[00:11:33]
[00:11:55]
GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING.[00:11:58]
TODAY IS TUESDAY, JUNE THE 4TH. I'M SCOTT REED, VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. ANDREW OWEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY. HE IS ON A BEACH SOMEWHERE, I THINK, AND SO, CHERYL, WOULD YOU GO AND READ THE DISCLAIMER, PLEASE? THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE, A READ IN FULL. THANK YOU. SO JOINING ME IN THE CHAMBERS, WE HAVE COUNCILMAN JEFF HUDSON. WE HAVE COUNCILWOMAN BETSY RUDY VIRTUALLY. WE HAVE COUNCIL WOMAN. WOOLDRIDGE. WOOLDRIDGE. COUNCILMAN. PIAGENTINI.COUNCILMAN. OWEN. COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND AND COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH. RIGHT. WE HAVE SOME HOUSEKEEPING. WE HAVE A LOT OF HOUSEKEEPING, ACTUALLY, ITEM NUMBER 10-1102-25 IS BEING HELD BY THE SPONSOR. ITEM NUMBER 70-120. DASH 25 IS BEING HELD BY THE SPONSOR. ITEM NUMBER 80-121-25 IS BEING HELD BY THE SPONSOR. ITEM NUMBER 11 0-10925 IS BEING HELD BY THE SPONSOR AND ITEM NUMBER 90-10725 WILL BE HELD FIRST. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM NUMBER 0-11025.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 8000 803 DASH 8897 OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD CONTAINING. I'M SORRY, MY BAD. THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER. SORRY. ITEM NUMBER 90-10725. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE RETAIL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT ONE 6907 AND 16907R AIKEN ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 55.87 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 2400 78. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SECONDED. I'M SORRY. DO YOU RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER JULIA FIRST AND THEN COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI? YES. SAY THAT HE WAS IN THE ROOM WITH US. OH, I THOUGHT I DID. OH, COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI. YES, COUNCILMAN HERNDON. I'M SORRY.
COUNCILMAN HERNDON IS HERE. MY BAD. OKAY. ARE WE YOU FIRST AND THEN COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI. I DON'T KNOW WHAT. COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES. FIRST, I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE TWO MINUTES OF EVERYBODY'S TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS TODAY.
SO I REALIZE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE EASIER TO HOLD IT, BUT I. I DO WANT TO BE SOMEWHAT TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC AND THE DEVELOPER RELATED TO THIS PROJECT. JUST SO EVERYBODY'S AWARE THIS IS IT PROBABLY SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE. IT IS NOT A ZONING CASE. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN REZONED, BUT THIS IS A VERY LARGE REDEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT IN MY DISTRICT. IT'S OVER 800 UNITS, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING OFF OF AIKEN ROAD. AND THERE WAS A BINDING ELEMENT IN
[00:15:07]
THE ORIGINAL REZONING CASE THAT ANY CHANGES TO IT HAS TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CHANGES. THE DEVELOPER HAS ASKED TO MAKE SEVERAL CHANGES, WHICH ARE OUTLINED IN THE CASE. IT DOES INCREASE THE OPEN SPACE. IT ALSO INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF UNITS, NOT BY A LOT, BUT BY ABOUT 11 UNITS. NET NEW UNITS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT I WANT TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE DEVELOPER BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE MEET AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS. GOAL NUMBER ONE, THERE ARE THERE ARE A LOT OF BINDING ELEMENTS. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE LIKE 25 BINDING ELEMENTS. ONE OF THEM, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM I KNOW HAS TO BE CLEANED UP. AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THEM REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER TO CONTRIBUTE PART OF THEIR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE MONIES FOR THE FIRST 100 PLUS UNITS TO IMPROVING AN INTERSECTION AT AIKEN AND ARNOLD PALMER. IT ACTUALLY SAYS TURN LANES. THE CITY, THE PUBLIC WORKS AND MYSELF AND JUST WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO REDEVELOP THAT INTERSECTION IN A DIFFERENT MANNER, MORE USING A TRAFFIC CIRCLE INSTEAD OF JUST TRADITIONAL TURN LANES. SO IN ORDER TO REFLECT THIS ACCURATELY IN THE BINDING ELEMENTS, WE WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THAT. AND THE OTHER AREA THAT THERE IS SOME INCREASING PUBLIC CONCERN. AND YOU'VE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE ABOUT TRAFFIC ISSUES IN MY DISTRICT WITH THE AMOUNT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. AIKEN ROAD IS A ROAD AT LEAST THAT CURRENTLY HAS NO PLANS TO WIDEN. IT'S A TWO LANE ROAD GOING EAST AND WEST. IN MY DISTRICT. IT'S BECOMING MORE OF A MORE OF AN ARTERIAL THAN IT EVER HAS BEEN. AND WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED IS THAT THIS COULD BE THE BEGINNING OF A TREND OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY MAKING MULTIPLE INCREMENTAL INCREASES TO THE DENSITY OR TO THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THERE, WHICH COULD PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE THERE, WHICH AND IF EACH CHANGE IS SMALL ENOUGH, THEY MAY INDIVIDUALLY LOOK TINY. BUT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BECOMING A TREND WHERE, YOU KNOW, TEN CHANGES LATER AND NOW WE HAVE FAIRLY MATERIAL CHANGES THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE OF THE ZONING REQUEST. SO WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN IN TOUCH WITH, WITH THE ATTORNEYS ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPERS TO TALK ABOUT ADDING LANGUAGE THAT MAY BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT RESTRICTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNITS FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT WE'RE BEING CLEAR THAT IT WON'T GET, EVEN IF THERE MIGHT BE OTHER CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, THAT THEY WON'T INCLUDE ADDITIONAL DENSITY OR ADDITIONAL UNITS, WHICH JUST PUT MORE STRESS ON THE OVERALL TRAFFIC SITUATION. SO WE WANT A LITTLE MORE TIME TO WORK ON THAT. OTHERWISE, THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS THAT THAT ARE THAT I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS FINE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, INCREASES GREEN SPACE AND A FEW OTHER THINGS WHICH I THINK ARE HELPFUL. BUT BUT WE DO WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE INCREASED DENSITY IN THOSE CHANGES OVER TIME. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMITTEE TO TABLE THIS. I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE. I JUST WANTED TO GET THIS INFORMATION ON THE RECORD.
