Aug 05, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee

[00:24:27]

METRO TV. WE'LL GET STARTED IN ABOUT 60S.

[Call to Order]

[00:25:28]

[00:25:31]

[Roll Call]

[00:25:38]

[00:25:47]

[00:25:53]

[1. O-169-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8000 NATIONAL TURNPIKE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.34 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25ZONE0039). Action Required By September 23, 2025 **Council Member Dan Seum (R-13) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

COUNCILMAN SIM SUPPORTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS. AND AS FOR HIS COLLEAGUES SUPPORT IN VOTING YES TO DENY THE CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8000 NATIONAL TURNPIKE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED FOR YES, TWO NO AND FOUR ABSENT TO DENY THE CHANGES IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C2. AND IT GOES THROUGH SOME OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT. SO THAT'S FROM MY COUNCILMAN TIME. THANK YOU.

LET'S SEE HERE I HAVE COUNCILWOMAN RUBY IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU. JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S THERE STRAIGHT UP. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S THAT CONTENTIOUS. WHY WAS IT DENIED? SOME OF THE MEMBERS THOUGHT THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE REZONED.

[00:30:01]

ANYBODY ELSE WITH QUEST ANYONE . JULIA, I CAN YOU PUT BACK UP THE MAP. IT'S. NOT THE ZONE, NOT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT THE THAT MAP. SO. WHERE IS THE WHERE ON THAT IS THE INDUSTRIAL. ACROSS NATIONAL TURNPIKE. HERE IS A LARGER WAREHOUSE. OKAY. AND THIS, THIS KIND OF LARGER LOT HERE. THERE'S ALSO SOME EASY ONE LOCATED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN TOLLS LANE. AND THEN SEE ONE ACROSS THE STREET. AND THEN THE PROPERTY ZONED R4. AND THEN THERE'S R4 ON TWO SIDES OF IT.

AND THEN WHERE CAN YOU POINT OUT THERE WHERE THE CLOSEST ACTUAL OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS? I MEAN, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME. I MEAN, I SEE WHAT I, WHAT I'M SEEING THERE IS IT'S ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES. SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, VOTE TO OVERTURN NECESSARILY, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET A BETTER WHERE IF YOU CAN SHOW ME ON THAT MAP. YEAH, I WAS, I WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE I HAD A PICTURE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS THEORETICALLY RESIDENTIAL, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT LOOK LIKE THAT IN THE AERIAL THAT YOU'RE SEEING. RIGHT. BECAUSE CERTAINLY THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY USED, IS NOT BEING USED AS RESIDENTIAL. IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL. YEAH. SO I MEAN. SO LET ME, LET ME ASK ANOTHER, LET ME ASK IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY. IT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BUT SO THEY'RE DOING A RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY. AND DURING THAT PROCESS THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THEMSELVES INTO THE RIGHT ZONE WHEN THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PREVIOUSLY. WERE THEY GRANDFATHERED IN IN SOME WAY TO BE THAT TO BE THE USE THAT THEY CURRENTLY ARE. I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S THIS IS AN EXISTING BUSINESS. AM I WRONG? THE STRUCTURE IS EXISTING AND THE STRUCTURE, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, HAS BEEN USED AS SOME FORM OF COMMERCIAL, PROBABLY AUTO SALES OR REPAIR FOR SOME TIME. A LOT OF THE LOTS OUT IN THIS AREA, SOME YOU'LL SEE THIS ACROSS JEFFERSON COUNTY ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL BUT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY USED AS COMMERCIAL. AND I THINK THAT'S IN GENERAL WHAT HAPPENED HERE. OKAY. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT COUNCILMAN TIME. IT'S HE KNOWS THE DISTRICT BETTER THAN I DO, BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE AN ODD ONE TO ME. JUST BECAUSE. YEAH, COUNCILMAN, YOU GOT LIGHT THAT YOU CAN SHED ON THIS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF LIFE ON A SHED ON IT, BUT I JUST RECENTLY WENT THROUGH A SITUATION WITH THIS. BE CONSIDERED, JULIA, IN ONE OF THOSE PLANS, CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE IT WAS ZONED THAT WAY IN AN OVERLAY AND THE INDUSTRIAL WAS DEVELOPED AROUND IT AS IT HAS BEEN. AND NOW THAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, THEY'RE THEY'RE BEING FORCED TO CHANGE THE ZONING. OR DID THEY OPERATE UNDER A CUP PRIOR TO THIS? HOW DOES I MEAN, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE DYNAMICS HERE. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PLANNED CERTAIN, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PART OF AN AREA WIDE, BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS STILL R4. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT BACK WHEN R4 CAME INTO PLAY THAT IT GOT A BLANKET R4 OVER THIS PROPERTY, NOT REALIZING THAT IT HAD BEEN USED COMMERCIALLY. AND YOU SEE THAT ALL ACROSS JEFFERSON COUNTY IN A LOT OF AREAS WHERE A RESIDENCE OR A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE GETS REZONED, OR WHEN ZONING STARTED WAS R4 AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BACK HISTORY AS FAR AS IT GOES BACK ON THIS PROPERTY. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT. THANK YOU. DO WE KNOW THE LAST TIME THE ZONING WAS CHANGED HERE? PROBABLY.

