Mar 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee (trimmed)

[00:00:23]

TO. ALL RIGHT. WELCOME TO THE MARCH 18TH MEETING. OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE.

[Call to Order]

[Roll Call]

LEININGER, COUNCILWOMAN JOSE RAYMOND, COUNCILMAN. CARLO CHAN, COUNCILMAN JEFF HUDSON, COUNCILMAN KEVIN BRATCHER AND COUNCILWOMAN BETSY ROOY. WHICH MEANS THAT WE ARE ALL IN ATTENDANCE AND WE HAVE A PRETTY, PRETTY LONG AGENDA HERE. SO WE NEED TO KIND OF GET GET MOVING

[1. 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). 3/4/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THANK YOU. CHAIR. YEAH. THIS WAS HELD AT OUR LAST COMMITTEE MEETING SO THAT WE COULD LOOK INTO A FEW CONCERNS THAT I HAD. I HAVE SINCE THEN MET WITH THE APPLICANT, AND HE WAS ABLE TO ANSWER MY CONCERNS SATISFACTORILY. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING, A BINDING ELEMENT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE AS A MOTION, PLEASE. IF I CAN HAVE TRAVIS READ THE BINDING ELEMENT INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE, I'D BE HAPPY TO. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ALSO ON THE SYSTEM FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ ALONG. THIS WILL BE BINDING ELEMENT NUMBER EIGHT. APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO ADD ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY, WITH THE INTENT TO FILL IN GAPS BETWEEN MATURE TREES THAT WILL REMAIN ON OR AROUND THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. JUST A BIT OF COMMENTARY ON THAT. SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES THAT ARE MEANT TO BE PRESERVED, BUT SOMETIMES IN CLEARING AND GRADING AND LIKE AFTERWARDS, ONCE YOU TAKE DOWN WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO TAKE DOWN, THERE ARE VISUAL GAPS CREATED. AND SO THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A SOLID WALL OF VEGETATION BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT AS WELL. YES. WHICH WOULD BE NUMBER NINE. ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASES TO THE PRO STRUCTURES E.G. INCREASES IN BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY IN THE PROPERTY, ANY CHANGES IN USE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, AND OR ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS OTHER THAN I. THE ADDITION OF NEW BINDING ELEMENTS TWO I CHANGES TO BINDING ELEMENTS THAT MERELY UPDATE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, OR THREE I UPDATING THE 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. SO WE HAVE THAT AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US. DO WE NEED A SECOND ON THAT AMENDMENT? CAN I GET A SECOND, PLEASE? SECOND OH I DID. OKAY.

EXCELLENT. SO WE'VE GOT AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US WHICH REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MORE BROADLY THE AMENDMENT IS PASSED. I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCILWOMAN RUBY.

THANK YOU. JULIA, I ASK YOU TO CHECK ON THE DRAINAGE FOR THAT AREA. WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND THAT ANYMORE? YES. SO LET ME PULL UP THE PLAN REAL QUICK. THERE IS AN EASEMENT. THERE'S

[00:05:01]

OKAY. SO IN THIS SHADED COLOR, THERE'S A DETENTION BASIN. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A PORTION OF IT HERE. AND THEN THIS IS THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT PARCEL. SO YOU COULD SEE THE DETENTION AREA HERE. SO THAT DETENTION GOES THROUGH AN EASEMENT THAT HAS BEEN CREATED ALONG THIS. TO THE SUBDIVISION THAT IS I BELIEVE TO THE SOUTH. HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S AN EASEMENT RIGHT HERE. AND SO THE DRAINAGE THAT ALL COLLECTS INTO THIS BASIN DRAINS OUT THROUGH THAT EASEMENT. OKAY. PLEASE GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE DIRECTIONS. I CANNOT SEE YOUR POINTER. I'M SORRY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER. I CAN MAYBE BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS INTENDED TO DRAIN INTO THAT AREA.

YES. OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN ROWLEY TOOK CARE OF SOME OF MY QUESTION. I HAVE JUST REMEMBERED BEFORE THAT COUNCILMAN HUDSON HAD BEEN DISAPPOINTED WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE. JUST WANTED TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM HIM TO AND SEE IF IT'S MEETING THOSE NEEDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE OUR ASK. AND YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T HEAR IT. MAYBE I MISSED IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT. THAT'S ONE HUDSON. YEAH, I'D BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO THAT. IN THE MEETING THAT I HAD SINCE OUR LAST COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY WERE ABLE TO ASSUAGE ALL OF MY CONCERNS, AND I, I WAS PRETTY HARD AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. SO I WANT TO BE EQUALLY AS SOFT AT THIS ONE AND, AND ACKNOWLEDGE MY APPRECIATION FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO COME AND, AND HAVE SOME VERY FRANK, OPEN CONVERSATIONS AND, AND FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO ADD THIS BINDING ELEMENT. SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ORDINANCE. VACHON. WAS THAT. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. CAN YOU OPEN THE VOTING FOR ME? SURE. SO WE HAVE EIGHT. YES. SO. SPEAKER TWO CHAIR, YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES. THANK YOU. WITH EIGHT VOTES, THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE

[2. O-060-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11401 RACE ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0115). 3/4/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Held Action Required By: May 7, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

MAYBE WE'LL START WITH TRAVIS. I THINK HE HAS AN UPDATE FOR US ON THIS ONE. I DO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I INITIALLY INTRODUCED MYSELF. TRAVIS FEASTER ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. SO THIS IS THE SORT OF IT'S RELATED TO THE OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD CASE, WHICH WE HAD A SPECIAL MEETING FOR LAST TUESDAY AND PASSED BACK A RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY. OUR KNOWLEDGE OR AWARENESS AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THIS CASE WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE NOTICE ISSUES. I TALKED TO THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY ON FRIDAY AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING TO SORT OF UPDATE ON ON WHAT HAD

[00:10:03]

SECTION ONE. THAT THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11401 RACE ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IN CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0115 IS HEREBY RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE NOTICE ISSUES TO BE CORRECTED. IN A SECOND HEARING HELD, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE THIS HEARING AT THE SECOND HEARING AS SOON AS NOTICE, AND THEIR CALENDAR WILL ALLOW TO ENSURE A RECOMMENDATION IS ISSUED PRIOR TO MAY 7TH, 2025. SECTION TWO. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT TO TAKE EFFECT UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL OR OTHERWISE BECOMING LAW. AND SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION. SO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. AND WE CAN DO THAT WITH A ROLL WITH A VOICE VOTE. AND A MOTION.

CAN I GET A SECOND A SECOND AND OKAY ANY MORE JUST BEFORE WE HAVE A VOICE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE, AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT. SO ANY MORE? SO NOW WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE SENDING IT BACK. RIGHT. ANY MORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP. WELL I'LL YIELD TO COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS WHERE WAS HE ON THIS? AND THEN I THINK THE AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SOME IN THE COMMUNITY HAD CONCERNS WITH IT BEING SO CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL AND BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T WHO DIDN'T GET NOTICE. SO MY OTHER PART OF MY QUESTION WAS WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW WAS ON THIS COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW. WELL, WELL, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR TRAVIS. AND BASICALLY, FOR THE RECORD, THIS IF THIS PASSES AND GOES BACK, IT STARTS RIGHT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AGAIN, RIGHT? THAT'S WE WERE JUST HAVING THAT CONVERSATION ACTUALLY. SO YES, THE FOLKS WHO WERE NOT INITIALLY NOTICED WEREN'T NOTICED FOR, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OR A ZONING MEETING. SO THERE WILL BE A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING HELD FOR THOSE, THOSE FOLKS TO REVIEW THE PLAN. AND THEN THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED UP BY A SECOND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, WHERE THEY CAN COME AND TESTIFY TO THE COMMISSION. AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DOES THE 90 DAY CLOCK START AGAIN TODAY, OR WHEN DOES THAT START AGAIN? SO OR DOES IT? ADMITTEDLY, THERE'S NOT SUPER CRYSTAL CLEAR CASE LAW ON THIS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE CAREFUL ABOUT SENDING CASES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ONE OF THE REASONS, BUT OUR INTERPRETATION HAS PRETTY CONSISTENTLY BEEN THAT IF A SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS ISSUED PRIOR TO THAT 90 DAYS EXPIRING, THAT THE CLOCK STARTS OVER BECAUSE THE 90 DAYS REALLY STARTS AT THE DATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION. SO THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME HERE AGAIN,

[00:15:01]

[3. O-068-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1104 LOGAN STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0116). Action Required By May 21, 2025 **Council Member JP Lyninger (D-6) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. CAN YOU OPEN THE VOTING, PLEASE,

[00:20:08]

BRECKER. YES. I'M SORRY. VOTING IS CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU GOT NINE YES VOTES. THANK YOU. WITH NINE VOTES, THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA. NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS NUMBER 40-06925. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2213 SOUTH PRESTON STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1036 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24,

[4. O-069-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2213 SOUTH PRESTON STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1036 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0136). Action Required By May 21, 2025 **Council Member Jennifer Chappell (D-15) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