SO THE PUBLIC WHO'S VERY INTERESTED IN THE CHANGES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, ARE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY WE'RE WE'RE HOLDING AT THIS POINT. BUT WITH THAT SAID, IF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WOULD SO OBLIGE ME, I'D BE APPRECIATIVE IF THERE WOULD BE A MOTION TO TABLE, HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. I'M SORRY. SORRY. SECOND. ALL. I THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ALL THE CHAIRS. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS 0-11325. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8915 OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR, ZONE 0013. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION. SECONDED. AND I HAVE A STATEMENT TO READ INTO THE RECORD BY COUNCILMAN BRATCHER. DO I DO THAT FIRST? OKAY. DUE TO THE RECENT AGREEMENT TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS THROUGH TRAVIS FEASTER'S ASSISTANCE, WHICH HE WILL PRESENT TODAY, AS WELL AS INCLUSION OF THE STANDING BINDING ELEMENT, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE METRO COUNCIL, AS AMENDED. I AFFIRM AND ASK FOR SUPPORT FROM COUNCILMAN BRATCHER. SO I'LL BE OVER TO TRAVIS TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT. OH, I'M SORRY. YOU,
[00:20:04]
JULIA. NO WORRIES. JULIA WILLIAMS, OFFICE OF PLANNING. SO THIS IS BARDSTOWN ROAD STORAGE.IT'S 89. IT'S LOCATED 8915 OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD IN DISTRICT 22. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPOSED USE IS COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R4 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS C2. THE REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C2. COMMERCIAL. THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WAIVERS, VARIANCE, AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS INCLUDED WITH THE SITE. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES. IT'S PROPOSED FOR MANY WAREHOUSES. THERE'S 400 SELF-STORAGE UNITS PROPOSED. THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED. ACCESS IS FROM OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE METRO COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025, BUT THE CASE WAS BEING RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OF A NOTIFICATION ERROR. SO THAT'S WHY YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN THIS CASE ON AN AGENDA PREVIOUS TO THIS ONE. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING TWO STORAGE BUILDINGS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING HOME TO BE DEMOLISHED. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THIS THIS IS LOOKING AT THE SITE FROM BARDSTOWN ROAD. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 28TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. MET ON JANUARY 9TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025 AND APRIL 10TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SEEING NO ONE IN THE QUEUE. TRAVIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE ABIDING ELEMENTS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TRAVIS FEASTER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. BEFORE I READ THESE IN, IF I COULD JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, AS JULIA SAID, THIS ONE CAME TO US PREVIOUSLY. THERE WERE NOTICE ISSUES. IT WENT BACK DOWN. TWO IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE THERE. ONE, OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE CRAS IS ONCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUED A NEW RECOMMENDATION THAT RESTARTED THE 90 DAY CLOCK. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. AGAIN, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH OUR WAY TO ADDRESS THAT, NOTICE SHORTFALL TWO. WE HAD ALREADY BEGUN DISCUSSING BINDING ELEMENTS ON THIS CASE. AND RELATED 115 BEFORE WE SORT OF RECOGNIZE THE NOTICE ISSUE. SO STRANGELY, THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAD ALREADY OCCURRED, AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSED MOST OF THOSE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, AND THEY WERE ADOPTED THERE. AND SO A LOT OF WHAT THE COUNCILMAN SOUGHT ON THIS CASE WAS ALREADY INCORPORATED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD. BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE ADDITIONAL USES THAT HE CARED ABOUT. AND SO THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK IN. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO, AS WELL AS ADD THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT. SO THE AMENDMENT IS ON THE SYSTEM, FORTUNATELY, BECAUSE I'D LOVE NOT TO READ THE ENTIRE LIST OF USES AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST, IT WOULD BE ADDING RETAIL OR WHOLESALE WHOLESALE STORES OR BUSINESSES AS A PROHIBITED USE IN THE C2 CATEGORY AND THE C1 CATEGORY. IT WOULD ADD BACK IN CONVENIENCE STORES, GROCERIES AS A PROHIBITED USE, DWELLINGS MULTIFAMILY IF THE DENSITY EXCEEDS 12.01 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO R5 A OTHERWISE. RESTAURANTS, TEA ROOMS AND CAFES. THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THOSE IS THAT THOSE TEND TO BE RELATIVELY TRAFFIC INTENSE USES, AND THIS SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE A MINI STORAGE FACILITY, LIKE THE LEAST INTENSE USE YOU COULD IMAGINE.
SO THEY'RE TRYING NOT TO HAVE SOME CRAZY TRAFFIC IMPACT. IF THIS REDEVELOPS. WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING IS A VERY LOW LEVEL. THE OTHER ONE I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT, I'M GOING TO READ IT IN FULL AND EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BIT. THIS IS ALSO A C C1 USE THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED. BANKS, CREDIT UNIONS, SAVINGS AND LOAN CHECK CASHING SERVICES, AND SIMILAR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE PRIMARILY PAYDAY LOAN OR CHECK CASHING OPERATIONS, OR THAT ARE ONLY STATE REGULATED OR PROHIBITED. BUT TRADITIONAL BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS THAT ARE FULL SERVICE ARE FEDERALLY REGULATED, THAT ARE FEDERALLY REGULATED, ARE PERMITTED. THAT'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS ONE FOR A WHILE.