PROBABLY NEVER. OR IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, I WOULD GUESS. I WOULD SAY IT WAS NEVER CHANGED.

[00:35:06]

SO IT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A QUORUM. SO IF THE VOTE WAS 3 TO 2 BECAUSE FIVE IS A QUORUM, SO 3 TO 2 SAY DENYING THE PROPOSAL, IT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL OR THE OPPOSITE, LIKE 3 TO 2 FOR APPROVAL. THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

WHAT IF WHAT IF YOU HAD, LET'S SAY AND I'M THROWING OUT A LOT OF IDEAS HERE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A GRIP OF IT. LET'S SAY YOU HAD EIGHT MEMBERS SHOW UP OR SAY ALL TEN. OF COURSE YOU'VE GOT THE QUORUM. AND THEN WHEN IT'S TIME TO VOTE, ONE MEMBER VOTES YES AND THE OTHERS VOTE PRESENT. THEY DON'T VOTE. IS THAT CAN YOU VOTE PRESENT INSTEAD OF YES OR NO? OR. I'M GOING TO REFER TO TRAVIS ON THAT QUESTION. TRAVIS, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY I DON'T THINK WE EVER HAD PLANNING COMMISSION. I GUESS THEY DO OCCASIONALLY VOTE PRESENT OR OUR EQUIVALENT OF PRESENT. A COMMON OCCURRENCE IS WHEN WE HAVE NEW MEMBERS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEIR FIRST MEETING, THEY DON'T TEND TO ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION. THEY SORT OF SIT AND OBSERVE AND ABSTAIN IS WHAT THE LANGUAGE THEY TYPICALLY USE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE HAD SUFFICIENT ABSTENTIONS THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE QUORUM. I NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. MY GUT INSTINCT IS TO SAY THAT IF WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T WILLING TO VOTE, THAT WE'D PROBABLY CONTINUE THE CASE UNTIL WE COULD GET A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF MEMBERS. BUT IT'S POSSIBLE IT'S OCCURRED AT SOME POINT, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO A PRESENT VOTE ULTIMATELY DOES COUNT TOWARDS THE MAJORITY. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE SORT OF THERE'S A MINIMUM THRESHOLD THERE, YOU KNOW, THE ONE IN THE NINE PRESENCE. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD JUST MEAN THE CASE PASSES OR NOT. SO I NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. IF I COULD DOUBLE BACK VERY SLIGHTLY NOT TO NOT TO INTERRUPT YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING, COUNCILMAN, BUT THERE'S SOME INFORMATION AS WELL ON THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE MINUTES I COULD RELAY THAT IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