JULIA. YES, THIS IS 24 ZONES, 0136. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 15 AT 22 2213 SOUTH PRESTON STREET. THE EXISTING USE IS COMMERCIAL AND THE PROPOSED USE IS COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS C1 AND THE TRADITIONAL MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS C2. ALSO, IN THE TRADITIONAL MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR, THIS IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C1 TO C2, AND A DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS INCLUDED WITH THE REQUEST. AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS .1036 ACRES. THE PROPOSALS FOR A TATTOO PARLOR. THERE'S LIMITED BUILDABLE AREA DUE TO AN EXISTING CELL PHONE TOWER THAT'S LOCATED BEHIND THE PROPERTY, AND THEN ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM AN ADJACENT ALLEYWAY. AND THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE CELL TOWER IN THE BACK. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HERE. AND THEN ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2020 FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD ITS MEETING ON JANUARY 23RD, 2025, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLDING ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C1 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? SURE. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND ALL. I HAVE THE FLOOR. I WILL SAY THAT I LOVE IDLEWILD. THAT'S SUCH A WONDERFUL PLACE TO GO. THEY HAVE EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. AND SO IF YOU'RE INTO INSECTS OR MAYBE WANT TO BE INTO INSECTS, GO CHECK IT OUT. BUT REGARDING THIS PROPERTY HERE, IT'S SLATED TO BE A TATTOO PARLOR, AND IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CURRENTLY THAT'S VACANT. AND SO I SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY ARE VERY EXCITED FOR THIS PROPERTY TO HAVE ANY SORT OF ACTIVATION AND WELCOME A TATTOO PARLOR AS NEIGHBORS. I THINK THAT'S A LOT MORE FAVORABLE THAN A BAR OR SOMETHING OF THE LIKES, BUT THIS HAS SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAS SUPPORTED ME, SO I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL ALSO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF IT.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL.

AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M NEW TO PLANNING AND ZONING. THIS IS AN AREA I STUDY A LOT ON BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS I DO IN OTHER AREAS. I DID NOTICE, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS, BUT I NOTICED THAT I DIDN'T SEE THE. THERE'S NO THERE'S NOT A BINDING ELEMENT.

AND THEN IT SAYS THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE SLATED TO BE 1 P.M. TO 7 P.M. IS THERE ANYTHING AROUND THAT THAT WOULD STIPULATE THAT, OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT DO WE JUST NOT NEED A BINDING ELEMENT? COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, IS THAT MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU TO ANSWER. SURE. THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD VERBALLY SAID. SO IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND THEIR HOURS OR, YOU KNOW, BE IN THAT SPACE AT OTHER TIMES, THAT I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE FINE. BUT I'M OPEN TO PUTTING THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT TO THIS IF WE NEED TO, IF WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO. IT'S KIND OF, IN MY EYES, ZONING DOWN. SO UNLS THAT'S A MISINTERPRETATION, THEN I'M FINE EITHER WAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP, COUNCILWOMAN. THANK YOU. WELL, I MEAN, IF IT'S RELATED TO THE TO THE OPERATING HOURS, THAT WOULD

[00:25:04]

VOTE IS CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES. OKAY. I'M SORRY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO OLD BUSINESS. NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS NUMBER FIVE POINT. YES. COUNCILMAN. HUDSON. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW HAD TO STEP OUT FOR A MINUTE. I THINK THIS IS HIS ITEM. HE'S GOING TO BE BACK IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. CAN WE SKIP AND COME BACK TO IT, PLEASE? OF COURSE. GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU.

WE'LL SKIP DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS O-2882 FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156

[6. O-288-24     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE REDUCTION OF FINES AND COSTS FOR OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES. 3/4/25  Planning and Zoning Committee Held 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Held 2/4/25   Planning and Zoning Committee Held 1/21/25  Planning and Zoning Committee Motion for Financial Impact Statement; Tabled 12/3/24  Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By:  May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Donna L. Purvis (D-5), Khalil Batshon (R-25)]

ROBBIE HOWARD WITH THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WE'VE MADE RECENTLY TO THIS, AND I THINK I'M SPEAKING TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS TO HAVE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REVIEW LIEN WAIVER REQUEST, AS OPPOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CODES AND REGULATIONS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT SECTION, IT'S IN SECTION D, AND THEN IT'S THE FOURTH LINE DOWN AND YOU'LL SEE THAT MOST UPDATED CHANGE. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED ME TO SPEAK TO. SO THAT WHAT THAT CHANGE DOES IS THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE HAD PROPOSED THAT THIS PROGRAM BE A STANDALONE PROGRAM WITHIN CODES AND REGULATIONS, AND THE CHANGE BASICALLY JUST FOLDS IT INTO A PROGRAM THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN WITHIN OMB. SO IT'S KIND OF A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM. COUNCILMAN VACHON, YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

DON'T YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COLOR TO ADD TO THIS? YOU'RE AWFULLY BRIGHT TODAY. THAT'S OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE. I MEAN, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS. DOES ANYBODY ELSEAVE ANY? AND I WAS KICKED OUT OF MY. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE ANYBODY IN. OKAY.