THERE'S A PENDING RESOLUTION THAT'S ATTEMPTING TO SORT OF DIVIDE THESE USES UP. AGAIN, THIS WAS THE SORT OF APPLICANT'S PROPOSALS AS A WAY TO GET AROUND THIS. IN THE MEANTIME, UNTIL WE HAVE A CLARIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH TWO SEPARATE USE CATEGORIES. IT WAS DONE A LITTLE BIT LAST MINUTE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO TRY. AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED, SO I'M COMFORTABLE GIVING IT A SHOT. IDEALLY THIS WOULD BE CLEANED UP ONCE WE GET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RESOLUTION PROCESS AMENDMENT PROCESS FINISHED. BUT THAT'S THAT'S ONGOING WITH STAFF. SO AGAIN WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION TO
[00:25:02]
THAT ONE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY EXPECT IT. BUT THOSE ARE THE TOTALITY OF THE PROPOSALS. AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T MOVE THE AMENDMENT, BUT IT IS ON THE SYSTEM AND I KNOW THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE SOMEONE TO MOVE IT FOR HIM. SHOULD WE MOVE THE AMENDMENT FIRST OR MOVE THE AMENDMENT? I MOVE THE AMENDMENT SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILMAN VACHON, WHO IS IN THE CHAMBERS AND WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILMAN HUDSON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DO YOU KNOW IF THIS THIS LOCATION IS WITHIN A MILE OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE SNYDER AND BARDSTOWN ROAD? I DON'T KNOW, RIGHT OFF. I'M LOOKING AT IT AT A MAP. IT LOOKS TO BE OUTSIDE OF THAT RADIUS. AND, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE A DATE FOR MR. FOR COUNCILMAN BRASHER'S STATEMENT? HE MADE THE STATEMENT TODAY. I THINK IF WE TABLED, WE WOULD STILL BE WITHIN 90 DAYS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? WELL, CAN I MOVE TO TABLE BECAUSE. I'M CONFUSED? BECAUSE COUNCILMAN BRATCHER HAS BEEN VERY VOCAL ABOUT WANTING TO CEASE ALL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF A ONE MILE RADIUS OF THIS INTERSECTION. THIS IS HOW HE COMMUNICATED WITH ME TODAY TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS FORWARD. BUT YOU KNOW, WHO AM I TO KEEP YOU FROM MOTIONING THE TABLE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE? YEAH, I'D MOVE TO TABLE UNTIL UNTIL HE CAN COME AND EXPLAIN THAT, BECAUSE IT'S TOO COMPLETE. EXTREME POSITIONS. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO TABLE. SECOND. OKAY, CHAIR. YES, SIR. CAN I JUST. COUNCILMAN, COUNCILMAN HUDSON, WERE YOU IN THE ROOM FOR THE. WHEN WERE YOU IN CHAMBERS? WHEN VICE CHAIR. READ. READ.COUNCILMAN BRACHO'S STATEMENT I WAS I AM OKAY, ALL RIGHT. JUST MAKING SURE IT WAS A PRETTY STRONG STATEMENT TO GO THAT THAT'S WHAT CONFUSES ME. I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIR. OH, ABSOLUTELY. NO, NO, THAT'S WHAT CONFUSES ME. IS THAT THE STATEMENT THAT WAS READ WAS VERY CLEAR. BUT THE POSITION OF A LETTER THAT COUNCILMAN BRATCHER HAS, HAS WRITTEN IS VERY CLEAR IN THE OPPOSITE EXTREME. I THINK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED. TRAVIS, I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE DISTANCE. THIS I MEAN, I JUST DID GOOGLE MAPS, BUT IT'S ABOUT TWO MILES AWAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE ONE MILE RADIUS. SO I, I'M CONFUSED. I DON'T KNOW WHICH COUNCILMAN BRASHER TO PAY ATTENTION TO IN THIS ONE. WELL, BE THAT AS IT MAY, THERE'S A THERE'S A MOTION WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DEBATING PARTICULARLY. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION OR NOT. NO I TABLE IT. SO THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN RUBY. I'M SORRY. SHE'S WITHDRAWING HER.
YES. SECOND. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AFTER I SECOND IT. GO FOR IT. THIS IS SONYA HARPER. THE MOTION TO TABLE IS NOT DEBATABLE. ONCE WE VOTE ON THAT, IT'S TABLED. SO YOU COULD ASK COUNCILMAN HUDSON IF HE WANTS TO WITHDRAW FOR A MOMENT.
OTHER THAN THAT, WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT ANY FURTHER. I SECOND THE TABLE SO I CAN GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE I WALKED IN A LITTLE LATE. SO IF THAT'S OKAY, A SECOND TO TABLE. OKAY.
SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO IT'S GOING TO COME OFF AND THEN IT'S GOING TO WE'RE GOING AWAY OKAY.
SO THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE. THEN WE HAVE COUNCILMAN ON SECOND AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. NAY NO NO. SO ROLL CALL. COUNCIL MEMBER PERISH. RIGHT. I JUST WANT BACK ON I THINK MY RESPONSE IS NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RAYMOND. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ON CHAIR ON. NO. RIGHT. ROAD IS CLOSED. VICE CHAIR, YOU HAVE THREE YES VOTES. FOUR NO VOTES.
[00:30:01]
FAILED. THE MOTION TO TABLE FAILS AND YOU CAN GO BACK TO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK, COUNCILMAN, PLEASE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND SO AS I WALKED IN, TRAVIS WAS READING SOME SOME TEXT ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY GOT A RESOLUTION WE'RE WORKING ON. CAN YOU GIVE ME A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THIS IS AND WHAT WHAT I, WHAT I WALK INTO, PLEASE. SURE.SO SIMILAR TO THAT RESOLUTION COUNCILMAN BRATCHER WAS INTERESTED IN, HE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THAT ENTIRE CLAUSE THAT WE'RE REVIEWING UNDER THAT OTHER RESOLUTION, WHICH IS BANKS, CREDIT UNION, SAVINGS AND LOAN CHECK CASHING SERVICES AND SIMILAR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
THAT'S THE PHRASE THAT PLANNING STAFF'S TAKING A LOOK AT. AND EVENTUALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ABOUT. COUNCILMAN BRATCHER WAS NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT BANKS CREDIT UNIONS, MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SORT OF LATTER HALF.
AND. WE'RE WRESTLING WITH HOW TO ADDRESS THAT. I HAD PROPOSED SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SORT OF SAY EVERYTHING'S PROHIBITED, BUT AT A LATER TIME, IF WE GET A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT THAT DIVIDES THESE USES UP, THEN WE SHOULD ALLOW SOME OF THEM, WHICH IS KIND OF MESSY, RIGHT? IT'S SORT OF A BINDING ELEMENT THAT TRIGGERS A WOULD BE RESOLUTION. SO ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT PROPOSED SOME DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT, YOU KNOW THEY'RE WILLING TO ABIDE BY, WHICH ULTIMATELY THE BINDING ELEMENTS ARE A LITTLE BIT FLEXIBLE WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD AGREE TO. IT'S NOT SOMETHING I WOULD RECOMMEND IMPOSING. I DON'T THINK IT'S HOW OUR REGULATION IS GOING TO ULTIMATELY LOOK, BUT THEY WERE WILLING TO SORT OF DRAW THAT DISTINCTION FOR THEMSELVES. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT LANGUAGE CAME FROM, WHERE EFFECTIVELY THEY WOULD THEY WOULD ONLY PERMIT SORT OF FORMAL BANKS, CREDIT UNIONS, FEDERALLY REGULATED, FDIC INSURED SORT OF INSTITUTIONS, AND NOT THE CHECKING AND LOANS AND SUCH ON THEIR SITE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I FOLLOW UP. YES. SO IF I IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, THIS IS A MINI STORAGE UNIT FACILITY THAT IS ALLOWING OURSELVES TO PUT A BONDING ELEMENT OF THE BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS OFF OF THE THING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE CHECK CASHING AND, AND LOANS. RIGHT. SO THIS IS JUST ONE IN A LONG LIST OF USES THAT IS BEING BOUND OUT.
