[00:29:29]
OKAY. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE. TUESDAY, JULY 22ND.
[00:29:36]
IT IS 1:01 P.M. THIS MEETING IS BEING UP TO YOU. YES, WE DO HAVE COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND ONLINE. SO[00:29:44]
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO KRS 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE A, WE HAVE A[00:29:53]
FEW GUESTS WITH US TODAY. SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR ITEM NUMBER FIVE FIRST SO WE CAN LET[00:30:00]
OUR GUESTS MOVE ON WITH THEIR DAY. SO FIRST ITEM WILL WILL HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS ITEM[00:30:09]
NUMBER 5-16125. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCE CHAPTER 156,[00:30:13]
REQUIRING THE CLEAR BOARDING OF VACANT, AT RISK PROPERTIES. CAN I GET A MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED? DEPUTY MAYOR GEORGE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO KICK THIS OFF FOR US OR SOMEBODY FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN AS WELL EITHER WAY. OR SOMEONE ELSE. OKAY. HOW ARE YOU? HELLO, I'M JEFF O'BRIEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MIKE DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S ON.OKAY. JEFF O'BRIEN. THERE HE GOES. NOW I CAN HEAR MYSELF. JEFF O'BRIEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY THAT'S AMENDING CHAPTER 156, WHICH IS OUR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE FOR LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT. WHAT THIS IS DOING IS IT'S REQUIRING CLEAR BOARDING FOR AT RISK STRUCTURES. WHEN OUR BOARDING CREWS GO OUT TO BOARD VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES.
SO AS YOU AS YOU MAY KNOW, OUR DIVISION, OUR VACANT LOTS DIVISION AND CODES AND REGULATIONS WILL ROUTINELY GO AND BOARD VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEEMED OPEN.
AND THAT'S TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE STRUCTURES AND KEEP ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES FROM OCCURRING INSIDE OF THOSE STRUCTURES. WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS WE USE PLYWOOD TO BOARD UP ANY WINDOW OR DOOR OPENINGS TO KEEP THE BUILDING SECURE. BUT WHAT WE FOUND OVER THE YEARS IS THAT THE PLYWOOD BOARDING IS EASILY REMOVED. AND SO A FEW YEARS AGO, WE SHIFTED TO USING CLEAR BOARDING ON METRO OWNED, VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES. WHAT WE FOUND IS A CLEAR BOARDING HAS MUCH LESS CHANCE OF REENTRY AND BREAKING IN. AND SO WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TODAY IS A METRO COUNCIL. TAKE A LOOK AT HELP US AMEND THE CHAPTER 156 TO REQUIRE THOSE PROPERTIES THAT DO POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO FIRE AND SAFETY HAZARDS IN OUR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND REQUIRE THAT THOSE OWNERS CLEAR BOARD THEIR STRUCTURE WHEN THE CODE OFFICIAL, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS DIRECTOR PRICE WITH CODES AND REGULATIONS, DEEMS THE STRUCTURE TO BE AT RISK. WE DO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE LOUISVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF CODES AND REGULATIONS, THAT CAN ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. BUT I WILL SAY, GENERALLY, WHAT WE HAVE FOUND, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A YEAR WITH AN INTERNAL TEAM OF MEMBERS FROM THE LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT, LOUISVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT CODES AND REGULATIONS, HOMELESS SERVICES AND OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AND WE'VE DONE A STUDY OF LOOKING AT HOW WE ADDRESS ACUTE ISSUES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS RELATED TO VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES. AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS WHEN WE'VE CLEAR BOARDED PROPERTIES, THERE IS MUCH LESS RISK OF THOSE PROPERTIES BEING REENTERED. AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS THERE IS MUCH LESS RISK OF FIRE. AND SO WE'RE SEEING LESS PEOPLE GET IN THOSE BUILDINGS, START FIRES AND DO OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES WHICH WE KNOW ARE DETRIMENTAL TO NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THAT IS THE REQUEST TODAY. AND AGAIN, WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. JEFF, I WAS I'M A LITTLE RUSTY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN OFF FOR A LITTLE WHILE. I DIDN'T INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS WHO ARE IN THE ROOM. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, ANDREW OWEN, AND I'M JOINED BY VICE VICE CHAIR SCOTT REED. I'M ALSO JOINED IN CHAMBERS BY COUNCILMAN JOHN COUNCILMAN HUDSON, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. AND WE'RE JOINED ONLINE BY COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND. THANK YOU. JEFF, I WOULD KIND OF LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR ON THIS REPORT OR THIS BACKGROUND THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST YEAR. IF YOU COULD KIND OF TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SURE. GREAT. HI, MY NAME IS BRIAN MUIR. I'M WITH THE LOUISVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I'M ONE OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEFS THERE. I'M THE FIRE MARSHAL. SO VACANT PROPERTIES VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A PARTICULAR CHALLENGE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HOW HOW FIRE SPREADS. SO A BUILDING THAT IS SECURE IS NOT ACCESSED. AND FIRE DOESN'T START IN. THE PROBLEM WITH THE PROBLEM WITH THE VACANT PROPERTIES IN PARTICULAR, IS THAT WHEN THERE IS A FIRE, IT'S USUALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. IT'S USUALLY IN A IN A HOUSE THAT IS 15FT FROM ONE TO MORE HOUSES AROUND THEM. AND SO IT'S GOING TO GROW FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE ANYBODY EVEN NOTICES IT. SO NOT ONLY IS IT A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA, IT PUTS OUR MEMBERS AT RISK OF INJURY AS WELL FOR GETTING THERE. WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT ABOUT 25%. SO WE AVERAGE ABOUT 100 VACANT HOUSE
[00:35:03]
FIRES A YEAR. THIS IS THE URBAN SERVICES DISTRICT. AND WE FOUND THAT 25% OF THOSE VACANT HOUSE PROPERTIES CATCH ANOTHER PROPERTY ON FIRE. THOSE ARE FREQUENTLY OCCUPIED PROPERTIES.SO THAT'S WHY WE HIT OUR SMOKE ALARM CAMPAIGN SO SERIOUSLY TO GIVE THEM THE ADVANCED WARNING THAT THEY NEED TO GET OUT. SO WHEN WE DID THIS PILOT PROGRAM, IT WAS IN AN AREA THAT WAS HAVING A LOT OF FIRES. AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, WITH ALL OF OUR AGENCIES INVOLVED, EVERYBODY WORKING HARD ON THIS AREA, WHAT WE SAW WAS THAT THERE WAS A 63% REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF VACANT HOUSE FIRES OVER THE TIME THAT WE WERE WORKING ON THEM, SO THE NEEDLE NEVER MOVES THAT MUCH ON MOST PROJECTS WE WORK ON. IT'S PRETTY SUCCESSFUL IF WE CAN GET THE 10 OR 15. EVEN SO, THE RESULTS ARE THE RESULTS ARE VERY ENCOURAGING. THANK YOU. THAT'S GREAT, VICE CHAIR REED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA. WE FUNDED THIS I THINK SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THE CLEAR BOARD. HAVE WE CONTINUED. YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS IS NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT DO YOU KNOW IF THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CONTINUED TO FUND AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST WOULD BE FROM THE REGULAR BOARDING TO THE CLEAR BOARDING? I KNOW IT IS MORE MONEY. YES. SO IT HAS BEEN FUNDED, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO LET DIRECTOR PRICE FROM CODES AND REGULATIONS ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. RICHARD PRICE, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF CODES AND REGULATIONS FOR CLIPBOARD. IT'S ABOUT 165 A SHEET VERSUS 25 PER SHEET FOR PLYWOOD. SO IT'S IT IS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. BUT AGAIN IF I MAY TO JUST.
ASSISTANT CHIEF MERRILL GAVE THE FIRE PERSPECTIVE. YOU KNOW FROM A CODES AND REGULATION THIS IS SO IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THE RISK OF FIRE. YOU KNOW THERE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE FOUND THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT ONLY SQUATTING FOR TO HOUSE AND TO PUT THE RISK OF FIRE, BUT ALSO TO HIDE FIREARMS AND BRING OTHER CRIME TO THIS. AND WE GOT TO MAKE EFFORT TO KEEP THESE SECURED, TO PRESERVE PUBLIC SAFETY OF, OF OUR CITIZENS. SO IT WAS SO IMPORTANT. SO IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE. AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW THAT IF IT HAS BEEN FUNDED ALREADY, IF IT'S IN THIS BUDGET OR NOT? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. YES, WE'VE JEFF O'BRIEN, WE'VE HISTORICALLY PUT $200,000 IN OUR BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH CLEAR BOARDING ACTIVITIES. AND THAT'S BEEN AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN CLEAR BOARDING THE METRO LAND BANK OWNED PROPERTY. SO THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF THAT INTO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. SO JUST TO TAKE THAT ONE STEP FURTHER, SO WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS WITH OUR OWN PROPERTIES AND WE'RE EXPANDING TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES. AND I'M I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT SOME OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT OWN VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES ARE NOT THE MOST RESPONSIVE OWNERS. AND SO IF WE ARE REQUIRING THEM TO DO THIS AND THEY DON'T DO IT, THAT WE WILL DO IT FOR THEM AT OUR COST. AND SO WE WILL BE ASSUMING MORE COST. BUT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU GUYS IS THAT COST IS MORE THAN OFFSE, OR IS OFFSET CAN BE OFFSET BY ALL OF THE BENEFITS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AND IF WE BOUGHT IT FOR THEM, IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, PASSED BACK TO THEM AS A AS A LIEN, I ASSUME, AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT RECOVER THAT, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE PROCESS WOULD WORK. CORRECT? I MEAN, IS THAT THAT IS WELL SAID.