THERE'S WHAT? THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. OH, I'M JUST TRYING TO LEARN THE MECHANICS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, IF IT'S JUST A SHORT LIKE, REMIND US WHAT THE IT IS. SO IT'S A SHORT BLURB AND IT'S LOCATED IN THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL, WHICH IS ON PAGE 12 OF THE MINUTES. BUT BASICALLY, THE PROPERTY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN OPERATED OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING. THIS APPLICANT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. AND I THINK THE QUOTE IS THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINING OR THEY'RE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING THE SITE IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS COMPLIANCE. SO THEY'VE THEY'VE BEEN MOVING TOWARDS GETTING THE PROPER PERMITS AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND ONE OF THOSE WAS COMING INTO ZONING COMPLIANCE. SO I KNOW THE PREVIOUS OWNER, YOU KNOW, WAS OPERATING WITHOUT PROPER ZONING. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY, HOW MANY YEARS OR OWNERS THAT GOES BACK. BUT THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THIS APPLICANT. YEAH. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I KIND OF WAS EXPECTING. I'M ACTUALLY I AM GOING TO, TO REGISTER A, A NO VOTE ACTUALLY ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK IT WE'RE PENALIZING A OWNER FOR TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND GET WITHIN COMPLIANCE ON, ON THE ZONING. SO I THINK I AM GOING TO REGISTER A NO VOTE ON THIS. I JUST THINK THAT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE RECORD, I, I WANT TO REGISTER A NO VOTE. EVEN THOUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED FOUR 4 TO 2, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN. MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? I'M SORRY, I CAN'T ACCESS THE QUEUE FLOOR. IS YOURS, COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND.

THANK YOU. SO. SO IT'S CURRENTLY OPERATING BUSINESS, SEEKING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. IF WE DO NOT APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE, BRINGING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. I WANTED TO ASK WHO CAN SPEAK TO THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT? SO IT'S NOT A CURRENTLY OPERATING BUSINESS. IT WAS A BUSINESS

[00:40:03]

COUNCILMAN HUDSON, I THINK YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION. DO I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY? THAT.

A CITATION WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? GET INTO COMPLIANCE. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS TRYING TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING NO. SO? SO, JULIA, I'LL LET YOU TAKE A FIRST STAB AT IT. I THINK I THINK THIS PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS. THE PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS THERE. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE RECORD WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A ENFORCEMENT ON THE PROPERTY. SO I THINK COUNCILMAN HUDSON, I THINK IT HAD BEEN OPERATED AS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT COMMERCIAL BUSINESS STOPPED, CEASED TO EXIST. A NEW A NEW OWNER BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WITH THE ANTICIPATION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CONTINUE OPERATING. A SIMILAR BUSINESS REALIZED IT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. AND AT THE AT THE MOST BASIC, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. AT THE MOST BASIC LEVEL, WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S TRYING TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE. AND WE'RE WE ARE BEING THE OBSTACLE. YES. AND I WILL JUST SAY, AS SOMEBODY WHO DOES REAL ESTATE IN MY OTHER JOB, I WOULD ALSO JUST SAY, AND THIS IS COUNTER A COUNTERPOINT TO WHAT I JUST SAID. IT'S WHY THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITHOUT GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT THE ZONING WAS, IS A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART. SO IT'S SO IT'S NOT ALL ON US. AND SO I JUST NOW THAT I'M WORKING MY WAY, THINKING MY WAY THROUGH IT, THAT THAT'S POTENTIALLY NOT ALL ON US. COUNCILWOMAN MARIE. WELL, I AM VERY MUCH OF TWO MINDS HERE. I'M INCLINED TO VOTE NO, TO NOT UPHOLD IT, BECAUSE I'VE DRIVEN DOWN NATIONAL TURNPIKE MANY TIMES, AND THERE'S MANY RESIDENCES THAT ARE NOW COMMERCIAL. AND I, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'VE DONE WHAT THEY'VE DONE. EVERYTHING AROUND THERE EXCEPT WHAT'S BEHIND THEM ON TOLLS. LANE IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL, SO I AM JUST GOT MY EYEBROWS ALL SQUINCHED UP GOING ALL THE TIMES THAT THEY'VE ENDORSED SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS A MISTAKE. AND HERE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE TO ME. AND THEY'RE TELLING ME NO. SO I'M OF TWO MINDS HERE. I HAVEN'T MADE UP MY MIND WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY YET. VOTE YET, BUT I'M CONFUSED.

