AND SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY. IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THE LOUISVILLE LOOP WILL GO ALONG, SHIPLEY LANE, LGA HAS INDICATED THEY'RE OPEN TO AN EASEMENT ALONG THIS SECTION OF THIS CLOSED RIGHT OF WAY. FOR A MULTI USE PATH AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. AS LONG AS METRO PAYS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THEIR FENCE, AND THEN ALL OF OTHER EFFECTIVE AGENCIES HAVE AGREED TO THIS CLOSURE OR HAVE NOT COMMENTED. SO THIS IS THE PORTION OF SHIPLEY LANE. SO THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY LGA. THERE ARE TWO EXISTING HOMES THAT WERE HERE THAT LGA HAD BOUGHT. THESE TWO PROPERTIES WANTED TO EXTEND THEIR FENCE TO THE END OF SHIPLEY LANE. THE REST OF SHIPLEY LANE ALONG THAT LGA PROPERTY IS CLOSED CURRENTLY, SO THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW. THE AERIAL OF THE PORTION OF SHIPLEY LANE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE SO THEY'D BE MOVING THEIR FENCE, WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS HERE. MOVE IT UP TO WHERE THE CLOSURE IS FURTHER UP. THIS IS THE STREET CLOSURE PLAT. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO YOU CAN SEE THE TWO HOMES ALONG SHIPLEY LANE AND THEN THE LGA PLANT BEHIND THOSE. THIS IS AN EXISTING HOME ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE LDA HELD ITS MEETING ON JANUARY 9TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025, AND THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CLOSURE, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? SEEING NO ONE IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING A ROLL CALL. VOTE, [02:00:01] VOTE. IT'S OPEN. SO. ANYBODY. LET'S JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. THANK YOU. ROLL CALL OKAY. COUNCIL CHAIR. OWEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS. RIGHT. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROY. COUNCIL MEMBER. GREGOR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. HUDSON. COUNCIL MEMBER. BACHCHON. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES. THIS IS IN DISTRICT SIX, I THINK. SO I THINK WE'LL MOVE THIS ONE TO OLD BUSINESS AND TALK TO COUNCILMAN LINENGER ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE MAY MOVE IT TO CONSENT ONCE WE'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM. BUT FOR IT'S IN 14. OH, IT'S IN 14. SO SORRY. SO WE'LL TALK TO COUNCILWOMAN BEST AND MAY MOVE IT TO CONSENT AFTER WE SPEAK TO [12. O-048-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5024 SOUTH THIRD STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1463 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24DDP0079). Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] HER. THANK YOU. LAST ITEM IS ITEM 12 0-04825. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5024 SOUTH THIRD STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1463 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 240079. OKAY, A SECOND PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, THIS IS 2479 TRAN BAKERY. THIS IS LOCATED AT 5024 SOUTH THIRD STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 21. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED USE IS RESIDENTIAL. COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS C1 AND THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE REQUEST IS A REVISED RETAIL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH A FOUR DWELLING UNITS. IT WAS REZONE. THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM R SEVEN TO C1 TO ADD A BAKERY ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THEY INTEND TO NOW REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BAKERY AND KEEP TO THE DWELLING UNITS. SO THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SHOWING WHERE THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY IS LOCATED AND THEN THE BAKERY. AND SO THEY'RE KEEPING THE FOUR UNITS IN THAT IN THAT STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THIS IS THE FOUR UNITS. AND SO THE BAKERY WOULD BE BUILT IN THE FRONT OF THIS STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025, AND THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS IN COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ DISTRICT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN WE GET TO COME BACK AND SAY A DEVELOPER IS DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT THAT'S A FOURPLEX. AND HIS ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO TAKE THE TWO APARTMENTS ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR AND TURN THOSE INTO THE KITCHEN FOR HIS BAKERY, AND HE'S REDESIGNED IT SO HE NO LONGER NEEDS TO TAKE THOSE APARTMENTS OUT OF CIRCULATION. AND WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS. SO I AM VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE WITH NOBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE VOTING OPEN. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. SEVEN YES VOTES. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS THEY NEED TO ATTEND TO? MR. CHAIR, AGAIN, UP TO YOU AND COUNCILWOMAN RUBY IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONFER. BUT BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT COULD GO TO CONSENT. DO YOU DO YOU WANT IT TO GO? IT'S OKAY. IF IT GOES TO CONSENT. THIS WILL BE MOVED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR THEN. THANK YOU. TRAVIS. WITH THAT FURTHER ANY FURTHER BUSINESS IN FRONT OF US, WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.