AND SO THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE USES THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO BIND OUT, BUT THEY WANTED TO SORT OF USE WITHIN THE USE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT THAT USE CATEGORY COVERS EVERYTHING UNDER THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION UMBRELLA. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? VICE CHAIR REED CAN. YES, COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN. SORRY. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF EXPLAIN. I THINK WE RECEIVED A AN EMAIL AT 1140 THIS MORNING TO BOTH MYSELF AND TO VICE CHAIR REED. AND IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO THIS DEVELOPMENT DUE TO RECENT AGREEMENT TO THE ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS THROUGH TRAVIS FEASTER'S ASSISTANCE, WHICH HE WILL PRESENT TODAY, AS WELL AS INCLUSION TO THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE METRO COUNCIL, AS AMENDED. THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN REED SAID EARLIER. AND THEN A FOLLOW UP EMAIL TWO MINUTES LATER FROM COUNCILMAN BRATCHER.
YOU KNOW, THAT SAYS I AFFIRM AND REQUEST SUPPORT FOR THIS ITEM. AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS FAIRLY ADAMANT THAT THIS THING MOVED FORWARD, BECAUSE IT WAS SO SPECIFIC THAT THAT DESPITE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW ABOUT WHAT COUNCILMAN HUDSON WAS TALKING ABOUT, IT WAS SO SPECIFIC TO THE WORK THAT THAT TRAVIS FEASTER AND, AND HIS OFFICE HAD DONE ON THIS, ON THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY THAT I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT FORWARD. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY I WAS STILL STILL PUSHING IT FORWARD.
IT WAS AN EMAIL THIS MORNING THAT THAT TWO EMAILS, ONE FROM HIS LA AND ONE FROM HIMSELF THAT SAID, PLEASE MOVE THIS FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE? SEEING NONE THAT WE'RE READY TO VOTE. CHAIR ON. YES. MISTER. CHAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER. PARISH. RIGHT.
YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. INTERRUPTED. PASTOR. WE'RE GOING
[00:35:05]
TO HOLD THE VOTE FOR A SECOND, AND WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY. START OVER ON THE VOTE. OKAY.WHAT IS CLOSING? CHAIR? YOU HAVE FIVE YES VOTES TO SHOW VOTES. FIVE YES AND TWO PRESENT VOTES.
SORRY. THE ORDINANCE PASSES AND GOES TO OLD BUSINESS. THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMAN BHAJAN, CAN I EXPLAIN MY PRESENT VOTE, PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. I'M EXPLAINING MY PRESENT VOTE AS WALKING INTO THIS, THIS READING LATE. SO MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT, SIR. MISTER CHAIR. SO I'M VOTING PRESENT FOR THE FACT OF JUST GETTING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE'RE AT, AND THEN WE CAN ESTABLISH IT INTO COUNCIL. THANK YOU. DULY NOTED. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS 0-11525, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11401 RACE ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 2400015. DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO HAVE A SECOND SECOND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT. THANK YOU. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED.
THANK YOU. THIS IS RACE ROAD STORAGE. THE LOCATION IS 11 401 RACE ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 22. THE EXISTING USE IS IT'S ACTUALLY VACANT, BUT IT'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R4 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CCM. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO CCM COMMERCIALANUFACTURING. THERE WERE WAIVERS AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS SITE IS 2.4 ACRES. IT'S A CURRENTLY A VACANT PARCEL. THE CCM IS TO ALLOW FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE OF RVS, TRAILERS, AND BOATS. THERE ARE TWO PARKING SPOTS. THE ACCESS IS FROM RACE ROAD, AND THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT HAD THE NOTICE ISSUE WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO METRO COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 6TH, BUT THAT CASE WAS BEING RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OF A NOTIFICATION ERROR SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE FRONT. THIS IS ACROSS BARDSTOWN ROAD. THE APPLICANT HAD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 28TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THEIR MEETING ON JANUARY 9TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025 AND APRIL 10TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE ANOTHER STATEMENT FROM COUNCILMAN BRATCHER TO READ INTO THE RECORD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR READ DUE TO RECENT AGREEMENT TO THE ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS THROUGH TRAVIS FEATURES ASSISTANCE, WHICH HE WILL PRESENT TODAY, AS WELL AS AS INCLUSION OF THE STANDING BINDING ELEMENT. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE METRO COUNCIL, AS AMENDED. I AFFIRM AND ASK FOR SUPPORT. I DID GET THIS THIS MORNING, AND I DID GET AN EMAIL AND A TEXT TO THAT MATTER IN SUPPORT. SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN? COUNCILWOMAN RUDY, I JUST HAVE A VERY BRIEF QUESTION REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS. IS THIS GOING TO BE ASPHALT OR IS THIS GOING TO BE GRAVEL? LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SEE IF IT INDICATES A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY ON THAT, ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IS THAT THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON THE DETENTION BASIN SIZE AND THE NEED FOR IT. SO IT'S GRAVEL. IT'S STILL POROUS TO SOME EXTENT. IT'S ASPHALT. EVERYTHING RUNS OFF.