COUNCILMAN HUDSON. YEAH, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH CONFUSION TO GO AROUND ON THIS ONE. CAN WE TABLE THIS? I MOVE TO TABLE, COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, CAN YOU SECOND THAT? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE. AND A SECOND. CAN I CHECK WITH TRAVIS ON TIMING HERE? SO THE 90 DAY DATE ON THIS ONE IS SEPTEMBER 23RD. I DON'T HAVE THE COUNCIL CALENDAR IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST TWO MORE MEETINGS. SO WE'VE GOT TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO LET'S SEE.

WE HAVE A MOTION BEFORE US. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? NO. COUNCILWOMAN, I THINK THAT WAS A NO, BUT I DON'T. IT WAS AN I. I OWE AN EYE. OKAY. SO THE AYES HAVE IT. THIS THIS THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION HAS BEEN HAS BEEN TABLED TO THE NEXT TO THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. THE NEXT PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF US IS 017025. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 7304 VAUGHN MILL ROAD AND 20 AND 7205 BRISCOE LANE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5.87

[2. O-170-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 7304 VAUGHN MILL ROAD AND 7205 BRISCOE LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5.87 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0131). Action Required By September 23, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THIS IS LOCATED AT VAUGHN MILL ROAD AND BRISCOE LANE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 23. THE EXISTING USE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PROPOSED USE OF ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING

[00:45:03]

VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER RAYMOND. YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR. OWEN, YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES.

OKAY. WITH UNANIMOUS VOTE, THIS WILL PASS ON TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. ITEM

[3. O-171-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4922 PRESTON HIGHWAY AND 1129 AND 1131 ROSE DRIVE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.52 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25ZONE0036). Action Required By September 23, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THE PROPOSED USE IS AUTO SALES. THERE'S ACCESS FROM BOTH PRESTON HIGHWAY AND ROSE DRIVE, WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION BEING PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS FROM PRESTON HIGHWAY AS WELL AS ROSE DRIVE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. THIS IS THE PROPERTY FROM ROSE DRIVE. THESE ARE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES NORTH ALONG PRESTON HIGHWAY AND THEN SOUTH ALONG PRESTON HIGHWAY, AND THEN THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET ON ROSE DRIVE FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON MARCH 12TH, 2025. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION HELD THEIR MEETING ON MAY 22ND, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 26TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C1 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA, THIS IS IN COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ DISTRICT. I'M SURE SHE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM FAMILIAR

[00:50:05]

OWEN, YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. AND IT WILL GO ON. OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. AGENDA. AGENDA IN THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

[4. O-172-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 113 N. WENZEL STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.04 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25ZONE0040). Action Required By September 23, 2025 **Council Member Ken Herndon (D-4) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

JULIA, THIS IS 25 ZONE 0040 ON WENZEL STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR AT 113 NORTH WENZEL STREET. THE EXISTING USE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PROPOSED USE OF COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R6 PROPOSED ZONING C2, BOTH IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM R6 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C2 COMMERCIAL. THERE WAS ALSO A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS.

THERE'S NO PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS TO REMAIN. THE APPLICANT WILL BE UTILIZING ON STREET PARKING FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT OR THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT LOOKS FROM WENZEL. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ACROSS NORTH WENZEL. THERE'S A SITE, ANOTHER SITE BEING REZONED THAT WAS BEING REZONED IN MAY. THE APPLICANT HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON MARCH 27TH, 2025. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THEIR MEETING ON MAY 22ND, 2025, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLDING THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 2625 WITH A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE CHANGE IN ZONING PASSING BY FROM R6 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA, THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN HERNDON'S DISTRICT, AND HE REACHED OUT TO MY OFFICE TO SAY THAT HE IS IN SUPPORT AND WOULD APPRECIATE OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS ORDINANCE. LET'S SEE. DO I HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN IN THE QUEUE? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE I HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. WITHOUT FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN UP A ROLL CALL? VOTE, PLEASE. VOTING IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RAYMOND. YES. THANK YOU. VOTING IS CLOSED. AND, CHAIR, YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. THIS WILL BE SENT TO THE TO OLD BUSINESS FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. WITH THE UNANIMOUS SEVEN VOTES. ITEM NUMBER 5010925. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT TO BINDING ELEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 905 DIXIE HIGHWAY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY APPROXIMATELY 2.19 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 20 5 A.M. ED0001. CAN I GET A MOTION

