Aug 19, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee

[Call to Order]

[00:24:18]

METRO TV WILL GET STARTED IN ABOUT 30S.

[00:25:01]

[00:25:05]

[Roll Call]

[00:25:12]

[00:25:18]

[00:25:22]

ITEM NUMBER ONE, TWO, THREE AND EIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS IN COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL'S DISTRICT, AS IS. ITEM FIVE, AND SHE IS ON HER WAY. COUNCILMAN BATSHON HAS JOINED US. HE INDEED DID LAND VERY QUICKLY. FASHIONABLY LATE AS ALWAYS. SO I SO. SO WE WILL BE STARTING. WE'LL BE SKIPPING FOUR AND FIVE UNTIL COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL GETS HERE. SO SHE CAN SPEAK TO THOSE ITEMS IN HER

[6. O-193-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING AND FORM DISTRICT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2125 AND 2127 BASHFORD MANOR LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.5 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25ZONE0050). Action Required By October 15, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 29TH, 2025, AS WELL AS JULY 17TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING AND FOR THE CHANGE IN FORM DISTRICT PASSING BY VOTE TO VOTE. VOTE OF 9 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TEN, WHICH IS COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND? YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY THIS IS THAT SPOT WHEN YOU'RE TURNING INTO THE BASHFORD MANOR SHOPPING CENTER. IT'S BEEN EMPTY FOREVER. THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS. AND IT'S GOING TO SAVE US, YOU GUYS, FROM DRIVING A WHOLE NOTHER BLOCK TO GET OUR OIL CHANGED. SO LET'S JUST GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. SO, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ONE? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. SO WITHOUT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THIS ITEM REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. CHERYL, IF YOU'LL OPEN UP, THE ROLL VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCILMEMBER RAYMOND.

[00:30:01]

[7. 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). (AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION) 8/5/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Amended; Tabled 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)]

CAN I GET A MOTION? SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. SO THIS HAS COME IN FRONT OF US A COUPLE OF TIMES. COUNCILMAN BACHANI, ARE YOU IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO? I CAN, OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO JUST SAY THIS. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE SEEN THIS A FEW TIMES. THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE VERSIONS. THIS IS IF IN YOUR IN IN YOUR TABLET YOU'VE GOT THE NEWEST VERSION. I'M GOING TO LET TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY SPEAK ON THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO KIND OF CLEAR SOME THINGS UP WITH INSTITUTIONS AND CHURCHES AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. TRAVIS FEASTER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY YES, THE AMENDMENT IS ON THE SYSTEM. IT'S LABELED AS PROPOSED CABS, HYPHEN CAM. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFTER THE AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTION THAT WAS INTRODUCED AND PASSED LAST TIME. SO THIS CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, PRIMARILY COUNCILMAN REED'S REQUEST, DEALING WITH INSTITUTIONAL USES. THOSE ARE THINGS LIKE COLLEGES, LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, PLAYGROUNDS, RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS, THOSE SORTS OF USES. THERE'S A LONGER LIST SOMEWHERE, BUT THE SHORT VERSION IS THE PROPOSAL WAS TO REMOVE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR A CUP. THAT REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIP WAS ADDED, I THINK IN 2017, 2018. AND SO THE PROPOSAL WAS TO REVERSE THAT AND TO ALLOW THOSE USES IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS BY RIGHT. AND SO THIS LATEST AMENDMENT WOULD REVERSE THAT AND KEEP US AT SORT OF THE STATUS QUO OF WHAT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CURRENTLY REQUIRES WITH REGARD TO INSTITUTIONAL USES NEEDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. THAT REQUIRES A WHOLE LOT OF STRIKE THROUGH AND UNDERLINE. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR HOW MESSY THE DRAFT BECAME WITH JUST ONE AMENDMENT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO, AND I DON'T THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE YOU READ THE ENTIRE THING, BUT SO I UNDERSTAND. BASICALLY, WE'RE REVERSING WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, AND WE'RE LEAVING THE REQUIREMENT IN FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO GET A CUP PRIOR TO OPENING UP ONE OF THE SHELTERS OR. RIGHT. SO LET'S JUST TAKE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AS AN EXAMPLE. IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING CHURCH THAT CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE, IF THEY WERE TO EXPAND AND THEY'RE IN RR THROUGH OUR UN ZONING AND THEY DON'T HAVE AN EXISTING WELL, THEY HAVE AN EXISTING CFP OR NOT, THEY NEED TO COME IN AND SEEK A CFP AND IF SO, IF THEY WERE TO EXPAND TO CREATE ONE OF THESE SHELTER RELATED USES, THEN EITHER AN AMENDED CUP OR A NEW CUP WOULD BE NEEDED. SO ALONG THE LINES THAT I'VE RAISED THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE ABOUT THIS, OUR INTENT HERE WAS TO MAKE THINGS EASIER, NOT HARDER, OR TO MAKE THINGS EASIER, NOT REMAIN STATUS QUO. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT IF WE AGREE TO THIS AMENDMENT. I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT TOO MUCH ON THAT SPECIFICALLY. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THIS ORDINANCE WOULD STILL CREATE A NUMBER OF SHELTER TYPES THAT DID NOT EXIST PREVIOUSLY, AND SORT OF OUTLINE HOW THEY ARE CREATED. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE IT WOULD TAKE MORE PROCESS IF THE INSTITUTIONAL USE CUP REMAINS TO GET SOME OF THESE BUILT ON SOME PROPERTIES. I MEAN, PARTICULARLY WITH THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHO'S PRIMARILY GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS. AND I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE THROWING UP ANOTHER HURDLE WHERE IT'S UNNEEDED. AND I WISH COUNCILMAN REED WAS HERE TO KIND OF EXPLAIN HIS THOUGHT PROCESS. BUT I'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH TIME FOLLOWING KIND OF THE NEED OR THE EXPLANATION FOR WHY WE'RE DOING THIS AND CAN'T JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH IT THE WAY IT WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF I HAVE SPEAKERS IN THE QUEUE HERE.