ABSOLUTELY. WE PLAN TO ENGAGE PROPERTY OWNERS AND GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS BOARDED UP WITH CLEAR BOARDING THAT IS PROVEN TO KEEP TRESPASSERS OUT. AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, WE HAVE TO DO IT. IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MY TEAM WILL CLEAR BOARD AND WE WILL PASS THEM ON THE COST FOR THAT. AND IF THEY DON'T PAY THAT COST, THEN WE OBVIOUSLY WILL PUT A LIEN ON THAT PROPERTY. AND I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT. I MEAN, I'M SURE ALL OF US IN THIS ROOM HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THIS. I HAVE CERTAINLY HAD VACANT PROPERTIES OR IN MY DISTRICT THAT WE'VE HAD TO SEND PEOPLE BACK OUT TO MULTIPLE TIMES TO, TO, TO BOARD, BACK UP. AND SO THIS WOULD HOPEFULLY MINIMIZE THAT PROCESS AS WELL IF YOU GET IT CLEAR BOARDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
[00:40:02]
AND HARDER TO GET BACK IN. EXCUSE ME. SO BY DOING CLEAR BOARD, EVEN THOUGH THE COST IS MORE, AS YOU SAID, TO SEND TO CONTINUALLY SEND MY TEAM OUT TO CONTINUALLY BOARD AND REINFORCE WITH PLYWOOD IS A HUGE COST TO METRO. NOT NOT TO, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH FIRE. NOW, GOD HELP US WHEN IT CATCHES FIRE. THAT IS ANOTHER COST. CLEAR BOARDING HAVE SHOWN THAT WHEN WE CLEAR BOARDED PROPERLY, THE RISK OF PEOPLE GETTING IN IT GOES WAY DOWN. SO THIS WILL OFFSET THAT COST OVERALL, BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE TO MAKE CONTINUAL CALLS TO IT, AND THE BUILDING WILL BE PRESERVED IN A WAY THAT WILL KEEP THE PUBLIC SAFE. GREAT. COUNCILMAN BACHAND. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. PRICE, JEFF AND CREW, FOR BEING HERE TO PRESENT THIS. MY QUESTION IS, FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. HOW MANY VACANT PROPERTIES HOUSES ARE WE TALKING ON A YEARLY BASIS THAT WE'RE WE'RE CLEAR BOARDING NOW OR ARE JUST PLOW WOODING THAT WE ARE CLEAR BOARDING NOW? YEAH. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT I THINK I LOOKED IT UP YESTERDAY. IT'S AROUND 2000 2500. AND THAT I HAVE THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IN OUR SYSTEM WITH OUR DATA THAT IS IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT AREA THAT STILL NEED TO BE CLEARED, ORDERED. WELL, SOME OF THEM ALREADY ARE. WE HAVE CLEAR BOARDED AND I HAVE NOT SOUGHT THAT DATA, BUT MOST OF THEM HAVE NOT. OKAY. BUT OUR DATA HAVE SHOWN THAT THESE ARE POTENTIAL VACANT PROPERTIES NEED TO BE SECURED. IS THAT JUST IN THE URBAN SERVICES DISTRICT OR IS THAT COUNTYWIDE? IT'S COUNTYWIDE. OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES A CALL NEED TO BE MADE WHERE WE'RE CONDEMNING OR BOARDING UP A PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICES DISTRICT BEFORE WE HAVE TO, BEFORE WE CLEAR BOARD IT OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT. AND YOUR QUESTION WAS AGAIN, I'M SORRY. SO LET'S I'LL JUST JUST PUT IT OUT THERE. RIGHT. YOU AND I HAVE WORKED ON PROPERTY OFF GREEN TREE AND WHATNOT MULTIPLE TIMES. IT WAS CLEAR BOARDED OR WE'VE BOARDED UP AND CONDEMNED THAT PROPERTY WITH THAT, WITH THOSE APARTMENTS THERE, WHEN WILL WE TAKE THE STEPS TO CLEAR BOARD IT SO WE CAN POTENTIALLY STOP THE VIOLATORS FROM ENTERING THOSE PROPERTIES? MY GOAL IS TO GIVE THAT PROPERTY OWNER A CHANCE TO SECURE IT WITH CLEAR BOARDING ONE TIME. IF THEY DON'T DO IT, WE WILL DO IT. THAT'S THE PLAN TO DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, WE YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE CAME TO THAT PROPERTY AND IT BECOMES AN ONGOING THING. IT'S JUST PLYWOOD. DO NOT KEEP PEOPLE OUT WHEN THEY REALLY WANT TO GET IN TO CHAIR TO CHAIR. OWENS POINT THAT DEALING WITH THESE PROPERTY OWNERS IS OBVIOUSLY LIKE PULLING TEETH. SO WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER AND MORE COST EFFICIENT FOR US ON THE FRONT END AS IT IS SENDING YOUR CREW OUT EVERY TIME TO BOARD IT UP? IT COSTS MONEY. JUST DO IT ON THE FRONT END AND JUST ADD THAT LEAN TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH. RIGHT. AND I THINK SHE WOULD LIKE TO YEAH. THANK YOU. APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE. I'M HAVING PROBLEMS SIGNING. SIMILAR TO COUNCILMAN VACHON'S QUESTION, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE TIMELINE ONE. AND I BOUGHT A HOUSE AT 24TH AND MADISON. FULL TRANSPARENCY. IT'S BEEN BOARDED. IT WAS BOARDED UP WHEN I BOUGHT IT. IT'S STILL BOARDED UP NOW, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN A CLEAR BOARDING AROUND IN THERE, SO I HAVEN'T PHYSICALLY SEEN THIS. SO FORGIVE MY QUESTIONS IF IT SOUNDS VERY LATE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTIES IN THE WEST END, AND INCLUDING SOME IN MY DISTRICT THAT ARE BOARDED UP.
WHAT IS THE TIMELINE FOR THAT? IS THIS SO EVERYONE CAN GET ON BOARD OR ANYTHING COMING ON NEW? IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR THAT PROCESS? WELL, SO WE HAVE WE HAVE TWO THINGS WORKING HERE OKAY. WE HAVE VACANT AND ABANDONED PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY PROPERTIES THAT ONLY HE EITHER HAS WALKED AWAY FROM. THEY HAVE DIED AND THE HEIRS ARE NOT RESPONDING. AND WE CANNOT CONNECT WITH ANYBODY. THE PROPERTY WE HAVE DOCUMENTED WITH THE PROCESS THAT THESE PROPERTIES, THIS PROPERTY IS ABANDONED. OKAY. THOSE WE SECURE RIGHT AWAY. ABSOLUTELY. WE KNOW IT'S ABANDONED. WE'RE GOING TO SECURE IT WITH CLEAR BOARDING. WE ARE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW.
THEN YOU HAVE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE VACANT. WELL, WE HAVE AN OWNER. WE KNOW THAT THE OWNER HAS NOT WALKED AWAY FROM IT, BUT THEY HAVE NOT PROPERLY SECURED IT. SO TO ME, AND I THINK WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS WANTING TO DO IS FOR ME, AS THE CODE OFFICIAL, I GOT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.
[00:45:01]
LOOK, WE REACH OUT TO THAT OWNER, ENGAGE HIM, SAY, HEY, WE NEED THIS PROPERTY SECURED. IF IN MY EXPERTISE AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION FROM MY TEAM THAT THIS OWNER EITHER CANNOT OR WILL NOT, OR IF THIS VACANT PROPERTY HAS BECOME ALREADY A NUISANCE, UNSAFE STRUCTURE AND NEED TO BE CONDEMNED, THEN AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT AWAY WITHOUT THE WITHOUT THE OWNER'S PERMISSION. THE HOPES IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO TACKLE THIS PROBLEM. WE NEED THE COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER. SO IN A, IN A, IN A, IN A NOT NECESSARILY A PERFECT WORLD, BUT THE BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR ME IS THE CODE OFFICIAL IS THAT WE IDENTIFY A PROBLEM. WELL, OH, IT'S NOT VACANT. LET'S GET A HOLD OF THAT OWNER. GIVE THAT OWNER THE EDUCATION THAT WE NEEDED DONE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. AND SO THAT'S THE BEST CASE. BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE THE OWNER, THE OWNER FOR HAVE NOT BEEN RESPONSIVE, BEEN RESPONSIBLE OWNER HAS IMPACTED THAT COMMUNITY IN A UNSAFE WAY.ALLOWING VIOLENT CRIME IS ALL CAN'T DO IT. WE GOT TO SECURE IT. THAT WOULD BE IMMEDIATE. SO I ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT WAY BECAUSE I YOU KNOW, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION AND HOW I SEE IT AS A CODE OFFICIAL, TIED TO WHICH IS BIG FOR ME IS PUBLIC SAFETY AND CLEANING HEALTHY STREETS. CAN I RESPOND, PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE AND I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THIS.
MY WORRY IS THAT IN SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES, PEOPLE MIX UP WHAT'S A VACANT AND WHAT'S ABANDONED, RIGHT? FOR INSTANCE, FOR MY EXAMPLE, THE, THE TITLE IS REALLY CLOUDY. AND SO MY LAWYER SUGGESTED UNTIL WE GET THAT CLEAR, I DO A MINIMUM TO UNTIL WE GET IT CLEARED BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME BACK IN AFTER WE GOT IT ALL FIXED UP AND SAY IT'S MINE IN THE WEST END. JUST FROM EVEN BEING A RESIDENT, THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE BOARDED UP AND THEY ARE SECURE. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE YOUR LEVEL OF SECURE, BUT THEY LOOK SECURE AND I TRUST THE PROCESS WITH YOU AND YOUR TEAM BECAUSE I'VE WORKED WITH THEM. MY WORRY IS THAT WHAT HOW HOW ONEROUS WILL THIS BE ON PEOPLE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY JUST INHERITED PROPERTY OR THAT AND THEY'RE IN, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH LIKE WILL THEY HAVE TO TAKE ALL THE BOARDING THAT'S UP THERE DOWN AND PUT CLEAR BOARDING UP. AND IF THEY DO HAVE TO DO THAT, WHAT IS HOW WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THAT SO THAT THEY NOT OR NOT ACCRUING A BUNCH OF FEES TRYING TO GET THE PROPERTY UP TO CODE OR TO A POINT WHERE YOU KNOW IT'S SAFE FOR THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT. WE GET CALLS ALL THE TIME IN THE OFFICE WHERE WHERE IT IS A VACANT PROPERTY, IT IS BOARDED UP. SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THINK THAT THERE'S THINGS GOING ON IN THERE. AND SO THOSE CASES MAKE SENSE. YOU'RE ABANDONING US. DEFINITION MAKES SENSE. BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY IN THE WEST END AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY IN PORTLAND AND ALL OF THAT. HOW WILL YOU BACKDATE AND GO ABOUT THAT IN A TIMELINE THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY TEND TO IT AND AFFORD IT? THAT'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT. YES. SO THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR IT. BUT, COUNCILWOMAN, I, I ASSURE YOU THAT I GOT A DILIGENT TEAM THAT WORKS HARD AT TRYING TO IDENTIFY AND ENGAGE THAT OWNER. OKAY. THAT'S ONE THING THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO KNOW.
AND THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO KNOW. WE WILL MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER TO FIND OUT. IS THIS VACANT OR IS THIS JUST IS IT VACANT AND ABANDONED? AND AS FAR AS BACKDATING. SO IF A PROPERTY IS VACANT NOW AND IT'S SECURED, THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO GO AND REQUIRE OUR OWNER TO AT SOME POINT SAY, HEY, YOU GOT TO GO BACK AND DO THIS WITH CLEAR BOARDING. UNLESS THAT PROPERTY, IT COMES TO MY ATTENTION AS THE CODE OFFICIAL, THAT THERE IS CRIME, THERE IS A NUISANCE, OR THERE'S SOME TYPE OF ISSUE THAT'S IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT. IF IT'S IT LITERALLY WON'T BE ON OUR RADAR UNLESS THAT HAPPENS AGAIN. IF THAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, MY TEAM IS VERY SKILLED IN FIRST. THE FIRST PROCESS IS TRYING TO IDENTIFY AND DETERMINE IS IT ABANDONED. DO WE HAVE AN OWNER AND CAN WE ENGAGE THAT OWNER TO BE RESPONSIBLE? YES.
OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR PRICE. APPRECIATE IT. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FOR THIS ITEM? OKAY. THIS IS ITEM IS AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. CHERYL, CAN YOU PLEASE OPEN THE VOTE? VOTING IS OPEN. RIGHT? COUNCILWOMAN? PARISH, RIGHT. YES. I JUST GOT
[00:50:12]
ONE ROLL. COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND. YES, COUNCILMAN BRETSCHER. YES. COUNCILWOMAN. RORY. THE. CHAIR.WHEN YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES. THANK YOU. WITH THIS ORDINANCE IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AND WILL GO TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THANK YOU GUYS FOR COMING AND PRESENTING. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY.
THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER ONE. 014125. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8000 BROAD RUN ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 107 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR, ZONE 0112. CAN I GET A MOTION? SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE. CAN WE. CAN YOU GIVE US A SYNOPSIS, PLEASE? AND ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE. I DON'T THINK I'VE. HAVE WE NOT HEARD. OH WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS.
OKAY. SO. YES. GIVE US EVERYTHING YOU GOT IN. THANK YOU. JULIA WILLIAMS, OFFICE OF PLANNING. THIS IS 24 ZONE 0112. THE RESERVES AT PARKLANDS PHASE TWO. THIS IS LOCATED AT 8000 BROAD RUN ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 22. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED USE IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS RR AND R4 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS TO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ALSO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE REQUEST WAS FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND R4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS A FLOYDS FORK WAIVER. THERE WAS A FLOYDS FORK SPECIAL ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT REVIEW AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MAJOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. SO THIS SITE IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BROAD RUN AND SEATONVILLE ROADS. IT'S 107 ACRES. THERE ARE 350 BUILDABLE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS PROPOSED. THE NET DENSITY IS 3.81 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. 45% OF THE SITE WILL REMAIN AS OPEN SPACE WITH 12 NON BUILDABLE LOTS, 32% OF THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY WILL BE PRESERVED TO MEET THE 50% REQUIREMENT. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS SHOWING SOME INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT BILLTOWN AND SEATONVILLE. THESE WERE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT WERE ADDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVING TO DO WITH HAVING THE SECOND STREET ACCESSING BROAD RUN ROAD PERMITTED WITH A 200 DWELLING UNIT, AND THEN RECOGNIZING CAST IN THE AREA AND FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT REPORT, AND THEN ALSO WIDENING BROAD RUN ROAD TO 18FT AND BRENTLINGER LANE, SEATONVILLE ROAD, BROAD RUN ROAD INTERSECTION. SOME OPTIONS TO CONSTRUCT THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND. AND THE LAST ONE IS ALSO SOME OPTIONS FOR THE BRENTLINGER LANE, SEATONVILLE ROAD BROAD RUN ROAD INTERSECTION. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG BROAD RUN ROAD. THIS IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY ACROSS BROAD RUN ROAD FROM THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS SOUTH ALONG BROAD RUN ROAD. THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE OVER HERE. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 27TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THE MEETING ON MARCH 27TH, 2025, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 15TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM RR AND R4 TO PRD, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 3. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL LET COUNCILMAN BRATCHER SPEAK TO THIS IN JUST A SECOND. I KNOW YOU'RE INTERESTED.
[00:55:07]
ANYTIME WE GET SOMETHING THAT COMES OVER AS A 4 TO 3 VOTE OR SOME KIND OF SPLIT VOTE, IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR ON THAT. CAN CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? I BELIEVE MOST OF THIS HAD TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THERE'S BEEN QUITE A FEW CONVERSATIONS AT PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT WHICH COMES FIRST, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE DEVELOPMENT. AND I BELIEVE THE AT LEAST ONE OF THE NO VOTES VOTED NO, BECAUSE THAT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE NOT BEING THERE. SO THEY SO THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT EVEN SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO BE MADE WERE ENOUGH, BASICALLY.OKAY. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW. THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OF SUBSTITUTION ON THIS ISSUE.
SHOULD I MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN DISCUSS IT OR JUST MAKE THE MOTION AND VOTE ON IT? WHAT WOULD YOU CHAIR? WHAT WOULD YOU REQUEST OR WHAT WOULD YOU. YEAH. SO MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS AFTERWARDS. OKAY. I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE MOVE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION THAT TRAVIS HAS SECOND. HI, EVERYBODY. TRAVIS, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTION IS ON THE SYSTEM. IT LARGELY REFLECTS THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH WAS NEGATIVE ON THIS CASE. STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED DENIAL. AND SO THE STAFF FINDINGS ARE REFLECTED AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY. IT BOILS DOWN LARGELY TO THE TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THE AREA, BOTH THE SORT OF STATE OF THE EXISTING ROADS AND INTERSECTIONS AND THE LACK OF MULTIMODAL. THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, BUS SERVICE, SIDEWALK NETWORKS, INCOMPLETE, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO AND FROM THE SITE IS BY CAR, AND, AND THE ROAD NETWORK IS ALREADY QUITE BURDENED. THERE ARE SOME IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED, BUT THEY WOULDN'T ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE ISSUES. ALSO, SOME FLOYD RELATED CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAD AN EXPLICIT FINDING THAT BASICALLY THIS DENSITY IS REQUIRING SOME OF THESE STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCES. AND A LOWER DENSITY WOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT. THOSE ARE SORT OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. I CAN READ THROUGH IT IF YOU'D LIKE. THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF LANGUAGE THOUGH, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IT. AND IF A READING WOULD BE HELPFUL, I'M HAPPY TO, BUT IT IS ON THE SYSTEM IF YOU'D PREFER TO READ ALONG AT YOUR OWN PACE. COUNCILMAN, READ. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO ARE THESE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ARE THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO? THEY ARE, YES. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEM. OKAY. PLEASE. SURE. AND SORRY FOR THOSE LOOKING. IT'S UNDER PROPOSED CABS ON THE SYSTEM, WHICH SHOULD BE THE SECOND ITEM. THERE'S THE ISSUE SHEET. AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT OR DIRECTLY UNDER THAT. SO TOP ITEM SECOND YES I CAN GIVE YOU A MINUTE TO PULL THAT UP BEFORE I DIVE IN. YEAH. SEE IT IS. ACTUALLY. CORRECT. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WHEREAS THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, THE COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLI HEARING HELD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ITS STAFF, AS SET OUT IN THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISON IN CASE 24 00122. AND WHEREAS, THE COUNCIL REJECTS THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ZONING CHANGE IN CASE 24 00122, AND HAS MADE ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECORD THAT SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE EXISTING RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND R-4 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DESIGNATIONS. AND WHEREAS, THE COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON THE RECORD ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CASE 24 00122 TO OVERTURN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MAKE THE EXISTING MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND R-4 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DESIGNATIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8000 BROAD RUN ROAD AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO AND WHEREAS, THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF PLANNING FOR THIS CASE DATED MAY 15TH, 2025, RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL, QUOTE, DOES NOT CONFORM TO SEVERAL OF THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES OF PLAN 2040 AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE PLAN 2040. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF IS CONCERNED THAT THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. WHILE THE PROPOSED PRD DISTRICT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY FROM THE TRADITIONAL PATTERN OF R4, R5 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN COULD INTEGRATE TO BETTER INTEGRATE PROPOSED HOUSING OPTIONS. STAFF HAS ALSO HAS CONCERN WITH THE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN NEARBY SERVICE AREAS. HENCE, THE CHANGE IN ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE NOT JUSTIFIED FOR APPROVAL, UNQUOTE. AND WHEREAS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS A
[01:00:04]
SPLIT VOTE, WITH JUST FOUR MEMBERS VOTING TO RECOMMEND THE REZONING AND THREE VOTING AGAINST SUCH RECOMMENDATION. AND WHEREAS A PORTION OF THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO FLOYDS FORK SPECIAL ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT REVIEW, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD REQUIRE FLOYDS FORK WAIVER TO ALLOW FOR DISTURBANCE OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 30%. AND THE STAFF REPORT FOUND THAT, QUOTE, THE SHEER SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE REDUCED, LIMITING THE OVERALL IMPACT OF DRAINAGE ON THE STEEP SLOPES THEMSELVES, UNQUOTE. AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO COMMUNITY FORUM GOAL ONE, SUBSECTION SEVEN LOCATE HIGHER DENSITY AND INTENSITY USES NEAR MAJOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN OR NEAR ACTIVITY CENTERS AND OTHER AREAS WHERE DEMAND AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS OR IS PLANNED. IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS DISCONNECTED FROM TRANSPORTATION AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND RESTRICTED TO AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL ALONE. NO SIDEWALKS TRANSIT SERVICE IS AVAILABLE. AS A RESULT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE USE, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM WITH MOBILITY GOAL ONE, SUBSECTION FOUR ENCOURAGE HIGHER DENSITIES INTENSITIES WITHIN OR NEAR EXISTING MARKETPLACE CORRIDORS, EXISTING AND FUTURE ACTIVITY CENTERS AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS TO SUPPORT TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND AN EFFICIENT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS DISCONNECTED FROM TRANSPORTATION AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND RESTRICTED TO AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL ALONE. NO SIDEWALKS OR TRANSIT SERVICES AVAILABLE. AS A RESULT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE USE, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM WITH MOBILITY. GOAL THREE, SUBSECTION TWO TO IMPROVE MOBILITY AND REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND CONGESTION, ENCOURAGE A MIXTURE OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES THAT ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE BY BICYCLE, CAR TRANSIT, PEDESTRIANS, AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. HOUSING SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.NEAR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE SITE IS NOT ACCESSIBLE BY BICYCLE, CAR, TRANSIT, PEDESTRIANS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM WITH MOBILITY. GOAL THREE, SUBSECTION NINE, WHERE AN EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES ARE INADEQUATE AND PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE ASKED TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO PROPOSED IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO ELIMINATE PRESENT INADEQUACIES, IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE, WHILE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, THE LACK OF MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIVITY FOR ALL POTENTIAL USERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT REMAINS, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO HOUSING GOAL ONE, SUBSECTION TWO PROMOTE HOUSING OPTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS THAT SUPPORT AGING IN PLACE. ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR OLDER ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH TO SHOPPING AND TRANSIT ROUTES AND, WHEN POSSIBLE, MEDICAL AND OTHER SUPPORTIVE FACILITIES. IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE SUBJECT SITE IS DISCONNECTED FROM TRANSIT SERVICE, WHICH WOD GATLY REDUCE THE ABILITY OF MANY SENIORS TO OBTAIN CARE.
AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSADOES NOT CONFORM TO HOUSING. GOAL TWO, SUBSECTION ONE ENCOURAGE INTERGENERATIONAL MIXED INCOME AND MIXED USE DELOPNT THAT IS CONNEED TO THEEIGHBORHOO ANDURRODING AREA. IT DOES T CONFORM BECAUSE THE LK MULTI-DAL AES T THIT WLDATED C AIMITHEEN ABILITY OFNDIVIDUALS WHO DO T OWN CARSO ACCESSCTIVITY AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM WITH HOUSING. GOAL TWO, SUBSECTION TWO HOUSING WITHIN PROXIMITY TO MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, PROVIDING SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AS WELL AS WITHIN PROXIMITY TO AMENITIES. PROVIDING NEIGHBORHOOD GOODS AND SERVICES. SERVICES. HIGHER DENSITY ACCESSIBLE RESIDENTIAL USES SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND IN OR NEAR ACTIVITY CENTERS. IT DOES NOT CONFORM BECAUSE THE SITE IS DISLOCATED FM SERVICE AREAS, AND NO MEANS MULTIMODAL. ACCESS TO THESE AREAS IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, AND WHEREAS WHILE PUBLIC WORKS HAS REQUESTED SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTIONS WHERE BRENTLINGER LANE, SEATONVILLE ROAD AND BROAD RUN MEET, THE REWORKING OF THESE INTERSECTIONS WOULD NOT REMEDY THE LACK OF MULTI-MODAL ACCESS TO THE SITE, PRIMARILY IF NOT ONLY BENEFITING THOSE WHO TRAVEL BY PERSONAL VEHICLE, AND WHEREAS FOR THESE REASONS, THE PROPERTY SHOULD REMAIN ZONED RR AND R4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LOUISVILLE BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT AS FOLLOWS.