[00:40:02]
THE ONLY INDICATION ON THE PLAN IS THAT THE PARKING AREA SHALL BE OF A HARD AND DURABLE SURFACE, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP, COUNCILWOMAN? WHAT DOES THE CODE REQUIRE? LET ME LOOK THAT UP FOR YOU REAL QUICK. OKAY. SO. ACCORDING TO. THIS.SO NINE 112 SAYS IT WOULD NEED TO BE A HARD AND DURABLE SURFACE SUCH AS CONCRETE OR ASPHALT. AND THEN IT ALSO SOUNDED LE ICAN IT'S BONDED. O TE OF GRAVEL IF VERY MUC A A COUMA HUONNT,HA AREA WOODED. IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S WOODED AND IT'S ALSO STEEP SLOPES. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT COLORING REPRESENTS IS 20 AND 30% SLOPES. YEAH I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURES. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ON A HILLSIDE. YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN HUDSON. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY JUST ASKED THE QUESTIO WAS GOING TO ASK, SO I'LL WITHDRAW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OVER TO TRAVIS TO READ THE BINDING ELEMENTS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SAME GENERAL STORY HERE. PART WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE IN PROCESS. PLANNING COMMISSION ENDED UP INCORPORATING THOSE BINDING ELEMENT DISCUSSIONS INTO THEIR DECISION AT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. AND SO WE'RE JUST ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL USES THAT ARE BEING BOUND OUT FROM ANY FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. AND THOSE USES ARE UNDER C. THIS IS A UNDER BINDING ELEMENT NUMBER 14. NO NEW C-2 USES ARE BEING BOUND OUT. THE NEW C-1 USES BEING BOUND OUT. WE HAVE THAT SAME PHRASE FROM THE LAST CASE. THIS IS THE SAME APPLICANT BANKS, CREDIT UNION, SAVINGS AND LOAN CHECK CASHING, AND OTHER SIMILAR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE PRIMARILY PAYDAY LOAN OR CHECK CASHING OPERATIONS, OR THEY'RE ONLY STATE REGULATED OR PROHIBITED BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS, THEIR FULL SERVICE AND FEDERALLY REGULATED ARE PERMITTED. GOING DOWN. WE HAVE DWELLINGS, MULTIPLE FAMILY. IF THE DENSITY EXCEEDS 17.42 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO UP TO R6 DENSITY HERE NOT ALLOWING BEYOND THAT. AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT WERE INSERTED ON THIS CASE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR TRAVIS COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. HOW ARE WE ABLE TO BOND OUT THINGS IN SOMETHING IF THE WE HAVEN'T PASSED IT ANY LDC YET? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. RIGHT. SO THIS IS A CLUNKY WAY TO ATTEMPT TO DO THIS BY THE APPLICANT BY WAY OF COMPROMISE. IS MY REALLY MY BEST ANSWER. IT'S POTENTIALLY DIFFICULT DOWN THE ROAD. I MEAN, THIS IS OWNED BY THE SAME SITE AS THE OTHER ONE. THERE'S SORT OF AN ON SITE MINI STORAGE AND THEN AN OFF SITE VEHICLE STORAGE. SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF EITHER OF THESE SITES IMMEDIATELY REDEVELOPING INTO ONE OF THESE USES IS PRETTY UNLIKELY. AND IF WE GET TEN, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND ONE OF THOSE USES COMES ALONG AND WE HAVE A NEW LDC PROVISION THAT DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN THEM, THEN I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO LOOK AT THE BINDING ELEMENT AND SAY WE SHOULD AMEND THIS LANGUAGE. CLEARLY, COUNCIL WANTED THESE TO BE ALLOWED AND THESE NOT TO BE ALLOWED, BUT THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR SOME HICCUP IN BETWEEN THERE. AND THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT, ESPECIALLY THE APPLICANT'S ATTEMPT TO REACH SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE THERE. I KNOW THAT'S MAYBE NOT A SUPER SATISFYING ANSWER, BUT THAT'S. WHERE WE ARE. I THINK I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO BIND OUT WHAT'S IN THE CODE, I GUESS I GET YOUR ANSWER. BUT HOW CAN WE BIND OUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE YET? SO I THINK, I THINK THE BEST ANSWER IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT BINDING ELEMENTS, AS YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY USE RELATED BINDING ELEMENTS, GOT TO BE AGREED TO BY AN APPLICANT. WE CAN'T JUST UNILATERALLY SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO BE C-2, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE USED CAR SALES, RIGHT? WE CHOOSE THE CATEGORY AND THE APPLICANT CAN AGREE THROUGH BINDING ELEMENTS TO BIND ON THINGS. SO HERE THEY'RE AGREEING TO THIS SORT OF NARROW
[00:45:05]
SUBCATEGORY. AND IF WE AREN'T ABLE TO SORT OF INTERPRET IT SUPER NARROWLY, MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT BROADLY, WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT FROM AN ENFORCEMENT AND APPEAL STANDPOINT. BUT THIS IS THE APPLICANT ATTEMPTING TO AGREE TO A KIND OF PART OF A CATEGORY THAT THEY'RE AGREEING THEY WON'T PURSUE THAT USE. BUT IF I'M PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, SORRY, MR. CHAIR, CAN I FOLLOW IF I'M PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE AGREE TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN THE LAW, AND I GET MY ZONING PASSED, AND THEN I GO AND DO WHAT'S NOT IN THE LAW AND ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. MY FIGHT IS, WELL, IT PASSED. IT'S REALLY NOT IN THE LAW. SO HOW CAN YOU HOLD ME TO THE STANDARD? SURE. I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A RISK AND I THINK COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW OFFICE IS AWARE OF THAT. BUT ULTIMATELY THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE TRYING TO STRIKE THIS COMPROMISE AND TRUST THAT THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO STICK TO THEIR WORD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON. SO I NEED A MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT. MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY COUNCILMAN RUDY? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. SO NOW WE HAVE THE EMOTION. THE ORDINANCE WITH THE AMENDMENT, AND WE'RE READY TO VOTE. CHAIR ON. YES. COUNCILMEMBER PARIS. RIGHT. YES.COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. VOTING IS CLOSING CHAIR. YOU GOT FIVE YES VOTES AND TWO PRESENT. THANK YOU. THIS PASSES AND WE'LL GO INTO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. NEXT UP WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 0-11625. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5862 NEW ROAD AND 7419 STAR LANE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24 00062. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND? SECOND MOTION SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. SO THIS IS CASE NUMBER 24 0062 FOR AUTOZONE. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 25 AT 5862 NEW CUT ROAD AND 7419 STAR LANE. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED IS COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R4 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS C1. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 SINGLE FAMILY TO C1 COMMERCIAL. THERE WAS ALSO A VARIANCE AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THERE'S 7381 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STRUCTURE PROPOSED, WHICH LEAVES AN ADDITIONAL SITE AREA FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM NEW CUT ROAD. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE FROM NEW CUT ROAD.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS PROVIDED. SO THIS IS WHAT THE SITE CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM STAR LANE. THIS IS ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ON NEW CUT ROAD AND THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET ON NEW CUT ROAD. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON APRIL 29TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THEIR MEETING ON MARCH 13TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C1, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR JULIA? COUNCILMAN BECKMAN, AS THIS IS IN MY DISTRICT, MR. CHAIR, I THANK YOU FOR CALLING ON ME. WE HAVE ONLY HAD TWO, I THINK, OPPOSITIONS IN THE RECORD, BUT THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT I THINK THIS IS NECESSARY FOR GROWTH AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN IN DISTRICT 25. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS. THIS IMPROVED AUTOZONE. AS WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S ONE DOWN THE ROAD. I THINK IT'S THE SAME OWNERS. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOME SOME ADJUSTING BY BUYING THIS LAND AND MAKING IT A NICER, MORE MODERN LOOK AND GROWTH WITH, I GUESS, A FLAGSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN
[00:50:05]
THAT, IN THAT PART OF THE DISTRICT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, THANK YOU. I'VE JUST GOT A QUESTION. I KNOW I WAS READING ON THERE, AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT USING PART OF THAT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS IS ON STAR REST. IT'S ACTUALLY ON IT'S ON STAR REST AT NEW CUT. CORRECT. STAR LANE AT NEW CUT. YES. OKAY. SO THAT BACK AREA IS THAT ACCESSIBLE FROM STAR LANE. LET ME GO TO THE AERIAL. IT APPEARS TO BE. YES. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO WIND UP USING THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A VERY DEEP, NARROW FAIRLY NARROW LOT. JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN SEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THAT BACK PART? I DON'T, BUT IF THEY'RE LEAVING I, OUR FORCE, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD POSSIBLY BUILD SOME SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. CHAIR. OWEN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. PARIS, RIGHT? YES. COUNCILMEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. VOTE IS CLOSING. VICE CHAIR READ. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES.THANK YOU. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. NEXT UP. ZERO. ITEM NUMBER 50-118-25. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3504 GARLAND AVENUE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.17 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 2500001. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION, MOTION BY COUNCILMAN. HUDSON. COUNCILMAN. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN. PARISH. RIGHT. JULIA, THIS IS 25 001 GARLAND AVENUE DUPLEX. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE AT 3504 GARLAND AVENUE. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL, AND THE PROPOSED USE IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R5 AND THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS R5 B IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R5 SINGLE FAMILY TO R5 B TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THERE WAS ALSO A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE TO R5 B TWO FAMILY TO ALLOW FOR A DUPLEX. THERE'S NO PROPOSED EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO PROVIDE TWO DWELLING UNITS. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THESE ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALONG GARLAND. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON DECEMBER 4TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WAS HELD ON MARCH 13TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R5 TO R5 BE PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 3. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN NOLAN, DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING FROM COUNCILMAN PURVIS? I WAS JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THAT TO SEE IF I HAD HEARD ANYTHING. AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING OFFHAND. IS. IS JASMINE PRESLEY IN THE CHAMBERS? MY LA.
NO, SHE IS NOT. NO. OKAY. I, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IMMEDIATELY. COULD I ASK WHY WE WHY? I'M ON VICE CHAIR. COULD JULIA THAT IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY, PRETTY SIMPLE INTERIOR ALTERATION. THE 6 TO 3 APPROVAL. CAN YOU PUT A LITTLE MORE COLOR ON THAT FOR US, PLEASE? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT TO GET THREE VOTES AGAINST IS, IS INTERESTING. WE DID NOT HEAR FROM TWO OF THE COUNCIL OR THE COUNCIL, THE COMMISSIONERS, REGARDING THEIR NO VOTES. ONE DIDN'T THINK A DUPLEX BELONGED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY AREA. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR WOULD YOU LIKE A FOLLOW UP, COUNCILMAN OWEN? I'M GOOD. THANKS. I WAS JUST LOOKING AGAIN
[00:55:06]
TO SEE IF I HAVE ANYTHING. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. WE JUST HEARD FROM COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. SHE WILL BE HERE WITHIN, HOPEFULLY A MINUTE. THAT PART IS SUFFICIENT TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION. SO WE HAVE A MINUTE TO KILL. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? SING A SONG? ANYTHING? I NOMINATE YOU, VICE CHAIR. READ. I'LL DECLINE, BUT THANK YOU. WE CAN WAIT A FEW MINUTES. I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH. AND THAT THAT DID JUMP AT ME TO SIX THREE ON WHAT SEEMED TO ME TO BE A FAIRLY SIMPLE ZONING CHANGE.COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS HAS ENTERED THE ROOM. THANK YOU, SIR, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IF YOU PROVIDE ME WITH SOME CLARITY ON THIS ZONING CHANGE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I DID SIT IN ON THE AGENDA. IT'S JUST THAT I'M WORKING ON OTHER THINGS AND FAILED TO GET UP HERE IN TIME. I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.
THAT'S OKAY. SO THIS IS A CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO MAKE IT A DUPLEX. SO IT'S CURRENTLY R5 AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR R5 B, WHICH IS GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO TWO FAMILY. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO THAT FURTHER. AT THIS TIME. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THAT IT WOULD HELP SATISFY THE NEED FOR HOUSING SINCE WE'RE SO SHORT OF HOUSING.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS GOING THROUGH LEGISLATION THROUGH THE COMMITTEE. SO. THE QUESTION, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANTS THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS? NO, THIS ISN'T NOT RESTRICTED BY A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO JUST SOMEONE SUBJECTIVELY FELT AS THOUGH IT DIDN'T CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. WHAT WAS THAT LAST STATEMENT YOU MADE, COUNCILWOMAN? THERE WAS A IT WAS A 6 TO 3 VOTE. SO THE QUESTION RAISED BY COUNCILMAN OWEN WAS ON SOMETHING THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD ZONING CHANGE. WHY WERE THE THREE NO VOTES? AND JULIA EXPLAINED THAT THAT ONE ON THE COMMISSION FELT LIKE IT JUST DIDN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO MY QUESTION WAS, WERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANTS? I WASN'T AWARE THAT THIS WAS AN HOA OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND EVIDENTLY THERE WASN'T. SO OR THERE ISN'T. SO SOMEONE JUST SIMPLY MADE A, IN MY VIEW, A JUST A SUBJECTIVE COMMENT THAT IT DIDN'T FIT THIS. THAT'S UNUSUAL. THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD IS SURROUNDED BY CHURCHES. YEAH. I DON'T SEE WHY THERE SHOULD BE ANY ISSUES OR PUSHBACK. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY DID THE OTHER TWO VOTED? WHY DID THEY VOTE AGAINST IT? I THINK THE OTHER TWO DIDN'T LEAVE A COMMENT. RIGHT? RIGHT THERE. THEY DIDN'T EXPRESS WHY THEY VOTED NO. OKAY, WELL, I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM IN MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. AND, COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS, YOU DO HAVE A VOTE. CHAIR. OWEN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER PARRISH.