COUNCIL. YEAH. MY ONLY QUESTION WAS ABOUT WE' BEEN BACAND FORTH WITH THIS FOR A WHILE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT IT'S INUDEDITE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT THAT'S WHAT I BUTT H SHA W CEDNG HEL VACHON, YEAH, THEINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, GOT ALL THAT. WE PASSED IT OVER TO OMB. ROBBIE'S WORK DILIGENTLY ON ON HELPING ADDRESS THIS AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE WITH COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS JUST WALKED IN IS, IS GIVE SOME LENIENCY AND SOME GRACE TO THE ELDERLY THAT HAVE BEEN IN OUR HOMES FOR LONGER THAN 15 YEARS, THAT DON'T PLAN ON LEAVING, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN GET THESE LIENS AND ISSUES, YOU KNOW, TAKEN CARE OF AT, AT A DISCOUNTED RATE. SO THEY'RE NOT CONTINUOUSLY PILING ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. OBVIOUSLY, THEY'VE MARKED OUT IN SECTION D, DEPARTMENT OF CODES AND REGULATIONS AND PUT IN OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. YOU KNOW, AND I CAN I CAN READ THIS, BUT 40% REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF LIENS NOT TO EXCEED OVER $15,000. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS TO LIVE, TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODES AND REGS. I JUST URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE THEIR SUPPORT ON THIS AND MOVE THIS FORWARD. SO THIS WAS SPONSORED BY COUNCILWOMAN VACHON AND ALSO SPONSOR. WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA PURVIS. AND SHE WAS ALSO A

[00:30:05]

YES. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS NECESSARY NOT ONLY IN ZIP CODES 4 TO 10, 11 AND 12, BUT ALSO IN ZIP CODES 4 TO 14, 16, 19, WHERE THE ELDERLY ARE ACCRUING A LOT OF FINES AND LIENS FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND THEY JUST CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY THEM. AND SO A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES DUE TO THE FINES AND THE FEES, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO GET A REDUCTION, A LIEN AMNESTY IS WHAT I'M CALLING IT, WHERE THEY CAN GET A REDUCTION ON THE AMOUNTS OWED AND HAVE AN AFFORDABLE PAYMENT PLAN SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THEIR HOMES. AND UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THEY ACCRUE THESE LIENS, SOMETIMES THE FAMILY MEMBERS DON'T KNOW UNTIL THAT PERSON IS PASSED IS THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE OF THESE LIENS. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT. WE'VE COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT IT'S CHEAPER TO LIVE IN A HOME THAT'S PAID FOR, THAN TO HAVE TO GO AND LIVE IN AN APARTMENT AT AN ELDERLY AGE. SO I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORT THIS AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND SONIA, WE DO STILL NEED TO GET A COPY OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT ATTACHED TO THE FILE. IS THAT TRUE? ROBBIE HOWARD SENT IT TO ME AND I AM GOING TO ATTACH IT WHILE WE SPEAK AND. YEAH, OKAY. AND I'M I HESITATE TO SAY THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE I LOOKED AT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

IT'S A LITTLE WHILE SINCE I'VE HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH OMB AND THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS THAT THE OVERALL IMPACT WAS SOMEWHERE LESS THAN $1 MILLION, 700 AND SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND OMB EXPECTED THIS TO BE KIND OF MORE OF A DRIP, DRIP, DRIP KIND OF IMPACT AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING AN IMPACT ALL AT ONCE. AND SO IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY FELT LIKE THEY COULD ABSORB WITHIN, WITHIN THE BUDGET. SO, COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND, YES. THANK YOU. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCES OF IT BETTER. IT ONLY COSTS US $700,000 UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE OTHERWISE WOULD PAY THE FEES. CORRECT. THAT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE IMPACT STATEMENT. AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THESE FOLKS TO PAY THE FEES BECAUSE THEY'VE BECOME UNMANAGEABLE. SO WE MIGHT NOT BE LOSING ANYTHING IF WE WEREN'T POTENTIALLY.

OKAY. AND THEN I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR. COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILMAN BATSON.