[00:35:02]

[00:40:04]

MISTER CHAIR. YEAH. COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK I THINK WE SHOULD I LOOK FOR EVERYBODY'S SUPPORT ON THIS AND ALLOW COUNCILMAN REED TO EXPLAIN HIS PIECE WHEN IT COMES TO THE FULL COUNCIL. BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK WE'RE MOVING THIS FORWARD TO BETTER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THE HOMELESS SHELTERS AND DEVELOP AND GROW AND, AND STILL PROVIDE THESE HOUSELESS INDIVIDUALS A PLACE TO GO. AND I WOULD JUST SAY, I'M I'LL BE OPEN MINDED BETWEEN NOW AND, AND THE COUNCIL MEETING. BUT I THINK FOR TODAY I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT. JUST, I, JUST I TO ME, IT DOES SOMEWHAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PASS IT OUT OF COMMITTEE TO, FOR IT TO GO TO WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT WITH. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO DO, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE AMENDMENT. I WOULD PREFER TO, TO, TO, TO VOTE ON IT AS, AS IT IS. AND THEN IF COUNCILMAN REED WANTS TO, TO, TO DO A FLOOR AMENDMENT ON THURSDAY, THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. YEAH. SO THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THEY SENT IT BACK TO COMMITTEE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE. RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT YOU HAVE THAT'S KIND OF YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO WITH THAT SAID AND THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. AND IF IT AND WHATEVER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE IS CAN BE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE. AND THEN WE'LL FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL AND SEE AND SEE WHERE WE ARE. DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE THE AMENDMENT IN? MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTION AMENDMENT. AND WITH BEFORE SONIA, IS IT OKAY IF I SPEAK? BUT BEFORE THAT, WE BROUGHT IT BACK TO COMMITTEE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THESE CHANGES FOR THE BETTER OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE. SO I UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE GOING TO STILL BE A NO VOTE. BUT WE ALL AGREED, YOU KNOW, THROUGH, THROUGH THE COUNCIL, THAT WE WERE SENDING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE TO ALLOW TRAVIS TO TIME THAT HE NEEDED TO FIX THE THINGS THAT WE HAD MISSED. WELL, AND SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, I THINK WE SENT IT BACK TO COMMITTEE TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION. AND BASED ON THAT FURTHER CONVERSATION, I'LL BE A NO VOTE AND WE'LL SEND IT TO COUNCIL AND SEE WHERE WE ARE. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. SO THE WE HAVE. AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US. DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND OR I MADE THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