RIGHT. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. COUNCILMEMBER VACHON. COUNCIL MEMBER. PURVIS.
YES. VOTING'S. CLOSING. VICE CHAIR. REGION EIGHT. YES. VOTES. THANK YOU. THIS WILL GO TO THE OLD BUSINESS OR TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. NEXT UP IS ITEM NUMBER 60-11925, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5820 EAST MANSLICK ROAD AND A PORTION OF 8908 MAPLE ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 10.29 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE
[01:00:01]
METRO CASE NUMBER 250004. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUDSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN RUBY JULIA. THIS IS 25 000 FOR MANSLICK COMMONS TWO. THIS IS LOCATED AT 5820 EAST MANSLICK ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 24. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED USE IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R4 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. PROPOSED ZONING IS PLANNED. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM R4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S ALSO A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A MAJOR SUBDIVISION PLAN. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 10.29 ACRES. THE PROPOSALS FOR 55 BUILDABLE LOTS AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS WITH RECREATIONAL COMPONENTS. ACCESS WILL BE VIA EAST MANSLICK ROAD. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON EAST MANSLICK ROAD. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON DECEMBER 16TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THEIR MEETING ON MARCH 13TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 2425, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO PRD PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR JULIA? COUNCILWOMAN MULVEY WOOLDRIGE WAS ONLINE FOR A WHILE. I DON'T THINK SHE IS ANYMORE. I CAN'T TELL SHE'S NOT. SHE'S OKAY. SO SHE DID TEXT ME JUST A MINUTE AGO SAYING FOR THE ITEM ON MANSLICK, I NEED TO DROP IN. IT'S A 55 LOT NEIGHBORHOOD AT 5020 EAST MANSLICK AND MAPLE.THIS DID PASS THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY, WITH ONLY ONE PERSON OBJECTING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I AGREE WITH HAVING MORE SINGLE DWELLING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES COMING TO THE AREA. SO ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. CHAIR OWEN. YES.
COUNCIL MEMBER PARIS, RIGHT? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BISHAN.
YES. VOTING. CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. ITEM SEVEN IS HELD BY SPONSOR. ITEM EIGHT IS HELD BY SPONSOR.
ARE WE? ITEM NINE? ITEM NINE. WE ARE WE DONE? I'M SORRY. WE'VE ALREADY DONE ITEM NINE. AND ITEM ONE WE HELD. SO WE'RE AT ITEM TEN. IT'S LIKE A JIGSAW. ITEM NUMBER TEN 0-108-25. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN AND APPROVING ITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE 0002. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUDSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JULIA. THIS IS 25 0002 FOR THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN. THE REQUEST WAS TO ADOPT THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN 2040. SO THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN AND ITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE PREVIOUS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CORNERSTONE 2020, AND BY OVERSIGHT, THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN WAS NOT INCORPORATED INTO PLAN 2040, ALONG WITH A HOST OF OTHER CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, PUBLIC WORKS REQUESTED THAT TO HAVE THIS PLAN ADOPTED INTO PLAN 2040 BEFORE THEY START, SOME AMENDMENTS TO THAT PLAN AND POLICY 1A2E OF PLAN 2040 STATES THAT PLAN STUDIES AND STRATEGIES THAT HAVE BEEN LEGISLATIVELY ADOPTED SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS AMENDMENTS TO THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN 2040, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. ARE
[01:05:02]
THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. JULIA, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE THE LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN HAS BEEN LOOKED AT? I THINK IT WAS 2016. AND I CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. I KNOW THAT PUBLIC WORKS IS CURRENTLY SORT OF REVIEWING THIS PLAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR ALONG IN THAT PROCESS THEY ARE, BUT THEY THOUGHT, AGAIN, THIS NOT BEING ADOPTED WITH PLAN 2040 WAS AN OVERSIGHT. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SORT OF WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, BUT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD A LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN. SO NO ONE THOUGHT THAT, HEY, THIS THING NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED AS WELL. SO THEY WANTED TO GET THIS ADOPTED AND THEN COME FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENTS RATHER THAN DOING IT ALL AT ONCE AND DELAYING. I UNDERSTAND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN SECTION IN MY DISTRICT THAT THE LOUISVILLE LOOP ENCOMPASSES THAT I DON'T THINK WILL EVER GET BUILT, BECAUSE IT INCLUDES CERTAIN RIGHTS OF WAY WITH PRIVATE HOME OWNERSHIP, AND I JUST DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ENTIRE THING BE LOOKED AT AGAIN, REALISTICALLY, TO SEE WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY DEVELOP IT. AND YOU SAY THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER WE GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS. YES. IT'S THE INTENT OF, I GUESS IT'D BE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO REVIEW THE CURRENT LOUISVILLE LOOP MASTER PLAN AND MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS TO IT. AND IT WAS 2013 THAT IT WAS ADOPTED. OKAY.YEAH, I WOULD THINK THAT WE'RE DUE. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN HUDSON? THANK YOU. CHAIR. SO IS THE CORNERSTONE DOCUMENT A SUBORDINATE DOCUMENT TO THE PLAN 2040 DOCUMENT? NO. SO IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO, SINCE THE LOUISVILLE LOOP HAS ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE CORNERSTONE DOCUMENT, WHICH ONE IS THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT? THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS.
CURRENTLY, THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT WOULD BE PLAN 2040. THAT'S OUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THE REQUEST WOULD BE TO HAVE THIS ADOPTED UNDER PLAN 2040, SIMILAR TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS THAT WERE MENTIONED BEFORE. OKAY. SO AND I'M LOOKING AT COUNTY ATTORNEY.
DOES IT GET D ADOPTED FROM THE CORNERSTONE PLAN THEN. NO. SO CORNERSTONE WAS BASICALLY IT WAS REPLACED BY PLAN 2040. KENTUCKY STATE LAW REQUIRES ROUGHLY EVERY 20 YEARS A LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OKAY. AND SO CORNERSTONE DOESN'T REALLY EXIST ANY LONGER OKAY.
IT'S BEEN REPLACED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HUDSON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. VOTE IS OPEN. CHAIR. OWEN. YES? COUNCIL MEMBER.