SO IT WOULD OFFER SENIORS A 40% DISCOUNT ON THE LIEN AND THEN SET UP A MONTHLY PAYMENT PLAN FOR THEM. IT SHOULD BE A AFFORDABLE MONTHLY PAYMENT PLAN THAT WOULD ERASE THE LIENS AND THE FINES. SO JUST PAYING PRINCIPAL, DO WE HAVE ANY SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL USE CASE OF, YOU KNOW, AN 80 YEAR OLD WOMAN WHOSE SOCIAL SECURITY IS $1,500 A MONTH AND SHE OWES X AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND SO HER TOTAL OBLIGATION WILL COME DOWN TO X, AND HER MONTHLY PAYMENT WILL BE, I DON'T HAVE ANY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE SENIORS IN DISTRICT FIVE, THEY'RE BRINGING IN LESS THAN 1100 A MONTH IN INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY. SO WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON AND JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT BEARABLE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PAY THIS AND STAY IN THEIR HOMES, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

COUNCILMAN VACHON, DID YOU DID YOU HAVE. YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR. GREAT QUESTION.

COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND. SO I HAVE AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS AMOUNT OF FEES, BUT AN EXAMPLE OF A SENIOR CITIZEN THAT LIVES IN DISTRICT 25 THAT HAD BEEN GETTING CITED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS FOR A SHED THAT SHE COULDN'T MAINTAIN IN HER BACKYARD ANYMORE. IT HAD JUST BEEN SHE'D BEEN THERE FOR 45 PLUS YEARS. THE SHED WAS FALLING DOWN. IT WAS DILAPIDATED BY THE GRACE OF OUR GREAT CODES AND REGS, WORKERS, HE REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID, WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP THIS LADY? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CITE HER ANYMORE. AND WHAT WE DID IN MY DISTRICT, BECAUSE THESE FINES WOULD HAVE ACCUMULATED UPWARDS OF BUYING TEN OF THESE SHEDS OVER THE YEARS, AND WE'RE STILL FACING IT. WHERE HE ON HIS OR. I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD SAY THIS, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH A DEMOLITION COMPANY TO COME IN AND REMOVE THE SHED AT NO COST FOR HER, AT

[00:35:09]

IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN MENTIONED HERE TODAY, BUT IT'S NOT A TOTAL AMNESTY PROGRAM IN THAT THE OFFENDING ITEM HAS TO BE CORRECTED. IT'S THE ONEROUS INTEREST AND FINES THAT ARE BEING, BEING FORGIVEN. AND THEN THE PRINCIPAL IS DISCOUNTED. SO I APPRECIATE WHAT WHAT THE MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE TO BRING THIS TO US. AND I'LL BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU. WANT TO JUMP BACK IN? YEAH. REAL QUICK. COUNCILMAN VACHON AND I DON'T WANT TO STRETCH THIS OUT ANY FURTHER THAN IT SHOULD. AND THANK YOU AGAIN, CHAIR.

COUNCILWOMAN, YOU BRING UP A VERY, VERY GOOD POINT IN AND I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO LOOK AT MR. HOWARD HERE. BUT DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER PUTTING A TIME FRAME ON THE LOAN PAYBACK. SO IT'S EXTENDED OUT AT A REASONABLE AND AFFORDABLE PRICE OR WHAT ARE WE WHAT IS OUR MEASURES THERE IN RETRIEVING THAT THAT 60% THAT WE'RE GOING TO SET UP ON A PAYMENT PLAN? THAT WOULD BE MORE THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A POLICY QUESTION. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, THEN, YOU KNOW, I COULD WHATEVER YOU DECIDED YOU WANTED TO DO, WE COULD PUT THAT IN HERE. I'M LOOKING AROUND AT MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OPINIONS, BUT I. I THINK.

COUNCILMAN BRATCHER. WAS SAYING I YIELD TO I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. COUNCILWOMAN

[00:40:08]

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM TOO. WE REACHED OUT TO SWIMS, AND THEY WOULD NOT WAIVE THE FEE FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO DUMP AT THE SITE AT THE WASTE SITE. SO IT'S ANOTHER 350 PLUS DOLLARS THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO MAKE THE DUMP FOR THIS. SO WE LOOK, WE'VE GOT BIGGER PROBLEMS HERE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND COME BACK AND LOOK AT THE BIGGER ISSUES. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT.