[5. O-109-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT TO BINDING ELEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11905 DIXIE HIGHWAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.19 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25AMEND0001). 7/22/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled 6/17/25 Planning and Zoning Committee  Held 6/3/25 Planning and Zoning Committee  Held Action Required By November 15, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

[00:55:04]

[6. O-139-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1.2, 2.2, 4.2 AND 4.3 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) REGARDING HOMELESS AND CRISIS SHELTERS (CASE NO. 24-LDC-0001). (AS AMENDED) 7/31/25 Metro Council  Recommitted [to Planning and Zoning Committee] 7/22/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Amended; Recommended for Approval 6/17/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Held Action Required By: December 12, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9), Shameka Parrish-Wright (D-3)]

BRIEFLY. SO THEY ARE ON PAGE. OH GOSH I HAVE A I HAVE A PRINTED DOCUMENT HERE, BUT NOT THE ONE THAT I NEEDED. BUT THEY ARE ON THE SPECIFICS OF TWO OF THE USES. SO NEAR THE END THE DAY SHELTERS IN SUBSECTION B. SO IT'S SECTION 4.3.3, TWO DAY SHELTERS. SUBSECTION B IS THE DISTANCING REQUIREMENT AND THE CURRENT VERSION. REQUIRES NO MORE THAN ONLY ONE WITHIN 1000FT, BUT ALLOWS FOR MORE IF THEY SERVE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. AND THE. THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO PUT A CAP ON THAT. SO YOU COULD HAVE ANOTHER UNIT WITH A DIFFERENT POPULATION, BUT NO MORE THAN TWO WITHIN 1000FT. AND THAT SAME SORT OF LANGUAGE IS USED IN THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT STRUCTURES THAT THAT NEXT SECTION. THERE'S ALSO A SMALL AMENDMENT TO THE EXAMPLE TO MAKE VERY CLEAR WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT. AND WE ADDED A CLARIFICATION THAT THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT LIMITATION IS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THAT'S JUST SORT OF MERIT THAT IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE, THE SPACING IS NOT AS MUCH OF A CONCERN. MY QUESTION. SORRY, MISTER CHAIR. SO TRAVIS, WE DID VOTE TO AMEND AMEND THE LEGISLATION TO THAT FORM THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED IN THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, DIDN'T WE? WE DID NOT KNOW WE DISCUSSED THOSE CHANGES. WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT. AND AGAIN, THAT DRAFT AMENDMENT SAID TO COUNCIL, BUT IT DIDN'T GET PASSED BECAUSE THEY GOT KICKED BACK. SO WE HAD SENT IT ON TO COUNCIL IN ORDER TO PASS THAT DRAFT AMENDMENT. BUT OKAY.

THAT'S GREAT. OKAY. COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU. SORRY, TRAVIS, WHEN YOU SAY PERMITTED ZONING IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS, DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY R-6 AND ABOVE? BECAUSE WHEN I MADE THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS, WE MADE SURE THAT WE HAD R5 AND R, R4 AND R5, A AND B, SO ACCESSORY OVERNIGHTS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER USES HERE. THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY ACCESSORIES TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND MANY OF THOSE DO OCCUR IN R4 AREAS.