SECTION ONE. THAT THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8000 BROAD RUN ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 107 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE MINUTES AND RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN CASE NUMBER 24 00122 SHALL REMAIN. RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND R4 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS CASE IS REJECTED. SECTION TWO THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE PLACE, SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL OR OTHERWISE BECOMING LAW. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH. THANK YOU. MY SCREEN IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW. IS THIS SOMETHING YOU.
KIND OF. YOU JUST CAME. WAS THIS ALREADY IN THE WORKS? AND THEN HOW HAVE YOUR COMMUNITY AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS BEEN RESPONDING TO THIS? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME YOU GO FROM HAVING A PRIMARILY RURAL AREA AND YOU'RE TRYING TO INCREASE, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLICATED. SO I JUST WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE FEEDBACK HAS BEEN FROM YOUR DISTRICT. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF CONCERN. YOU KNOW, WE
[01:05:01]
HAVE SEVEN HIGHLIGHTED CONCERNS THAT THE STAFF, THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION STAFF CREATED ON ITS OWN THAT THAT TRAVIS JUST WENT THROUGH. AND THERE'S FROM THE FROM THE FOLKS THAT LIVE OUT THERE, THERE'S JUST A CONCERN THAT IT'S TOO BIG. FOR THE FOR THE AREA. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY POSITIVE FEEDBACK I HAVE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS OUT THERE, BUT THESE THESE SEVEN STAFF CONCERNS ARE I MEAN, THOSE ARE. YOU'RE RIGHT, I AM NEW TO THIS. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WITH THOSE THOSE ARE ALL WELL THOUGHT OUT AND THEY SEEM SEEMS LIKE JUST ONE OF THOSE COULD STOP THIS. AND NOW WE GOT SEVEN. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. COUNCILMAN HUDSON. THANK YOU. CHAIR, I'M READING THROUGH THE SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT HERE, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE COULD FIT UNDER A CATEGORY OF INFRASTRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, COULD COULD YOU TALK TO THE. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE EITHER BEING PUT IN BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, BY DESIGN, OR BY BINDING ELEMENT, AND WHAT EFFECN IMAGINE BE NEGATIVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY TO IMPROVE IT. WHAT WHAT EFFECT THOSE THOSE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE ON ON THESE BINDING ELEMENTS. THERE'S TWO SPECIFIC.THE ONES HERE IN THE PRESENTATION FOR BRENTLINGER LANE, SEATONVILLE ROAD AND BROAD RUN ROAD INTERSECTION. THERE WAS A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. EITHER CONSTRUCT THE PHASE ONE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WAS OPTION A, OR CONSTRUCT A PHASE TWO, OPTION B INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, OR PHASE TWO OPTION C. THOSE OPTIONS WERE IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, AND ALL OF THOSE HELPED TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC AT THAT INTERSECTION. GOING BACK TO THE.
ONE OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS HERE AT SEATONVILLE AND BROAD RUN, THIS ONE CREATED A. A BETTER FLOWING INTERSECTION AT THAT AT BRENTLINGER. COMING UP TO THIS INTERSECTION AT SEATONVILLE AND BROAD RUN, THERE WAS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STACKING. FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT I PROBABLY DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION. OKAY, RIGHT. SO LET ME RATHER THAN HAVE YOU GO THROUGH THAT AND THEN START OVER. THE QUESTION I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO PUT A SHARPER FOCUS ON IS THE BINDING ELEMENTS SEEM TO FOCUS ON THE LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY TO HEALTH CARE, LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY TO SHOPPING, DO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. SO I GET AND I APPRECIATE THE IMPROVEMENTS, PROVIDING BETTER FLOW OF TRAFFIC AND REDUCING TRAFFIC. BUT HOW DOES IT ADDRESS WHAT'S WHAT'S IN THESE? WHEREASES? OKAY, YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY I GUESS IS THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? SO YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THOSE SEVEN ITEMS MAYBE. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, YEAH. THE SEVEN, THE SEVEN ITEMS THAT COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW HAS PUT IN HIS AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION. ALL RIGHT. I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO RELY ON THE STAFF REPORT, OKAY? SO THE THERE WAS SOME MOBILITY GUIDELINES THAT WERE INDICATED THAT TALKED ABOUT NOT HAVING. ONLY OR HAVING ONLY ACCESS BY VEHICLES IS THAT THAT'S THAT'S TWO OF THEM I THINK. YEAH. RIGHT. SO WHILE THE TRAFFIC WHILE THIS DOESN'T INTRODUCE TRANSIT SERVICE TO THIS AREA. DENSITY AND TRANSIT SERVICE OFTEN GO TOGETHER. BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRANSIT AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA ALREADY, STAFF
[01:10:05]
INDICATED THAT THERE WAS LIMITE, LIMITED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. YEAH, I'M I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THAT ONE JUST A LITTLE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT AS A INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE. I THINK WE COULD PUT A SIX LANE ROAD TO THE MIDDLE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH THREE DEDICATED BUS LANES IN IT, AND TARC STILL WOULDN'T PUT A ROUTE IN THERE. SO THOSE THOSE I SEE AS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. RIGHT. BUT THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY FIRST QUESTION. MY SECOND QUESTION, IF I MAY, CHAIR. THERE WAS SOME TALK IN HERE ABOUT THE WAIVER FOR THE GREATER THAN 30% GRADE. AND IN IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT EVEN SAYS THAT IT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OR THE. I'M I'M GOING TO MISQUOTE IT. IF I DON'T, IT'S ON PAGES FIVE AND SIX OF THIS OF THE ORIGINAL REPORT, OR MAYBE SIX AND SEVEN. YEAH. THE WAIVER OF THE DESIGN STANDARD WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH OF THE WATERWAYS OF THE FLOYDS FORK. SPECIAL ZONING OVERLAY, THE WAIVER MODIFICATION, THE DESIGN STANDARD, WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VISUAL QUALITY OF THE WATERWAYS. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHY THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAIVER. COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT? SO. SO IT DID APPEAR THAT THERE WERE THREE COMMISSIONERS THAT VOTED AGAINST THE WAIVER. THIS I BELIEVE, WAS ONE OF THE FIRST WAIVERS OF THE FLOYDS FORK THAT THE COMMISSION HAD HEARD. IT WAS EITHER THE FIRST OR THE SECOND ONE THAT THEY HAD HEARD. AND I BELIEVE THAT. THEY ON SPECIFICALLY ON THAT WAIVER, THEY DID NOT. THE THREE THAT VOTED AGAINST IT DIDN'T AGREE WITH STAFF IN THAT THEY WERE NOT READY TO GRANT A WAIVER FROM THE FLOYDS FORK, SINCE THOSE FLOYDS FORK REGULATIONS WERE SO NEW AND THAT THEY HADN'T IT HADN'T BEEN, I WOULD SAY, TESTED YET. AND THEY GOT THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS ASKING FOR THAT WAIVER RIGHT OFF AND THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH OR DID THEY INDICATE HOW LONG A REGULATION, HOW OLD IT HAS TO BE BEFORE IT'S VALID? NO, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. YEAH, BUT I'M GOING TO STEP DOWN AND ALLOW SOMEBODY ELSE TO TALK. THANK YOU CHAIR. AND IF I COULD BRIAN DAVIS, OFFICE OF PLANNING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE VOTING, I MEAN, THEY VOTED NO FOR THE ZONING, VOTED NO FOR THE WAIVER, THEY VOTED NO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THEY WERE JUST IN GENERAL AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FLOYDS FORK WAIVER THAT THEY FELT MORE INCLINED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK IF YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT AND THE JUSTIFICATION, I MEAN, THE, THE, THE AND LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT THEY WERE ONLY DISTURBED, THE ONLY DISTURBANCE THEY WERE DOING WITHIN THE FLOYDS FORK AREA WAS FOR DRAINAGE AND SEWER UTILITY WORK. THEY WEREN'T. ALL OF THE PROPOSED ROADS, AND THE PROPOSED BUILDABLE LOTS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE OF THAT PRIMARY AREA. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LIKE NECESSARILY SINGLE OUT A VOTE THAT THEY TOOK THERE BECAUSE AGAIN, THE THEIR VOTING WAS JUST NO ACROSS THE BOARD. IT WAS NOT ANY ONE SPECIFIC THING BECAUSE OF THE FLOYDS FORK REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER. THANK YOU. BRIAN, WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI AND HE IS IN THE QUEUE. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, TONY. OKAY. OH, WE CAN NOW.OKAY, GOOD. SO I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER IN HIS AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION. AND, YOU KNOW, TO OVERTURN THIS DECISION, WE SHOULD NEVER TAKE THESE DECISIONS LIGHTLY. WE ACTUALLY DO THEM QUITE RARELY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF HOW WE DO THIS. WITH THAT SAID, THIS HAS ALL THE UNDERPINNINGS OF NOT JUST LIKE ONE MINOR REASON, BUT MULTIPLE REASONS, PLUS A VERY DIVIDED PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IT WASN'T EVEN A VOTE OF THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION, NOT TO MENTION THE INCREDIBLE RARITY THAT YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE PLANNING STAFF WHO ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THE ZONING
[01:15:07]
CHANGE, BUT THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES VIA AGAIN, A VERY CLOSE SPLIT VOTE, I THINK.I DON'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME THAT'S HAPPENED. SO I THINK AND BY THE WAY, I JUST WANT TO ADD RELATED TO THE FLOYD FORK DROW WAIVER AND THOSE REGULATIONS, ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT WRITE IT AND WE JUST AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU ALL WERE HERE WHEN I GOT THAT PASSED SOMETIME LAST YEAR.
AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF WORK WENT INTO THAT WITH THE INTENTION THAT WE WOULD STOP WAVING IT ALL THE TIME. WE DID NOT MAKE WAIVERS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT THE INTENT ABSOLUTELY WAS THAT WAIVERS SHOULD BE QUITE RARE. AND SO FAR, WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE SEEING AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST IS THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPERS CONTINUING TO ASK FOR WAIVERS TO THOSE REGULATIONS, REGULATIONS THAT WERE CREATED BECAUSE OF KNOWN ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED WHEN WE DID NOT FOLLOW THOSE REGULATIONS. SO I DO APPRECIATE THE MEMBERS OF THE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE COMMIT OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO TOOK THAT SERIOUSLY. AND ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT MY OTHER COLLEAGUE WAS SAYING, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, HOW LONG DOES A REGULATION HAVE TO BE IN FORCE BEFORE IT, YOU KNOW, TAKES OR HAS A CERTAIN WEIGHT OR GRAVITAS TO IT? THE ANSWER IS IMMEDIATELY. AND ALBEIT THERE ARE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR WAIVERS, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY HERE. I THINK THAT WAS YOU KNOW, WE CONTINUE TO SEE WAIVERS WHERE IF THINGS ARE REDESIGNED OR THINGS ARE CHANGED, WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SO I DO THINK PRUDENCE AROUND THE NEW REGULATIONS IS REQUIRED, AS WE HAVE SEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK DONE THAT HAS COMPLETELY ALTERED THE DRO AT THIS POINT.