SO IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. SO THAT REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. IS THAT CORRECT. IT'S KIND OF I DON'T LIKE A VOICE VOTE WITH THIS FEW PEOPLE. LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER RAYMOND. PRESENT. I WILL BE PRESENT ON AMENDMENT RIGHT. RIGHT. VOTE IS CLOSING.

CHAIR. YOU HAVE TWO NO'S, ONE PRESENT AND THREE. YES. OKAY. SO THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS FOR FURTHER CONVERSATION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WITH A THREE 2 TO 1 RECOMMENDATION. PARDON? ONE. TWO. NO. OH THAT WAS JUST THE AMENDMENT. CORRECT. SO NOW WE'VE GOT TO VOTE ON THE FULL ITEM. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO ANY ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION ON THE FULL ORDINANCE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'LL OPEN THE ROLL CALL. VOTE FOR OH WHO DO WE HAVE COUNCILMAN. JUST JUST LOOK FOR EVERYBODY'S SUPPORT ON THIS. I THINK WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR OUR HOUSELESS FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE A PLACE THAT THEY CAN STAY. THEY CAN THEY CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF IN THE PROPER FASHION BASED ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO I LOOK FORWARD FOR EVERYBODY'S SUPPORT ON THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. OR THIS THIS CHANGES TO THE LDC AND I'LL JUST FOLLOW THAT UP WITH I WILL VOTE. I WILL BE VOTING YES. ON THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT. AND THEN I'LL BE OPEN TO DISCUSSION. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF EXPLAIN MY VOTE HERE. I'LL BE OPEN TO

[00:45:07]

OKAY. THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL HAS JOINED US IN CHAMBERS. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS O-18925, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1325

[4. O-189-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1325 TEXAS AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1387 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0133). Action Required By October 15, 2025 **Council Member Jennifer Chappell (D-15) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRING US UP TO SPEED OR ACTUALLY, MAYBE JULIA, DO YOU WANT TO. BECAUSE THIS WAS SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHY DON'T WHY DON'T YOU KIND OF BRING US UP TO SPEED? JULIA. AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL CAN CAN WEIGH IN AFTER THAT. THANK YOU.

SURE. THIS IS 24 ZONE 0133 TEXAS DELI AND RESTAURANT. THIS IS AT 1325 TEXAS AVENUE. COUNCIL DISTRICT 15. THE EXISTING USE IS OFFICE. RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED USE. COMMERCIAL. EXISTING ZONING OR ONE IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL. RESIDENTIAL CR IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R1 TO CR. THERE WAS ALSO A WAIVER AND A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THIS CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY REZONED UNDER 22. ZONE 132. THE SITE CONSISTS OF ONE PARCEL WITH A MIXED USE STRUCTURE AND A DETACHED GARAGE. THE DETACHED GARAGE WILL BE CONVERTED INTO A RESTAURANT. THE MAIN STRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE USED AS A RESTAURANT AND A DELI WITH OUTDOOR SEATING. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEW FROM TEXAS AVENUE AND THESE ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASH AND TEXAS. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2020 FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. TRANSPORTATION HELD THEIR MEETING ON MARCH 13TH, 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 24TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R1 TO C1, PASSING BY A VOTE TO 7 TO 0.

METRO COUNCIL REMANDED THE PROPOSAL BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE CR, THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 17TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R1 TO CR, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 6 TO 2 TO 1. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S THAT BRINGS US UP TO DATE ON WHERE WE ARE. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. CHAIR. SO IF YOU REMEMBER THIS CASE, THIS HAPPENED BEFORE COUNCIL ON JUNE 26TH, WHICH WAS BUDGET EVENING. AND I REMEMBER SITTING HERE AND COUNCILMAN WINKLER SAID, WE'VE SPENT MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS REZONING CASE THAN WE HAVE THE ACTUAL $1.2 BILLION BUDGET.