SO THEY ARE A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE CHURCHES COULD OPEN UP THESE, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS AREN'T ALSO IN PLACE ON THAT. OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID. SO THEN IT IS STILL WISE TO KEEP 4.2.65 MARKED OUT WITH THAT BEING IN THERE. AND I APOLOGIZE. I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE

[01:00:03]

RIGHT WHEN YOU SAY SO, THE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL USE IS SORT OF A SEPARATE COUNCIL. WHEN YOU SAY MARKED OUT, YOU MEAN ELIMINATED. REMOVED, CORRECT? YES. RIGHT. SO THAT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE THAN WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY'S AMENDMENT WAS WHAT WAS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, AND IT SORT OF LIMITED IN SCOPE. THE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL USE IS A IS A BROADER CHANGE. WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT A WHOLE LOT YET. WE CAN AND IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT AS WELL. BUT PREVIOUSLY I WAS REFERRING TO, AGAIN, THE SORT OF DAY SHELTER AND ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCILWOMAN RUBY AND PARISH RIGHT, HAD DISCUSSED AT COMMITTEE LAST TIME. OKAY. MY MAIN QUESTION FOR ME IS IF WE MOVE THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY ARE TODAY, THE ONE THING THAT CONCERNS ME AGAIN IS SIMILAR TO WHAT I JUST MENTIONED, BUT IN 4.2.56, A HOMELESS SHELTER MAY BE ALLOWED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT. UPON GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I THINK THAT CONTRADICTS US REMOVING THE DEFINITION WHERE IT SCRATCHING OUR FIVE A AND B AND OUR FOUR.

SORRY, ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT 4.2.65? THAT IS STRUCK? WE ARE. WE'VE MOVED ON TO 4.2.56.56. THAT MUST BE HIGHER IN THE DRAFT I APOLOGIZE. RIGHT. SO THAT IS EXISTING LANGUAGE. SO THAT'S NOT ANY OF THE NEW USES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHAT ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND HOAS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? SO SIMILAR TO ANY OF THESE OTHER USES, OUR CODE DOESN'T EXPLICITLY OVERRULE ANY OF THOSE THINGS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER THEM BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT A PARTY. THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INTERPRET OR ENFORCE.

THEY'RE NOT A COURT. BUT IF THERE WERE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SAYS THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY HOMELESS SHELTERS WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT'S IN THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEN THEY COULD SEPARATELY ENFORCE THAT DATA RESTRICTION TO PREVENT THAT USE FROM MOVING FORWARD. CAN WE JUST ADD THE A PORTION IN THAT SPOT THAT SAYS A HOMELESS SHELTER MAY BE ALLOWED IN OUR SIX AND UP? SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T. THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND PROBABLY RENDER A NUMBER OF CURRENTLY EXISTING HOMELESS SHELTERS NON-CONFORMING, WHICH HAS SOME IMPLICATIONS. THAT WE MAY WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE SORT OF DOING IT AT THIS MOMENT, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO HOLD OFF FOR A MINUTE. LET'S LET COUNCILMAN REED JUMP IN HERE.

AND I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS HERE. SO, COUNCILMAN REED, CAN YOU JUMP IN? YEAH. SO THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. SO IN THE PRIOR MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, I RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT HOA'S AND ALSO. TAKING ONE OF THEIR BUILDINGS IN AN HOA AND TURNING IT INTO A HOMELESS SHELTER WITHOUT A DEED, WITHOUT A CUP. CLUBHOUSE. IT'S A TERM I'M LOOKING FOR. SO WHEN WE WENT BACK AND STARTED REALLY DIGGING INTO THIS, I, WE SAW THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. BY ELIMINATING 4.2.65, SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION UP TO R5. AND AS IT STATES NOW, YOU WOULD THOSE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WOULD NOT NEED A CUP, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY DO. SO I'M PROPOSING THAT THAT LANGUAGE REMAIN IN THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT COUNCILWOMAN RUBY IS, I THINK, VERY JUSTIFIABLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AS WELL. SO HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS? I MEAN, WOULD THAT BE TWO DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS, OR IS THIS HAS THIS ALREADY BEEN STRUCK? 4.2.65 PLEASE HELP. SO I THINK THE PROCEDURALLY I THINK THE EASIEST THING IS TO DEAL WITH COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ FIRST, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SORT OF DRAFTED ON THAT LEVEL. AND THEN TO.