AND WE'RE TRYING TO STOP THAT AND PRESERVE IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT COUNCILMAN BRATCHER DID ON THIS. I THINK HE LAYS OUT AN OUTSTANDING CASE.
AND I THINK THE BY ITSELF, THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLANNING AND DESIGNS RECOMMENDATION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN A VERY CLOSE SPLIT VOTE TELLS ME THAT WE HAVE PLENTY HERE TO JUSTIFY GOING OVERTURNING THIS THIS DECISION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION TO COUNCILMAN HUDSON ALREADY. SO IF I'M BEING REDUNDANT AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT THE MOBILITY GOAL THREE, SUBSECTION TWO, WITH REGARD TO ACCESSIBILITY AND PARTICULARLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS SEIZED UPON THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT MOVING FORWARD? NOT THAT I CAN SEE FROM LOOKING AT THE BINDING ELEMENTS. I THINK THERE WAS A FEE IN LIEU FOR SIDEWALKS ALONG BROAD RUN ROAD TO SOME EXTENT. SO. AND A FEE IN LIEU IS PERMITTED. BUT I, I DON'T READ ANYWHERE IN THE BINDING ELEMENTS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT MOBILITY, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH MY GOD, ABOUT SIDEWALKS.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS GOING FORWARD IN THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE. AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND I THINK I HAVE, BUT I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, THAT AND I'M NOT SAYING I ALSO WANT TO SAY WE DO HAVE AN INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTY. I'M NOT TRYING TO ACT LIKE WE DON'T, BUT WHAT I'M AFRAID OF IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE SUBURBAN PARTS OF OUR COUNTY UNTIL WE CAN CATCH THE INFRASTRUCTURE UP. AND THAT WORRIES ME, I DON'T I IT'S AND AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S A PROBLEM IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS. I JUST DON'T SEE A WAY OUT OF THIS PROBLEM THAT INVOLVES STOPPING DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE. FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I THINK AS A AS A WAY OUT, I AND AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS, BOTH ON THE FLOOR AND IN OTHER PLACES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE FEW WAYS THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET. GET REPRESENTATIVES TO PAY ATTENTION
[01:20:04]
IS HAVE LOTS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS CALLING THEM AND SAYING, WE'VE GOT A HUGE PROBLEM HERE. AND SO IF SO, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT FIRST, AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, I, I THINK MANY OF THE THINGS THAT OTHERS HAVE ALREADY SAID, IF IT WERE JUST BASED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE, LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE, THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH FOR ME TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION. GIVEN THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALREADY AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE FLOYDS FORK AND OTHER THINGS, FOR ME IT IS IT IS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION. I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION IN THIS CASE. BUT IT'S NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE. LET'S SEE HERE. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR A ROLL CALL? VOTE? I NEED TO VOTE ON THE OH, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. SO AND WE CAN DO THAT AS A VOICE VOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION, PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE ALL THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NAY. THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED IS PASSED. ANY ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE CHERYL OPENS UP THE ROLL CALL VOTE. OKAY, OPEN UP THE VOTE, PLEASE. CHERYL, OPEN.WE'RE VOTING ON THE ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED. THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTION. YES.
COUNCIL MEMBER PARRISH. RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BRETSCHER. YES.
COUNCIL MEMBER. HUDSON. THANK YOU. VOTING IS CLOSING CHAIR ON. YOU HAVE SEVEN? YES. SEVEN. YES.
AND ONE PRESENT. OKAY. THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE BUSINESS ON. THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM IN FRONT OF US IS ITEM NUMBER 20-105-10725. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 16, 907 AND 16 907 AIKEN ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 55.87 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24 0078. CAN I GET AN AMENDMENT? CAN I GET A MOTION? SECOND PROPERLY? MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, THIS IS 24 0078 AIKEN NORTH. THIS IS LOCATED AT 16907 AND 16907 REAR AIKEN ROAD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 19. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED USE IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS PLANNED.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE REQUEST WAS FOR A REVISED DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH EXISTING BINDING ELEMENTS ALSO OF FLOYDS FORK WAVER AND FLOYDS FORK OVERLAY. DISTRICT REVIEW. THE REVISED PORTION OF THE APPROVED PLAN 21, ZONE 0001 SLASH 21 M SUB 0001 IS WEST OF FLAT ROCK ROAD. IT REDUCED BUILDABLE LOTS FROM 286 TO 215 LOTS. THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN OPEN SPACE FROM 200 AND 237 595FTā !S TO 559 559, 850FTā !S. CLUBHOUSE AND AMENITIS WERE ADDED, SO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVED THE FLOYDS FORK WAVER AND THE FLOYDS FORK OVERLAY. DISTRICT REVIEW. ON MARCH 19TH, 2025, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FORWARDED THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION WAS ALSO APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO THIS WAS THE PROPOSED REVISED PLAN, THE 24 0078. THIS WAS THE 2021 PLAN AND THE CURRENT REVISED PLAN NEXT TO EACH OTHER. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT'S UNDEVELOPED. THE
[01:25:07]
ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 10TH, 2025 AND APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THE APPROVED WHERE THEY APPROVED THE FLOYDS FORK REVIEWS, AND THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 2.ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMAN ARGENTINI. THIS IS IN HIS DISTRICT AND I KNOW HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS. SO. COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE JUST ONE CLARIFYING POINT HERE, WHICH IS CLEAR IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT JUST SO EVERYBODY'S 100% CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A REZONING. THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS REZONED AND HAS HAS ALREADY BEGUN CONSTRUCTION PORTIONS OF IT. THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, STANDARD BINDING BINDING ELEMENTS. WE PUT ANY SIGNIFICANT DESIGN CHANGE NEEDS TO COME BACK FOR APPROVAL. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING HERE. SO I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REZONING. I DON'T THINK I CAN VOTE ON THIS, BUT I WOULD ASK IF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT MY AMENDMENT. MY AMENDMENT IS ON THE RECORD. EXCUSE ME, IS IN THE SYSTEM. IT'S THE IT'S LISTED AS. AM 072225, ETC. AND IF YOU OPEN THAT UP, ALL IT DOES IS ADDRESSES TWO ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP DURING THE MEETINGS WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED. ONE IS THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING BINDING ELEMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL ZONING CASE WHERE THE DEVELOPER NEEDED TO OR WAS GOING TO BUILD TURN LANES AT OFF SITE AT AN INTERSECTION THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS IMPACTING, WHICH WAS FURTHER WEST ON AIKEN ROAD. AND THAT'S AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIKEN AND ARNOLD PALMER ROAD.
SINCE THEN, WE HAVE DECIDED WE, AS IN THE CITY METRO, HAS DECIDED NOT TO DO A TURN LANE THERE, BUT INSTEAD TO DO A ROUNDABOUT OR A TRAFFIC CIRCLE THERE INSTEAD. IT'S JUST MORE APPROPRIATE. PUBLIC WORKS BELIEVES THAT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE. I AGREE WITH THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY, AND WE'VE BEEN BUDGETING AND WORKING TOWARD THAT END FOR NOW, A COUPLE YEARS. AND SO WE'RE AMENDING THE ONE BINDING ELEMENT TO INSTEAD, JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT WE NO LONGER REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD A TURN LANE, BUT THEY ARE MOVING THAT SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT TOWARD THIS PROJECT THAT WILL HELP BUILD A TRAFFIC CIRCLE AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND THERE'S ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS HERE. THAT AND I'M GOING TO SUM IT UP. GLAD TO READ IT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO. BUT IT STRENGTHENS ONE OF THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT. TRIES TO CONFINE HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL DENSITY IS BROUGHT TO BEAR THERE. SO ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS OF FOLKS THAT ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WAS THAT ALTHOUGH THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE DOESN'T HAVE ANY, DOESN'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF UNITS, THEY WANTED TO SORT OF SEND THE MESSAGE THAT THERE'S 800 PLUS ALMOST 900 UNITS THAT ARE APPROVED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THEY WOULD LIKE SOME REASSURANCE THAT MOVING FORWARD, THERE WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL UNITS ADDED. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING REPEATED CHANGES TO THE DESIGN THAT ADDS DENSITY, MAYBE MAYBE CHANGING THE DESIGN AS THIS ONE DOES, THAT CREATES MORE OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. BUT BUT TO NOT SEE CHANGES THAT INCREASE DENSITY, THERE IS NOT A WAY THAT WE CAN FULLY BAN ADDING ANY CHANGE TO DENSITY. BUT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TRAVIS FEASTER, WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER. THEY AGREED. AND BY THE WAY, THE DEVELOPERS AGREED TO BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE BINDING ELEMENTS THAT WE WOULD STRENGTHEN THE LANGUAGE, TO BE CLEAR, THAT WE REALLY WANT TO SEE SOME CERTAINTY THAT THE DENSITY AND THE AMOUNT OF UNITS FOR THAT ACREAGE WILL STAND PAT AS WHERE IT IS. SO IT STRENGTHENS IT AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR ANY CHANGES TO BE MADE RELATED TO THE DENSITY. AGAIN, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEYS AND AGREED TO ALL OF THESE. SO, IF I MAY BE
[01:30:02]
SO BOLD, IF I COULD ASK MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT, I WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. AND THEN, ONCE THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED TO APPROVE THE DESIGN CHANGE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND? PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN AMENDED. ANY OTHER? I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE.ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR A ROLL CALL, VOTE HERE. OKAY. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN IT UP FOR ROLL CALL? VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER PARIS, RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER JOSE RAYMOND. YES. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER.