YEAH, I JUST I SUPPORT WHAT? COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILWOMAN HAS SAID AND THE SPONSOR AND COUNCILWOMAN AS WELL AS COUNCILMAN VACHON. I DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE MORE OF OUR SENIORS AGE IN PLACE. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I JUST HAD A CAFE AT OUR SHIVELY CITY HALL AND WAS TALKING TO THE PEOPLE, NOT JUST WITH PVA, SOME OTHER FOLKS THAT A GREAT DEAL OF OUR SENIORS ARE NOT EVEN USING THE HOMESTEAD LIKE THEY USE. SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS, BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO A PIECE OF US GETTING JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, ABOUT GETTING THIS INFORMATION TO ALL OF OUR SENIORS. AND I THINK IT'S ALL OF OUR JOBS TO DO THAT IN OUR ROLES, AND ALSO MAKING SURE WE'RE BRINGING IT TO THE COMMUNITY. AS COUNCILWOMAN PERVIS HAS SAID, A LOT OF THERE'S A BIG DIGITAL DIVIDE, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR SENIORS. AND SO IF THERE'S AN EXTRA STEP FOR THEM TO TAKE, IF WE DON'T FIND A WAY TO BRING THAT TO THEM, IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER FOR MANY OF THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.

JUST AS MANY ARE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE HOMESTEAD TAXES OR, YOU KNOW, THE SUPPORT THAT THEY HAVE. SO ANYWAY, I'M COMMITTED, I SUPPORT THIS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ALSO

[00:45:02]

I PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. SO I COOKED UP MY OWN USE CASE. RIGHT. SO GOING OFF OF SOME OF THE DATA THAT COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS SHARED. SO IF SOMEONE OWED $14,000, RIGHT, AND THEN LEFT, 40% WOULD MEAN THEY OWE $8,400. AND THEN IF THEIR MONTHLY PAYMENT WAS SET AT 5% OF THEIR INCOME AND THEY BROUGHT IN $1,200 A MONTH, I THINK WE MIGHT ASSUME THAT 5% IS REASONABLE. IT WOULD FEEL UNREASONABLE FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS FINDING THAT EVERY DOLLAR IS ACCOUNTED FOR RIGHT NOW. THAT'D BE $60 A MONTH, $720 A YEAR. IN THIS MONTHLY PAYMENT PLAN. IT WOULD TAKE THEM ALMOST 12 YEARS TO PAY OFF THAT $8,400 THAT THEY OWED. SO IF THEY MADE IT THAT LONG, RIGHT, GREAT. IF THEY DIDN'T, IT FEELS LIKE WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS LOWERING THE BURDEN ON THAT NEXT GENERATION, RIGHT? SO WE CAN MAINTAIN THAT GENERATIONAL WEALTH OF PASSING DOWN THIS PROPERTY. AND SO I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO PURSUE THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT WHETHER THIS PROCESS PLAYS OUT OR NOT WITH A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS A MECHANISM TO APPLY THIS SORT OF A DISCOUNT AND PAYMENT PLAN AT THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT THE NEXT GENERATION BENEFITS, AS WELL. MESSAGE RECEIVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. RECEIVED. SO I'VE BEEN ALERTED BY THE CLERK THAT WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US THAT ROBBIE READ, AND SO CAN SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION, MOTION, MOTION SECOND. AND SO WE NEED TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NAY. SO THE AMENDMENT PASSES. WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER. SO, COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, THANK YOU. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS GOES ALONG WITH THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT, WHICH PUTS THAT AGE AT 65 YEARS OR OLDER. IS THAT APPLIED TO THIS LEGISLATION AS WELL? YES. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE THE AMENDED ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US. ANY MORE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDED ORDINANCE? THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. CAN YOU OPEN THE VOTING, PLEASE, CHERYL. VOTING IS OPEN. VOTING IS CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES WITH EIGHT. YES. THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD

[5. O-070-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 9300 AND 9308 OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD, 10313 AND 10311 R THIXTON LANE AND PARCEL ID NO. 066600250000 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 62.24 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0088). Action Required By May 21, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

[00:50:02]