[01:05:02]

[01:10:01]

COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILWOMAN, ARE YOU. YEAH, THAT WAS A SEGUE. I THINK THAT I NEEDED TO GET CLARIFICATION. OKAY. COUNCILMAN TRAVIS, IF WE THANK YOU, CHAIR, IF WE BRING 4.2.65 BACK IN AFTER WE LET'S SAY WE PASS THIS AMENDMENT, WE BRING IT BACK IN, AND THEN THAT ALLOWS BY RIGHT, FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS TO REALLY JUST GO ANYWHERE. SO 4.2.65 DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT HOMELESS SHELTERS BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE. EITHER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR WITH STANDARDS. SO THEY THEY HAVE A SEPARATE CLARIFICATION OF WHERE HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE PERMITTED. 4.2.665 DEALS WITH INSTITUTIONAL USES, WHICH COVER THINGS LIKE CHURCHES, MUSEUMS, SCHOOLS, ETC. AND SO IT'S REALLY A SEPARATE ISSUE. THERE IS SOME OVERLAP, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GET TO THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT STRUCTURES THAT ARE ONLY PERMITTED AS ACCESSORY TO A RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE. SO THERE'S SOME CONNECTION THERE. BUT HOMELESS SHELTERS AREN'T REALLY AFFECTED BY 4.2. 6 OR 5 SIX BEING INCLUDED OR NOT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S WORK. LET'S FIGURE IT OUT AFTER WE LOOK AT THE CLEAN VERSION OKAY. SO WITH AMENDMENTS IN FRONT OF US, CAN I GET A SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT SECOND OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. SO WE HAVE AN APPROVED AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US. SO RIGHT. SO WE HAVE AN APPROVED AMENDMENT. AND I THINK I'VE HEARD SORT OF TWO BIG PICTURE CONCEPTS. THE ONE IS REINSERTING THE INSTITUTIONAL USES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH AS I SAID I'LL HAVE SOME OTHER SOME OTHER IMPLICATIONS. BUT WE CAN GET THAT DRAFTED. I THINK THE SECOND OUTSTANDING QUESTION IS COUNCILMAN VACHON'S. PIECE ABOUT THE HOMELESS SHELTER CUP IN 4.2.56 AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD BE FURTHER LIMITED. IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE. HOMELESS SHELTERS WITH SPECIAL STANDARDS. RIGHT. SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. YOU JUST IF YOU MEET THE STANDARDS YOU GET, YOU CAN OPERATE THAT IS LIMITED TO R6 AND ABOVE. SO IN ORDER TO OPERATE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, YOU MUST SEEK A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOMELESS SHELTER. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT A LARGE PART OF THE REASON THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OPERATE WITH STANDARDS BELOW AN R6. WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER THOSE STANDARDS ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE SUFFICIENT TO BUFFER IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE LIMITED ALTOGETHER. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT THE SIP SITUATION TO R6 AS WELL, THERE MAY NOT BE A REAL REASON TO HAVE BOTH A CUP AND A WITH STANDARDS ROUTE. RIGHT, MISTER CHAIR? MAYOR CONGRATULA, IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THE WITH STANDARDS FROM IT, THEN WE CAN JUST STICK WITH R6 AND ABOVE THEN CORRECT. AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO REMOVE THE STANDARDS. SO I'M GOING TO I WOULD NEED TO DO A COMPARISON HERE AGAINST THE TWO VERSIONS BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME, THERE MAY BE SOME, FOR EXAMPLE A HEIGHT A SIZE LIMITATION MAYBE IN WITH BY RIGHT. MAYBE IT'S SO MANY BEDS. AND THEN WITH THE CUP YOU CAN DO MORE. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER DIFFERENTIATIONS JUST THAN WHERE THEY ARE PERMITTED. SO BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, I FEEL LIKE. SO I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. WE'RE DEALING WITH. WHITE FLAG DAYS, WHICH ARE BOTH HEAT BUT ALSO COLD. I THINK IN SOME SENSES WE'RE IN AUGUST AND WE DO HAVE SOME TIME, A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET THIS RIGHT BEFORE IT GETS COLD. WE RUN THE RISK OVER THE NEXT 3045 DAYS, I GUESS, OF HAVING HEAT EXPOSURE, BUT I THINK I WOULD RATHER GET THIS RIGHT THAN THAN RUSH IT. AND IT SEEMS LIKE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS WE NEED TO STILL DO A LITTLE BIT MORE DIGESTING OF WHERE WE ARE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TABLE IT AGAIN UNTIL THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING SO WE CAN DIGEST IT MORE. I JUST DON'T SEE THE OTHER THAN THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING A REALLY HOT SPELL WHERE WE HAD DIFFICULTIES WITH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE THE SENSE IN RUSHING SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH. COUNCILMAN, COUNCILMAN. THANK