BRETSCHER. YES. CHAIR. ON. YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES. THANK YOU. THIS WILL THIS ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR ON THE NEXT AGENDA. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING, COUNCILMEMBER ARGENTINA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS ITEM NUMBER THREE. 0-10925.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT TO RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT TO BINDING ELEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 905 DIXIE HIGHWAY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.919 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 25. AM D0001. CAN I GET A MOTION IN A SECOND SECOND? PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, THIS IS 25 AMEND 0001 FOR THE RL MINI WAREHOUSE. THIS IS LOCATED AT 11 905 DIXIE HIGHWAY IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 14. THE EXISTING USE IS COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING. THE EXISTING ZONING IS CCM IN THE SUBURBAN MARKETPLACE CORRIDOR. THE REQUEST WAS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO BINDING ELEMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE BINDING ELEMENT NUMBER TEN AGREED TO. IN CASE NUMBER 17, ZONE 1022, WHICH PREVENTED ANY M1 USES ON THE SITE, AND THAT READ THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR THOSE USES ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT ARE OTHERWISE ALLOWED IN THE C-2 ZONING DISTRICT AND FOR WAREHOUSE STORAGE, BUT FOR NO OTHER USE PERMITTED IN THE M ONE ZONING DISTRICT. ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS BINDING ELEMENT SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE LOUISVILLE METRO PLANNING COMMISSION AND FROM THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL. SO THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HELD THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 10TH, 2025. THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO BINDING ELEMENT PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ON THIS FROM. TRAVIS? HELLO EVERYBODY. I DO HAVE AN UPDATE ON THIS ONE. IT WAS IT WAS HELD TWO PREVIOUS TIMES. AND ULTIMATELY COUNCILMEMBERS REQUESTED THAT THIS BE HELD ONE MORE TIME. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THESE BINDING ELEMENTS, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND AS JULIA ALLUDED TO, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST HERE IS BASICALLY TO TAKE THAT PREVIOUS BINDING ELEMENT, WHICH WE'D SEEN ATTACHED WITH SOME FREQUENCY WHEN MANY WAREHOUSES FIRST STARTED BECOMING A BIG TREND. THEY WOULD GET THIS ZONING, BUT KNOCK OUT ALL THE OTHER M1 USES EXCEPT FOR MINI WAREHOUSE. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT WANTED TO SCRATCH THAT TO ALLOW SOME MORE M1 USES. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT JUST ALLOWING ANY M1 USE HERE THAT IT DOES ABOUT SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SO WE'VE BEEN SORT OF PARING DOWN WHICH ONES ARE AND AREN'T APPROPRIATE AND WE'RE NOT QUITE FINISHED. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE TAKE TIME TO GET THIS ONE RIGHT. SO ULTIMATELY I THINK THIS WILL BE DONE BY NEXT CYCLE. BUT COUNCILMAN BASS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS TABLED IN THE APPLICANT. ASK THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN FINALIZE THAT LANGUAGE. CAN I GET A MOTION? MOTION TO TABLE. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR. DASH 13925.
[01:35:08]
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1.2, 2.2, 4.2 AND 4.3 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING HOMELESS AND CRISIS SHELTERS. CASE NUMBER 20 4--0001. CAN I GET A MOTION? MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JOEL. DOC. GOOD AFTERNOON, JOEL DOCK, LOUISVILLE METRO'S OFFICE OF PLANNING. THIS IS 24 LDC 0001 FOR HOMELESS AND CRISIS SHELTERS. THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFICALLY FOR HOMELESS AND CRISIS SHELTERS. METRO COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION AND I BELIEVE, FEBRUARY OF 2024, DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ESSENTIALLY THE OFFICE OF PLANNING TO PUT FORWARD AND RESEARCH REGULATIONS TO PERMIT MORE HOMELESS SHELTERS WITH STANDARDS, INSTEAD OF REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR ESSENTIALLY SPECIAL APPROVAL THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, AND TO CREATE OPTIONS FOR TEMPORARY CRISIS WHEN THERE IS A TEMPORARY BUT URGENT NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACES. HOW THAT RESOLUTION READ. THE OFFICE OF PLANNING PROVIDED A PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE ON PEER CITY BEST PRACTICES ON MAY 7TH OF 2024. WE HELD FIVE COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS. IN THE FALL OF 2024, WE RELEASED A DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON MARCH 25TH OF 2025. PLANNING COMMITTEE ON APRIL 21ST OF 2025, AND WE HELD THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 15TH OF 2025 WITH A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. JUST SOME QUICK DATA ANALYSIS SOURCED FROM THE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, 14,801 INDIVIDUALS WERE ASSISTED FROM OCTOBER 20TH 23 TO 2024. 8000 EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, 4400 CHRONICALLY HOMELESS. THAT IS SOMEONE WHO IS REPEATEDLY HOMELESS OR HAS ANOTHER CONDITION WHICH CREATES A SENSE OF CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS. SERVICES WERE PROVIDED FOR 1900 CHILDREN, 1300 VETERANS AND 1800 SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THERE WAS A 41% INCREASE IN HOMELESSNESS FROM 2018 TO 2021. SO TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY WHAT WE HEARD AT THE COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS THAT WE HELD, AND WE PUBLISHED A SUMMARY OF THOSE LISTENING SESSIONS THAT CAN BE FOUND ONLINE, I BELIEVE WAS AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AS WELL. THREE NEW LAND USES ARE GOING TO BE DEFINED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THEY ARE DAY SHELTER, ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER, AND EXTREME WEATHER SHELTER. A DAY SHELTER IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. IT'S A SHELTER DURING THE DAYTIME. IT PROVIDES ACCESS TO INDOOR SHELTER DURING THE DAYTIME HOURS ONLY. THERE'S NO OVERNIGHT OCCUPANCY AND ACCESSORY. OVERNIGHT SHELTER IS SOMETHING WE SAW AS A BEST PRACTICE ACROSS THE NATION TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TO FULFILL THEIR SERVICE MISSION BY PROVIDING OVERNIGHT SHELTER AND SERVICES TO HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS OR INDIVIDUALS IN CRISIS. AND THE WAY THAT THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN UP, IT HAS BEEN MAXED OUT AT 25 OCCUPANTS, NOT INCLUDING DEPENDENT CHILDREN. THE EXTREME WEATHER SHELTER WAS DISCUSSED A LOT OF HOW TO HANDLE WHEN THERE IS A LARGE CRISIS, WHAT IS A CRISIS AND WHAT WE ARE GOING TO INCLUDE IN ALLOWING FOR AN EXTREME WEATHER SHELTER. ULTIMATELY, THE TYPE OF SHELTER THIS TYPE OF SHELTER IS AVAILABLE DURING HOT AND COLD, BUT ALSO ON POOR AIR QUALITY DAYS OR ANY EVENT WHERE A STORM WATCH OR WARNING HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.SO JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT EACH SHELTER IS. SO A DAY SHELTER IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL STANDARD. THIS WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT. BUT IN ORDER TO OPERATE A DAY SHELTER, YOU MUST MEET EACH ONE OF THE SPECIAL STANDARDS. DAY SHELTERS WOULD BE PERMITTED IN OFFICE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ON ANY DEVELOPMENT SITE WHERE A NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS PRESENT. THIS IS A TECHNIQUE THAT WE USED FOR CHILD CARE FACILITIES, AND WE'VE HAD GREAT SUCCESS WITH REPURPOSING AND REHABILITATING BUILDINGS AND SPACES THAT ARE THERE AND AVAILABLE TO REPURPOSE FOR USES TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY SERVICE, SUCH AS A SHELTER OR AS AN ACCESSORY. USE TO AN INSTITUTIONAL USE. IT MUST INCLUDE A GROUNDS MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN EACH OF OUR COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS THAT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT IT IS ABOUT MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY FOR THE DIGNITY OF THE USERS OF THAT SERVICE AS WELL. AND A GROUNDS MANAGEMENT PLAN IS
[01:40:06]
PART OF THE PERMITTED, WITH SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR EACH ONE OF THESE SHELTERS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, IT MUST BE 1000FT FROM ANOTHER DAY SHELTER SERVING THE SAME POPULATION THAT IS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ONLY. SO A SHELTER SERVING MEN COULD BE ADJACENT TO A SHELTER SERVING WOMEN. BUT TWO SHELTERS SERVING WOMEN COULD NOT BE WITHIN 1000FT OF EACH OTHER. AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER. AGAIN, THIS WAS A BEST PRACTICE WE SAW ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TO FULFILL THEIR SERVICE MISSION. IT'S PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSORY TO AN ACTIVE RELIGIOUS BUILDING. NO ZONING DISTRICT RESTRICTIONS, JUST IF THERE IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, A CHURCH THAT EXISTS OUT THERE THAT WANTS TO OPERATE AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER, THEY CAN DO SO. THIS DOES REQUIRE A LICENSE PER LMCO 115. SO A SHELTER LICENSE, WHICH IS GOING TO REQUIRE BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE AND LIFE SAFETY COMPLIANCE DOES REQUIRE GROUNDS MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND AGAIN CAPPED AT 25 ADULTS AND NOT WITHIN ANOTHER 1000FT OF ANOTHER SHELTER SERVING THE SAME POPULATION. FOR THE EXTREME WEATHER SHELTERS PERMITTED IN WITH SPECIAL STANDARDS IN THE SIMILAR LOCATIONS TO A DAY SHELTER OFFICE. RESIDENTIAL REUSE OF EXISTING. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE RED CROSS OR LIKE ENTITIES PROVIDING SHELTER DURING FIRES, FLOODS OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE. WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROVISION WOULD COVER, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS DURING A MAJOR HURRICANE EVENT WHERE WE'RE USING BROADBAND ARENA OR OR THE EXPOSITION CENTER. THIS IS NOT THAT THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT IS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT'S LICENSED PER LMCO 115, AND THE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS INCLUDE WIND CHILL BELOW 35, HEAT INDEX OVER 95. AIR QUALITY INDEX IS RATED UNHEALTHY. TYPICALLY THAT FALLS WITH HIGHER HEATS, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME SERIOUS AIR QUALITY ISSUES HERE IN LOUISVILLE THAT TRIGGER SERIOUS ISSUES AND PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA. AND THEN ANY SEVERE WEATHER, WINTER STORM OR FLOOD WATCH OR WARNING ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. THESE FACILITIES COULD OPEN UP 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE EVENT, AND THEY WOULD SHUT DOWN 24 HOURS AFTER THE EVENT IS CONCLUDED, UNLESS SPECIAL PERMISSION IS GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. SAY WE ARE EXPECTING ANOTHER WEATHER EVENT IN THREE DAYS. WE WILL ALLOW THEM TO STAY OPEN WITH SPECIAL PERMISSION. IT DOES REQUIRE A LICENSE, WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO HAVE FULL BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE. A COUPLE OTHER SUPPORTING CHANGES FOR THIS NEW LAND USE UPDATE AND MODERNIZE LANGUAGE FOR CURRENT SHELTER STANDARDS. THERE WERE NO CHANGES TO PERMITTED LOCATIONS OR OCCUPANCY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCILMAN BATSHON HAS A SUBSTITUTION TO INTRODUCE THAT WOULD REMOVE THE R5A ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE HOMELESS SHELTERS PERMITTED LOCATIONS, REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL USES. SO IN 2017, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT WAS PLACED ON ALL NEW PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL USES PRIVATE CHURCHES. SO IF THEY WANTED TO DO THREE PARKING SPACES OR A GAZEBO, THEY HAD TO COME IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. GIVEN A LOT OF THE MOVEMENT AROUND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WANTING TO PROVIDE HOUSING, AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE, THE REMOVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REMOVES A BARRIER TO REALLY FULFILL THE INTENT OF THIS REGULATION, AND I KNOW FUTURE WORK ON PROVIDING HOUSING ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. WE UPDATED THE DEFINITION FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY TO RESOLVE ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT USE AND DAYTIME SHELTERS AS WELL. THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS SUPPORTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WILL NOT READ WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS AFFIRMED THAT WITH THEIR FINDINGS, ALL INTERESTED PARTY COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD. OF COURSE, A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS WAS PUBLISHED. NOTIFICATION WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRS, AND NOTICE WAS SENT TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS IN ADVANCE, AS WELL AS OUT FOR GOV DELIVERY IN ADVANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT IS ALL I HAVE AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH SO MUCH JOEL. I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE HERE. I THINK WE'VE MADE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. COUNCILMAN BACON, I THINK HAS AN AMENDMENT. YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTE BY AMENDMENT. AND TRAVIS, YOU WANT TO READ THAT IN. HELLO AGAIN. I KNOW YOU ALL MISSED ME FROM BREAK, SO I'VE GOT A LOT OF ME TODAY.[01:45:03]
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T GET TO ON THE SYSTEM QUITE IN TIME. IT WAS SORT OF BEING TINKERED WITH STILL, BUT I CAN READ THEM IN, I THINK RELATIVELY BRIEFLY. SO THE FIRST CHANGE IS ON PAGE SEVEN.THERE WERE SOME INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES WITH RATHER, BOZA WAS REFERRED TO AS BOZA OR THE BOARD THROUGHOUT. AND SO I WANTED TO GET THOSE ALL IN LINE. AND SO IN ITEM C AT THE TOP OF PAGE SEVEN, BOZA WOULD BE STRUCK THROUGH, SUBSTITUTE THE BOARD DOWN TO ITEM E BOARD INSTEAD OF BOZA DOWN ITEM F INSTEAD OF BOZA. SO THAT'S A SORT OF MINOR MORE TECHNICAL CHANGE. THE MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS ON PAGE NINE AND SECTION 4.3. 13 SUB D WOULD BE STRUCK AS IT CURRENTLY APPEARS IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUM DENSITY SLASH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS ONE R6, R7, R8 OR R1, R2, CR CN, C1, P, R, O, P, E, C T AND Z D. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS CONSTRUCTED AS DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER TWO OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS NOT CONSTRUCTED AS DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER TWO OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MULTIPLIED BY THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE OBTAINED FROM THE MOST RECENT CENSUS DATA FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, AS PUBLISHED BY THE US CENSUS. THE RESULTING NUMBER WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTS SLASH BEDS PER SHELTER. EXAMPLE. THE R6 DISTRICT HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 17.42 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE IN THE 2020 CENSUS WAS 2.97. THEREFORE, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTS PER BED OR SLASH BEDS IN THE R6 DISTRICT IS 51 PER ACRE, AND A FACILITY WITH A BUILDING NOT CONSTRUCTED AS A DWELLING UNIT 17.4 TIMES 2.97 IS 51.74. JUST A LITTLE COMMENTARY HERE. THE CONSTRUCTED AS A DWELLING UNIT MEANS, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTED AS A HOME. THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL CODE IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING CODE, AND THEY'RE PRETTY DIFFERENT. AND SO FOR LARGE VOLUMES OF PEOPLE, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO NEED A COMMERCIALLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING WITH THINGS LIKE SPRINKLERS AND SOME ACCESS PROTECTIONS. SUB 2 OR 3 OTF, C2, C3, CM AND EZ1. AGAIN, JUST A LITTLE COMMENTARY. THESE ARE THE HIGHER INTENSITY DISTRICTS. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS. CONSTRUCTED DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER TWO OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR HOMELESS SHELTER IS NOT CONSTRUCTED AS DWELLING UNITS, SO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER TWO OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MULTIPLIED BY THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE OBTAINED FROM THE MOST RECENT CENSUS DATA FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, AS PUBLISHED BY THE US CENSUS. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OR BEDS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 400 RESIDENTS OR BEDS PER ACRE. EXAMPLE THE R3, OTF AND C2 DISTRICTS ALLOW BETWEEN 145 AND 435 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE DWELLING UNITS.