THIS THIS ITEM IS IN DISTRICT 22. COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, THERE'S A ROAD IMPROVEMENT, RIGHT? YES, THERE'S A ROAD IMPROVEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF DICKSON LANE AND OLD BARDSTOWN AND VISTA HILLS, WHERE THAT WHERE BOTH OF THOSE ROADS KIND OF COME IN. YOU KNOW, DICKSON LANE IS A LITTLE BITTY COUNTRY ROAD. YOU CAN BARELY GET TWO SCHOOL BUSSES PASS EACH OTHER AT THE SAME TIME. SO I DO APPRECIATE THE BUILDER IMPROVING THAT ROAD. AND I HOPE THAT WHEN THEY WHEN FOLKS COME OUT TO DEVELOP THESE PROJECTS THAT THEY TAKE IN MIND FIRST TRAFFIC AND THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROADS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. SO I HAVE A BINDING ELEMENT, A STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT. TRAVIS. YES. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU ALL WHO ARE NEW TO THE COMMITTEE, THERE IS A SLIGHTLY MODIFIED STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CASES BECAUSE THE FIRST CLAUSE DEALS WITH LIKE BUILDING HEIGHT. AND WE DON'T WANT INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS TO COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, I WANT TO MAKE MY ONE STORY HOUSE IN A TWO STORY. I MEAN, THAT'D BE CRAZY. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT. SO THAT LANGUAGE GETS SCRAPPED, BUT THE DENSITY PIECE IS STILL THERE. SO IF THEY WERE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WE'D STILL BE BACK HERE ANYWAY, I WILL READ THAT SLIGHTLY SHORTENED VERSION. IT'LL BE BINDING ELEMENT NUMBER 21 AND WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS. ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY ON THE PROPERTY. ANY CHANGE IN USE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR A SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, AND OR ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS OTHER THAN I. THE ADDITION OF NEW BINDING ELEMENTS TO I CHANGE THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT REALLY UPDATE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OR THREE. I UPDATING A PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BINDING ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SHALL BE REVIEWED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH FINAL ACTION TO BE DETERMINED BY METRO COUNCIL. THANK YOU TRAVIS. SO THAT IS THAT MADE AS AMENDMENT. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW. YES, BUT CAN I JUST ASK A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION? WHY CAN'T THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF IT'S A STANDARD AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH USED, WHY CAN'T THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST PUT IT ON? OH, SO TWO REASONS. ONE IS THAT IT'S IMPLICATING, YOU KNOW, IT'S REQUIRING METRO COUNCIL TO DO SOMETHING, AND WE DON'T WANT THE PLANNING COMMISSION EVER TELLING YOU ALL YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. SO THERE'S THAT. AND THE SECOND IS, YOU KNOW, IN THEORY, IF THIS WAS ATTACHED TO EVERY SINGLE CASE, WE'D SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT PLANS EVENTUALLY, RIGHT? NOT TODAY, NOT TOMORROW, BUT 20, 50 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. METRO COUNCIL READ EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN INDIVIDUALLY. TAKE A LOT OF TIME. SO IN THEORY, THIS IS USED A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN THERE'S, YOU KNOW, PROBLEM PROPERTIES, AREAS OF CONCERN. AND IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE A C1 PROPERTY IN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ON BARDSTOWN ROAD, YOU MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY NEED THIS.

IF YOU'RE THE FIRST C1 PROPERTY IN A RESIDENTIAL STREET THAT'S STARTING TO TURN COMMERCIAL, YOU PROBABLY DO WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. SO, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL IS WELCOME TO ATTACH IT WHEN THEY WANT. BUT THAT'S SORT OF BEEN THE LOGIC THUS FAR, ONE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN'T.

OBLIGATE COUNCIL TO DO SOMETHING. AND TWO, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY APPROPRIATE WHEN A WHEN A ZONING IS CLEARLY IF THIS IS GOING TO BE C2, EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S GOING TO BE C2. DO WE REALLY NEED TO KEEP THE MAGNIFYING GLASS ON IT? THIS ISN'T C2. THIS IS A I JUST MEANT THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. GENERALLY IT MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CASES WHERE IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I'M NOT SAYING THIS ISN'T ONE, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HAVE IT AS AN AUTOMATIC APPLICATION. OKAY. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT THAT'S FINE. I WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AT A LATER POINT. BUT THERE'S, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE TOOLS IN OUR TOOLBOX TO BRING STUFF BACK OVER THAT WE NEED TO. AND THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT IS FRANKLY, KIND OF OVERKILL, BUT THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE CAN HAVE FOR ANOTHER DAY. THANK YOU. SO WAIT. THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US, DID WE VOTE ON THAT? DID WE DO A SECOND? IT WAS A MOTION, A OF BREXIT OR THE MOTION. AND THEN FIRST RIGHT. 60S. ALL RIGHT. SO WE GOT THE MOTION. AND SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. THIS REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE AYES HAVE IT. ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON

[00:55:05]

OKAY, CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL? VOTE, PLEASE. OPEN. THE POLICE. COLSON CHAIR, YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES. THANK YOU. WITH EIGHT YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS.