[01:15:02]

AND I DO WANT TO REMIND, THOUGH, THAT WHERE THIS CAME FROM IN THE BEGINNING WAS TO MAKE THIS AN EASIER PROCESS FOR INSTITUTIONS, CHURCHES, OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE THIS AS PART OF THEIR MISSION TO ACCOMPLISH THIS MISSION. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THAT WE DO ACTUALLY MAKE IT A SIMPLER PROCESS RATHER THAN MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT. I AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE A MOTION TO TABLE. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE AYES HAVE IT. THIS WILL BE TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING. NEXT ITEM IN FRONT OF US IS ITEM 70-16825. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE

[7. O-168-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY BETWEEN WHEELER AVENUE AND CAYUGA STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.051 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0030). Action Required By January 31, 2026 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

CAN I GET A MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, ARE YOU PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THIS? YES. SO THIS IS 24TH STREET CLOSURE, 0030 WHEELER AVENUE AND CAYUGA STREET ALLEY CLOSURE.

THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 15 WITH WHEELER AVENUE AND CAYUGA STREET. THERE'S A IT'S AN UNNAMED ALLEY CLOSURE. THE REQUEST IS A CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 150 LINEAR FEET OF UNIMPROVED ALLEYWAY BETWEEN WHEELER AVENUE AND CAYUGA STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THEY WILL MAINTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND AGENCY.

ALL THE AGENCY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THIS IS THE AREA OF THE CLOSURE. AND THEN HERE'S AN AERIAL SHOWING THE CLOSURE. YOU CAN SEE. HOW IT'S UNIMPROVED ALONG THIS AREA. SO THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S PLOT. THIS IS WHAT THE ALLEY CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE. AND WHAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE. ADDITIONAL ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD THEIR MEETING ON APRIL 17TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 5TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CLOSURE, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA, I ACTUALLY HAVE NOT HEARD FROM COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL ON THIS. I THINK BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN AND BASED ON THE UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS OUT OF COMMITTEE. AND IF SHE HAS ANY PARTICULAR, I ASSUME IF SHE HAD PARTICULAR CONCERN ABOUT IT, SHE WOULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME AND SHE DIDN'T. SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION HERE. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS HERE BEFORE WE OPEN UP TO A ROLL CALL? VOTE. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN UP THE VOTE, PLEASE? VOTING IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER RAYMOND. YES. THANK YOU. VOTING IS CLOSING HERE. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. CHERYL. THIS WILL BE MOVED TO THE OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ON THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. ITEM EIGHT.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THAT'S BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. THE CHICKASAW NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN HER DISTRICT, SO WE'LL HOLD THAT ONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. AND THAT'S THE LAST. TO CONSENT. IT'S A PLEASURE. THANK YOU. YES, YES. THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE. ITEM SEVEN TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR, AND I'LL CHECK DIRECTLY WITH COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT SHE'S GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES? ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH BEFORE WE ADJOURN? WITH NO FURTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK

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

[01:20:07]