THE C3 DISTRICT ALLOWS UP TO 435 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND CMS ONE DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM DENSITY. THEREFORE, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OR BEDS IN IS 400 PER ACRE. IN A SHELTER WITH A BUILDING NOT CONSTRUCTED AS A DWELLING UNIT, AS THE CURRENT AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE RESULTS IN THE ALLOWANCES OF GREATER THAN 400. SO THE MATH THERE WITH THE CURRENT STATUS AS 400, IS THE MAX IN ALL THOSE DISTRICTS WE JUST LISTED. WHEN NOT CONSTRUCTED AS DWELLING UNITS, THOSE ARE THE SORT OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. THEY LARGELY MIRROR WHAT OCCURRED IN SOME RECENT AMENDMENTS DEALING WITH TRANSITIONAL HOUSING IN R5 AND R5 DISTRICTS. THOSE CALCULATIONS WERE UPDATED. AND SO I THINK THAT THAT HAS SORT OF BEEN IMPLEMENTED HERE. I DON'T THINK I MISSED ANYTHING ELSE. JOEL, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER? OKAY. I WAS WORRIED THERE MIGHT BE A STRAGGLER HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S BASICALLY A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION UPDATE. STRIKING THE R5 ALLOWANCE I THINK IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ONE. AND THEN AGAIN, SOME SOME GRAMMATICAL ALIGNMENT. THANK YOU TRAVIS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS AMENDMENT.
COLLEAGUES, DID YOU MAKE DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION MOTION TO PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN AMENDED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS BEFORE WE, THE AMENDMENT OH THREE PEOPLE. OH OKAY. SORRY. VICE CHAIR READ. ARE WE ALLOWED ONLY TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? NOW IT'S OVER SO YOU CAN ASK HIM ANYTHING I CAN OKAY. GOOD. SO I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING. WOULD THAT INCLUDE A CLUBHOUSE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, A CLUBHOUSE AND A NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE A NON IT WOULD BE A NON NONRESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. SO TECHNICALLY A CLUBHOUSE, BUT I'M SURE THERE ARE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS THAT LIMIT WHAT THAT CLUBHOUSE CAN BE USED FOR. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOA RESTRICTIONS I BELIEVE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE HOA
[01:50:03]
RESTRICTION WOULD SUPERSEDE YOUR DEFINITION, THAT THE DEEDS OF RESTRICTION ARE NOT ENFORCED BY LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT. SO IF THERE IS A PRIVATE DEED OF RESTRICTION, THAT DEED OF RESTRICTION WOULD, AND TRAVIS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, TAKE PRECEDENT OVER THE LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION. CORRECT. FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE THERE. YOU KNOW, WE DO GET PROPERTIES FROM TIME TO TIME THAT HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE OR AT LEAST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE GIVEN NEIGHBORHOOD THEY THINK THEY ARE. THEY RUN AFOUL OF THE RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND THEY SAY, OUR RESTRICTIONS SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO THERE'S A BREAKDOWN OF IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL COMMERCIAL, IS IT NOT. WE DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THAT FIGHT.THOSE ARE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS BETWEEN HOMEOWNERS. WE DON'T CONSIDER DEED RESTRICTIONS EXPLICITLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHEN WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS. BUT OUR CODE RECOGNIZES THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES A USE AND THEN HOA FILES AN ACTION, WHETHER THROUGH THEIR OWN SORT OF INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY REGIME OR THROUGH THE COURTS TO ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME IN AND SAY, OH, NO, NO, WE'VE APPROVED THIS, YOUR HONOR. IGNORE THE WE'RE GOING TO LET THE RESTRICTIONS PLAY OUT. WE'RE GOING TO HONOR WHATEVER THAT JUDGMENT WERE TO SAY, IF THERE WAS ONE. SO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, YOU KNOW, OWN AVENUE TO FOR ENFORCEMENT. WE'RE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. AND ULTIMATELY, OUR REGULATIONS WOULD NOT BE SAYING YOU MUST ACCEPT A HOMELESS SHELTER ANYWHERE. FOR SOME REASON, YOUR RESTRICTIONS SAY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE. THEN YOU NEED TO ABIDE BY THEM AND A COURT CAN ENFORCE IT. OKAY, I'M GOING TO VOTE PRESENT ON THIS. I WANT TO EXPLAIN MY PRESENT VOTE, BECAUSE I WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ON THAT, BECAUSE I DO REPRESENT MANY NEIGHBORHOODS WITH HOAS, AND I JUST WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF I DID A LITTLE BIT MORE OF MY OWN RESEARCH. AND WITH THIS GO ON, OLD BUSINESS, IF BE THE CASE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMAN HUDSON. THANK YOU CHAIR. MY QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE EXTREME WEATHER FACILITY, I THINK IS WHAT IT WAS CALLED IF A FACILITY APPLIES FOR AND IS GRANTED THE LICENSE, DOES THAT MEAN WHEN AN EXTREME WEATHER EVENT OCCURS, THEY MUST OPEN AND ACCEPT PEOPLE, OR THEY CAN CHOOSE TO THEY CAN CHOOSE TO. OKAY. SO THIS THIS AND IF IT'S OKAY, CAN I PROVIDE A LITTLE EXPLANATION ON THIS. SO THIS PAST WINTER WE HAD A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS OF POP UP SHELTERS AND POP UP SHELTERS AND LOCATIONS MAYBE WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOME SHELTERS THAT CREATED SOME ISSUES FOR US FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES AND HEALTH REGULATIONS. AND SO THE EXTREME WEATHER SHELTER IS AN ATTEMPT TO GET AHEAD OF WHAT WE WILL EXPERIENCE THIS WINTER, PROBABLY ICE, SNOW AND THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN LOUISVILLE. AND SO WE WANT TO WE WANTED TO CREATE A PROVISION WHERE FACILITIES COULD, IF THEY SO CHOSE, PROVIDED THAT SPACE DURING AN EXTREME WEATHER EVENT, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY PROVIDE IT. AND THEN THAT LICENSE WOULD BE RELATED TO IT.
BUT WE WANTED TO GET AHEAD OF THE EMERGENCY AND REDUCE THE IMPACT OF CREATING ANOTHER EMERGENCY BY HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN A LOCATION THAT WASN'T ONE LICENSED AND UNKNOWN TO OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE AND EVERYONE ELSE, AND HAVE THE BUILDING SAFE FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THEM. AND WE WANTED TO CREATE A REGULATION WHERE WE COULD THEN GET AHEAD OF THAT, GET FACILITIES LICENSED, GET THEM SAFE, AND CREATE SPACES TO AVOID AN EMERGENCY ON TOP OF ANOTHER EMERGENCY. COUNCILWOMAN RE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK ON THIS. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. I LIKE TO EXPRESS SOME CONCERN AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN CHANGE THIS. THE SECTION IN THERE ABOUT PLACING SHELTERS WITHIN 1000FT OF EACH OTHER, IF THEY DO NOT SERVE THE SAME POPULATION. SO THEORETICALLY, YOU COULD HAVE A SHELTER FOR A DAY, SHELTER FOR MEN, A DAY SHELTER FOR WOMEN, A DAY SHELTER FOR FAMILIES, AND AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER. AND YOU COULD HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT ONES, ALL WITHIN 1000FT OF ONE ANOTHER. AND I REALIZE THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE, I'M SURE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SHELTERS AVAILABLE. BUT IS THERE A WAY MAYBE WE COULD LIMIT IT TO SAY, TWO SHELTERS WITHIN 1000FT, REGARDLESS OF THE POPULATION THEY SERVE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT? SO WE DON'T WIND UP WITH THIS CONCENTRATION, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH LIKE TRANSITIONAL HOMES AND STUFF. THEY FOUND AN AREA THEY CAN PUT THEM IN AND THEY JUST BLANKET IT. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF, OF COUNCIL AT THIS POINT TO INTRODUCE THAT
[01:55:05]
SUBSTITUTION. I THINK THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE REGULATION WAS JUST 1000 FOOT SEPARATION, AND IT WAS MODIFIED AFTER CONVERSATIONS. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO DOING SO. YOU KNOW, CREATING THAT SEPARATION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE WITH TRANSITIONAL. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT WE'VE DONE TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR OVERCONCENTRATION. SO DOING SO.I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY CHANGES THE INTENT OR THE PURPOSE OR WHAT THE EFFECT THIS REGULATION WILL HAVE. DID YOU SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN OTHER CITIES THAT ARE TRYING? YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THIS IS NOT NEW. WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING IN THAT REGARD? ARE THEY ALLOWING THEM TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE, EVEN IF THEY'RE SERVING A DIFFERENT POPULATION? DO YOU REMEMBER? WELL, I MEAN, SOME CITIES WENT SO FAR AS TO CREATE A SPECIAL ZONE FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS TO CONCENTRATE AND TO CREATE AN AREA WHERE THEY WOULD CREATE INTENTIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF HOMELESS SERVICES. I CAN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY AND RECALL WHAT THE IN MY REVIEW OF NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES, IF THERE WAS A STANDARD SEPARATION, BUT THERE WERE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS ACROSS THE BOARD. OKAY. BEFORE WE DEAL WITH THAT, CAN I TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILWOMAN PARISH? RIGHT, SO WE CAN HEAR HER COMMENTS? COUNCILWOMAN PARISH.
RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BEING PROACTIVE WITH THIS. I ALSO WANT TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR. AND WE DO HAVE CURRENTLY SHELTERS, ESPECIALLY MY NONPROFIT IS ON THE STREET WHERE THERE ARE SHELTERS WITHIN 1000FT OR AROUND A THOUSAND OR SO FEET OF EACH OTHER, BUT THEY SERVE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS AND DIFFERENT WAYS. SO WITH THE COMMUNITY CARE CAMPUS, THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP, THAT THAT IS THE SAME. IT'S WITHIN 1000FT AND THERE'S FAMILIES, THERE'LL BE SINGLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE DO THIS. I DON'T THINK MANY WILL ALLOW A BUNCH OF CONCENTRATION OF ANYTHING FROM THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN LOOKING, BUT THIS IS THE WAY THIS IS THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO BE ON PLANNING AND ZONING.
THIS IS SAVED ME A GREAT DEAL OF HOMEWORK AND SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS ADVOCATES AND PROVIDERS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR US AND DEFINITELY WOULD SUPPORT THIS. AND ALSO, I DON'T SEE ANY MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE 2000 OR MAKING IT TWO PER 1000, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE AND SO THAT SO THAT THAT DOESN'T DISRUPT WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. SO THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
IF WE IF WE PASS SOMETHING THAT PUT CURRENT SHELTERS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, ARE THEY GRANDFATHERED IN OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO I JUST I WANTED TO GO BACK THROUGH THE REGULATIONS AND SEE WHERE THIS ACTUALLY APPLIED. SO THE 1000 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. DOES NOT APPLY TO EXISTING HOMELESS SHELTERS. IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO EXTREME WEATHER SHELTERS. AND IT. IN THE DAY SHELTERS PROVISION. IT DOES IT DOES APPLY I APOLOGIZE MY PAPERS ARE I DON'T LIKE THEM IN HERE. YEAH. SO THERE IS NO SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS IN PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL STANDARDS. CURRENTLY THERE IS. NO SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS IT IS PRESENTLY APPLIED. THE 1000 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE FOR DAY SHELTERS. AND IT IS APPLICABLE FOR ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS, AND THEY BOTH READ 1000FT OF ANOTHER. IT IS SPECIFIC TO THAT SHELTER, SO SAY SO. FOR A DAY SHELTER IT IS 1000FT FROM ANOTHER DAY SHELTER SERVING THE SAME POPULATION, NOT 1000FT FROM AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT OR NOT 1000FT FROM ANOTHER HOMELESS SHELTER, BUT 1000FT FROM ANOTHER DAY SHELTER SERVING THE SAME POPULATION. AND
[02:00:07]
THAT IS THE SAME FOR THE ACCESSORY. OVERNIGHT WAS COUNCILWOMAN RUTHIE AND CORRECT ME IF I IF I MISUNDERSTOOD. WERE YOU LOOKING TO AMEND TO ALLOW TWO WITHIN 1000FT, OR DID I HEAR THAT FOR SHELTER, SERVING FAMILIES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THAT THOUSAND FEET? OKAY, SO THE REQUEST THAT I'VE GOTTEN IS ELIMINATE THE CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT SERVES THE SAME POPULATION IS THE WAY THE IT WAS WORDED TO ME, BUT YOU SAID NO MORE THAN TWO. YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF MY SO THE IDEA IS TRYING TO TRYING TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY BUT NOT ALLOW FOR AN EXCESSIVE CONCENTRATION. I THINK SO, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH COUNCIL PARISH. RIGHT. AND TRAVIS, BECAUSE SHE'S COMING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HEARING ALL SIDES OF IT AND GETTING SOMETHING THAT WORKS BEST. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. SO JUST MY $0.02 IS THIS HAS BEEN IN PROCESS FOR A LONG TIME. YES IT HAS. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE OPINIONS ALL THE WAY TO THE END, BUT IT'S BEEN I IT ALWAYS WORRIES ME AFTER SOMETHING HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE AND LOOKED AT BEST PRACTICES AND WE'VE, YOU KNOW, PUT A, PUT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION TOGETHER AND THEN WE START MAKING CHANGES TO IT AT THE END. BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE ARE SO MANY, OFTENTIMES SO MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND, AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T LOOK INTO MODIFYING IT. I THINK I WOULD PREFER TO PASS IT OUT OF COMMITTEE AS IS. AND IF BETWEEN NOW AND COUNCIL, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO LOOK INTO IT AND SEE IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT AS AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR, I THINK I WOULD THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE THINKS. YEAH. COUNCILWOMAN BACHON, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO ME. YOU LITERALLY TOOK THE WORDS EXACTLY OUT OF MY MOUTH AND ARTICULATED THEM JUST A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO I MOVED TO MOVE THIS AMENDED VERSION. OR I'M GOING TO LET SCOTT GO. VICE CHAIR READ. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I WOULD ASK COUNCILWOMAN ONE MORE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE GET IT. PLEASE.OKAY. SO THE WAY THE STANDARD IS WRITTEN ON, ON SEVERAL IS NOT ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, BUT TO HAVE SHELTERS THAT DO NOT MEET THE SAME POPULATION, THAT SERVE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. SO IF YOU HAVE SHELTERS SERVING ONLY MEN, THEY CANNOT BE WITHIN 1000FT OF EACH OTHER. IF YOU HAVE SHELTERS SERVING ONLY WOMEN, THEY CANNOT BE WITH 1000. BUT YOU CAN HAVE SHELTER, SERVING MEN AND SHELTER SERVING WOMEN. AND SO IF YOU DIVERSIFY IT ENOUGH, YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY MAKE A CONCENTRATION. NOW, AS COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH WRIGHT NOTED, THE COMMUNITY CARE CAMPUS IS ACTUALLY DOING THAT VERY THING. SO TAKING IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. WE WANT THAT. BUT DO WE WANT TO HAVE THIS LITTLE SHELTER OVER HERE IN THIS LITTLE SHELTER OVER HERE, THIS LITTLE SHELTER OVER HERE, AND THEY'RE PULLING A NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN. SO THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS BOTH THOSE NEEDS. SO, SO THEN THE SOMETHING COUNCILWOMAN RILEY WAS SAYING, EVEN IF THEY SERVE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS, YOU CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN TWO, EVEN IF THEY SERVE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS WITHIN THAT THOUSAND FEET. SO YOU DON'T END UP WITH SIX. I THINK THAT WAS YEAH, I THINK I THINK THAT WAS THE SUGGESTION THAT WAS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE. THANK YOU. SURE. AND AGAIN, LET ME SAY WHAT I WAS SAYING. AGAIN, I WOULD PREFER TO PASS THE LEGISLATION OUT OF COMMITTEE AS WRITTEN AND THEN HAVE SOME OF OUR MEMBERS SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND, AND COUNCIL MEETING TO DETERMINE KIND OF WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE BASED ON SOME OF THE THINGS AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE MIGHT LOOK LIKE. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE. AN AMENDMENT CURRENTLY.
RIGHT? WE WOULD JUST VOTE ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT THAT TO REMOVE THE R5 AND WELL, THAT YEAH. SO THAT'S THE AMENDED VERSION. THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ADDITIONAL.
UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. SO WAS THERE A MOTION MADE ALREADY? I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK YOU MADE
[02:05:01]
A MOTION FOR THAT. SO. I'M WITHDRAWING MY MOTION TO MOVE THE CURRENT LEGISLATION WE HAVE BEFORE US. CORRECT. TO NOT SUGGEST THAT THE COMMENT YOU MADE TO NOT MAKE A MOTION FOR COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ, THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU MADE HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED. OKAY, YEAH, I DIDN'T I WITHDRAW THAT MOTION. I DIDN'T REALIZE I MADE A MOTION FOR HER COMMENT. SORRY. SO I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS THE COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. NOT TO HOLD US UP. I DEFINITELY THINK WE SHOULD VOTE TO PASS THIS AND MOVE IT THROUGH. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT JUST THINKING ABOUT THE VICE CHAIRS COMMENT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHITE FLAG. SO ORGANIZATIONS AND SHELTERS PREEXISTING THAT RECEIVE WHITE FLAG DOLLARS FOR EMERGENCY WEATHER SITUATIONS. THEY BECAUSE THEY ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT RECEIVE THAT FUNDING THAT GIVES THEM THE OBLIGATION TO PUT OUT WHITE FLAG AND OPEN THEIR DOORS WHEN YOU KNOW THE TEMPERATURES THAT WERE DESCRIBED IN THIS LEGISLATION HAPPEN. BUT JUST FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND JUST BACKING UP WHAT TRAVIS SAID, AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN THERE IS HOAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN PLACE, THOSE SUPERSEDE ANY OF THAT. SO THERE'S NOT AN EXISTING SHELTER IN SOME OF THOSE HOAS WHERE THEY ARE ALSO RECEIVING THOSE DOLLARS THAT KIND OF OBLIGATE THEM TO OPEN UP, BECAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING. SO LIKE WAYSIDE AND ALL OF THEM, THEY AND SALVATION ARMY SAINT JOHN'S DAY, THEY DO THE WHITE FLAG THAT ANYBODY CAN COME IN AT ANY TIME, BUT THEY'RE ALREADY ESTABLISHED. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT AND THEN JUST TO SAY THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WHITE FLAG, BUT THAT WHITE FLAG IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT THIS IS TALKING ABOUT.SO I THAT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I THINK WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT AMENDED VERSION. AND THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PASSED EARLIER IN OUR IN THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE CONVERSATION QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ABOUT ABOUT THE AMENDED ORDINANCE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US? OKAY. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN UP FOR OPEN THAT UP FOR A ROLL CALL? VOTE, PLEASE. VOTING IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER RAYMOND. YES. THANK YOU. VOTING. CLOSING CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES AND ONE PRESENT. OKAY, SO SEVEN YES VOTES. ONE PRESENT VOTE THAT WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE'LL HAVE SOME MEMBERS THAT WILL WORK ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED. OKAY. WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.