[7. O-067-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE UNNAMED AND UNIMPROVED ROAD EAST OF REHL ROAD AND SOUTH OF SOUTH POPE LICK ROAD CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 25,132.75 SQUARE FEET AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0032). Action Required By September 13, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

WITH EIGHT YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT METRO COUNCIL AGENDA. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY BUSINESS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE? BEFORE PRIOR TO US ADJOURNING? OKAY. WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS. YES. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, LAST WEEK I ASKED OR TWO WEEKS AGO ASKED ABOUT ANY RESEARCH. DO I NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO MOVE THAT RESEARCH ABOUT? LIKE I WANTED TO KNOW HOW MANY PROJECTS WERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, NOT THE METRO LEVEL. WERE DENIED BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC. HOW DO I NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO THAT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? SO RELATED TO THAT AND BRIAN, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE OR JULIE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS. WE, WE HAVE KIND OF SET UP WITH THE VICE CHAIR. WE'VE SET UP A TIME FOR PLANNING STAFF TO COME IN AND KIND OF ADDRESS GENERALLY THE HOW TRAFFIC STUDIES WORK WITHIN THE ZONING APPROVAL GUIDELINES. AND SO WE'VE SET THAT MEETING FOR WHAT'S THE DATE FOR THAT 1ST MAY SIXTH. I THINK THAT'S A MAY 6TH THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE KIND OF A BROADER STUDY ABOUT ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDIES, OKAY. AS FAR AS KIND OF ADDRESSING HIS SPECIFIC COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, SPECIFIC

[01:00:03]

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS CONCERNS BUSINESS BEFORE US. VICE VICE CHAIR READ VERY QUICKLY. IT'S MY HOPE THAT WE HAVE A VERY ON THE SIXTH OF JUST A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT ONLY COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW'S CONCERN, BUT ALSO JUST BEING PROACTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO. ROADS AND ROAD DEVELOPMENT AS IT AS IT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT IN WAYS THAT I KNOW THAT OTHER CITIES DO IT. I THINK IN THE PAST WE'VE BEEN TOLD, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A STUDY OR ROAD STUDY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FUNDED. BUT WHAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WHAT YOUR WISH LIST WOULD BE IN THAT REGARD. YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD THAT OTHER CITIES DO THAT. AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE DON'T DO THAT. YOU KNOW, DON'T IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE CASE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE DON'T. SO JUST TO HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT PROACTIVE ROAD DEVELOPMENT IN A WAY THAT MIGHT LEAD OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO CERTAIN AREAS THAT WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO. IT DOES. NO. AND, YOU KNOW, AND I'LL JUST LET ANYONE KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT COVERED. ON THE SUBJECT OF TRAFFIC STUDIES ON MAY 6TH TO PLEASE REACH OUT AND LET US KNOW. WE'RE CURRENTLY PUTTING TOGETHER A PANEL OF EXPERTS TO COME AND PRESENT INFORMATION THAT DAY. WE'VE GOT SOME OUT OF TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEERS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH. WE'VE AGREED TO COME IN AND BE HERE THAT DAY. SO YEAH, WE AGAIN, ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT, PLEASE LET US KNOW. WE'LL BE SURE TO INCORPORATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND ONE MORE THING, SIR. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS A HOUSE BILL PASSED THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC. AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENTS GO TO. SO WE MIGHT WANT TO START LOOKING AT THAT. I THINK IT PASSED LAST WEEK. LAST MINUTE. WELL I MEAN WE'RE RIGHT. YEAH. THERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE PASSED LAST FRIDAY. SO WE OUR PLAN IS AFTER THE 28TH IS TO KIND OF GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT WAS PASSED THROUGH, SEE WHAT IMPACTS OUR OFFICE. AND THEN THERE MAY BE, YOU KNOW, A SERIES OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT ARE RELATED TO BILL CHANGES. BECAUSE WE HAVE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING HAVING TO GO IN AND MAKE SOME LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES BECAUSE OF ACTIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN FRANKFURT OVER THE LAST TWO MONTHS. AND SO, YEAH, I MEAN, ONE OF THEM WAS THERE WAS ONE REGARDING TRAFFIC. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE IT WOUND UP BEING BECAUSE THEY WERE KIND OF SHUFFLING THINGS BACK AND BACK AND FORTH AND ALL AROUND. SO YEAH, WE WILL DEFINITELY INCLUDE ANY NEW UPDATES THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SENT OUR WAY AS WELL. AND NOT THAT THIS NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE SAID, BUT ANYBODY THAT HAS OPINIONS ABOUT THAT OR REQUESTS TO MAKE TO THE PLANNING STAFF ABOUT THAT MEETING CAN GO DIRECTLY TO THEM, DOESN'T NEED TO COME THROUGH MY OFFICE SO THEY CAN GO DIRECT THOSE REQUESTS CAN GO DIRECTLY TO YOU GUYS. YEAH, PLEASE. YEAH. FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME OR JULIA, EITHER ONE. AND THEN WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT INCLUDED. OKAY. ANYTH

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.