PARIS. RIGHT. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. VOTING IS CLOSING. VICE CHAIR READ. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. CHERYL. AND THIS WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. CONSENT? I'M SORRY. WE CONTINUE TO CONSENT. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE CAN SEND IT TO CONSENT. SURE. EVEN BETTER. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS BEING HELD BY THE SPONSORS. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER 12 0-12225. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF FRANKLIN STREET EAST OF JACKSON STREET, AND THE PORTION OF JACKSON STREET BETWEEN EAST MAIN STREET AND WITHERSPOON STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 61,730FT■!S AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 24. STREET CLOSURE 0034. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUDSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BHAJAN JULIA. SO THIS IS 24TH STREET CLOSURE 0034, REFERRING TO IT AS THE SLUGGER FIELD. RIGHT OF WAY CLOSURE. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR ON THE SLUGGER FIELD SITE. THEIR REQUEST IS CLOSING. PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. CURRENTLY, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS IN AN IN AN EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT SERVES SLUGGER FIELD. IT'S BETWEEN EAST MAIN AND EAST WITHERSPOON STREETS. IT'S ZONED. THE LAND AROUND IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING AND THE DOWNTOWN FORM, AND IT IS METRO OWNED PROPERTIES. SO THIS WAS THE CLOSURE WAS TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC HAS TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES. AND THE AGENCY COMMENTS WERE ALL ADDRESSED. SO THIS LOCATED IN RED HERE. THIS IS THE CURRENT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY. AS YOU CAN SEE IT GOES THROUGH PART OF SLUGGER FIELD AND PART OF THE PARKING LOT. THIS IS THE PLOT FOR THE CLOSURE. ANOTHER PIECE OF THAT PLOT. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THIS DRIVE INTO THE
[01:10:10]
PARKING LOT IS PART RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN ALSO TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S AN ENTRANCE INTO THE PARKING LOT THAT IS PART RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN THERE'S A PORTION THROUGH THE PARKING LOT. SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THEIR MEETING ON APRIL 17TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THEIR PUBLIC HEARING OR THIS WAS PLACED ON CONSENT AGENDA OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THERE'S A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CLOSURE PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN HERNDON'S DISTRICT, AND I THINK HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO. THIS JUST ISN'T MY DISTRICT. I'M IN SUPPORT. OFFICIALLY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JULIA? SEEING NONE, I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. CHAIR. OWEN. YES, COUNCILMEMBER. PARIS, RIGHT. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. BODEN'S CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES.THANK YOU. AND THIS CAN GO TO CONSENT. THIS CAN GO TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THANK YOU.
THAT TAKES US TO THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. 0-12425. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF UNIMPROVED NORTH 12TH STREET AND A PORTION OF UNIMPROVED HIGH STREET, BOTH NORTH AND ROWAN STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 29,912FT■!S AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 25. STREET CLOSURE DASH 00022 HAVE A MOTION MOVE. MOTION.
COUNCILMAN HUDSON SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. COUNCILMAN JULIA. SO THIS IS 25 STREET CLOSURE 0002. REFERRED TO AS THE WATERFRONT PARK. PHASE FOUR. UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSURE.
THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR AT NORTH 12TH STREET AND HIGH STREET. THE REQUEST IS A CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 483 LINEAR FEET OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY ON NORTH 12TH STREET AND HIGH STREET. THE CLOSURE REQUESTED IS FOR WATERFRONT PARK PHASE FOUR DEVELOPMENT. SO OUTLINED IN BLUE IS THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY TO BE CLOSED. YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S UNIMPROVED FROM THE AERIAL. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S PLAT. THIS IS WHAT IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE IN STREET VIEW. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION HELD THEIR MEETING ON APRIL 17TH, 2025. THIS WAS PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CLOSURE, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. PRESIDENT? ALSO IN MY DISTRICT AND ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILWOMAN REEDY, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP, PLEASE? I'M AFRAID I DIDN'T GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE END OF THE AGENDA THIS WEEK. OKAY. RIGHT THERE. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT REFERENCES.
WHERE IS THE NEW PLAYGROUND WITH REFERENCE TO THIS AREA? SO. I WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S AT THE IT'S IN THIS AREA HERE. I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR WEST IT GOES OVER. BECAUSE IT'S IN THIS IT'S IN THIS, THIS TRIANGLE HERE. AND THEN THIS IS I BELIEVE THE MSD. STATION. OKAY. YEAH. SO I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT CURRENTLY BE PART OF THE PLAYGROUND. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. THAT'S ALREADY PLAYGROUNDS ALREADY ON THAT I THINK. SO YOU KNOW I WAS OUT THERE THE OTHER DAY AND I JUST IT DIDN'T EVEN OCCUR TO ME THAT THIS WAS THAT RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS EAST OF THAT OF THAT FORMER ROAD. SAY THAT AGAIN. PLEASE COME TO THE EAST OF THE OF THE PARCEL IN QUESTION, JUST TO THE EAST, RIGHT THERE UPSTREAM IN THAT TRIANGLE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. CHAIR. OWEN. CHAIR. OWEN.
[01:15:15]
CHAIR. OWEN. COMMITTEE MEMBER. PARRISH. RIGHT. YES. COMMITTEE MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. I CAN'T FOR SOME REASON. I'M SORRY. CHAIR. FOR SOME REASON, I CAN'T HEAR ANYMORE, BUT YET INCLUDE ME AS A YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. VOTING IS CLOSING. VICE CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. AND THIS CAN GO TO CONSENT? YES. AND I THINK COUNCILMAN HUDSON WOULD LIKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR, I JUST HAVE A PROCESS QUESTION THAT JULIA OR COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN HELP ME WITH LATER THIS AFTERNOON. IN PUBLIC WORKS, WE HAVE A PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO CLOSE A SECTION OF A ROAD. AND MY QUESTION IS, WHEN DOES WHEN DOES IT GO TO PUBLIC WORKS AND WHEN DOES IT COME TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO CLOSE A ROAD. WHAT WHAT'S THE DECIDING CRITERIA THERE? LAURA FERGUSON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY I CAN ANSWER THAT. SO THE THING THAT'S BEING HEARD BY PUBLIC WORKS IS ACTUALLY NOT A CLOSURE. IT'S A TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FROM METRO TO THE STATE. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S AT PUBLIC WORKS. IS, IS WHEN YOU TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROAD FROM METRO FOR TO THE STATE OR THE STATE TO METRO, IT WILL GO THROUGH MORE OF A PUBLIC WORKS PROCESS. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY CLEAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHAIR. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. ANY MORE COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WE'RE ADJOURNED.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.