SO I HOPE THAT THIS PRESENTATION IS KIND OF SPARKED SOME THINGS IN YOUR HEAD. AND AT THE TIME, I, I PERSONALLY FELT LIKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF A C1 ZONING FROM OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY WERE BOTH INCORRECT. AND I WAS PUSHING FOR THIS, BOTH IN THIS COMMITTEE AND AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF A CR. SO SOMETHING THAT WAS LESSER AND MORE FITTING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I REALLY WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO VOTED WITH ME TO SEND THAT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE WITHOUT YOU, WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW. I'M REALLY EXCITED TODAY TO COME BEFORE YOU AND LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS DOES HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO REZONING THIS PROPERTY TO SEE.

[00:50:05]

AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY VOTE NO TODAY, GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THAT ONE PLEA. MAYBE I'LL SEND YOU A TIME STAMPED VIDEO OF IT. BUT ALSO, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS IN THE RECORD TODAY THERE WERE OVER AND I HAVE THEM PRINTED OUT HERE, 150 LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT WERE GIVEN TO THIS CASE.

AND THESE ARE FROM PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SEE THIS. AND OF COURSE, SOME OF THEM MAY NOT LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT THEY'RE ALSO COMPELLING MEMBERS OF LOUISVILLE AS A WHOLE. BUT AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF THEM ARE FROM THE AREA AND WOULD BE PATRONIZING THIS BUSINESS. AND SO I THINK THAT THAT'S ALSO A TESTAMENT TO THIS REZONING. AND THEN ALSO, THIS WAS NEVER A BAR. AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS DEMONSTRATED THE FIRST TIME WITH THE BINDING ELEMENT REQUIRING THIS TO BE CLOSED AT 11 P.M. THAT HAS BEEN REVISED SINCE. AND NOW IT'S 10 P.M. SO I DON'T KNOW WHO'S REALLY TURNING UP AT THAT 9 P.M. HOUR, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'LL BE HERE EITHER. AND SO I'M JUST ASKING THIS COMMITTEE TODAY TO LISTEN TO ME BEYOND MY TITLE AS A COUNCILWOMAN. AND PLEASE REZONE THIS CASE BECAUSE I'M ASKING YOU AS A NEIGHBOR IF YOU I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING ON THERE, IF YOU ZOOM IN, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE MY CAR IN ONE OF THOSE GOOGLE SNAPSHOTS THAT YOU HAD UP THERE. JULIA. SO PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS AND THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS ATTENDED MORE SPARSELY THAN THE SECOND ONE AND WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY ATTENDED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT IN FAVOR. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE SUPPORT THAT SHOWED UP AT THE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN AT THE SECOND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT THAT DYNAMIC CHANGED SOME. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT? ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT KIND OF SHOWS A FLAW IN OUR PLANNING PROCESS. ONE FOLD IS JUST BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE A CONTENTIOUS REZONING, AND SO THEY DIDN'T REALLY NEED TO, YOU KNOW, BEEF UP THEIR LINE OF DEFENSE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, BUT ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S MADE CLEAR THAT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. AND I THINK IT KIND OF BRINGS TO LIGHT ANOTHER KIND OF POINT IN IF THIS COMES OUT OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE IT CHECKS BOXES X, Y, AND Z, RIGHT? THESE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN DECISIONS. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. YES. THIS IS ON PUBLIC TRANSIT. YES.

THIS MATCHES UP WITH 2040. YES. THIS IS IN A DENSE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES. THIS IS A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES YES YES YES YES. IT'S NOT LIKE I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT THEIR FOOD'S GOING TO BE TERRIBLE. RIGHT. SO HOW DOES IT CHECK ALL OF THOSE BOXES, GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THEY OVERTURN THAT. AND THEN THIS BODY THEN HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY THAT. AND I MEAN, I COULD GET IN THE WEEDS OF SPEAKING TO SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT MIGHT NEED TO

[00:55:01]

COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. SURE. I WANTED TO ADDRESS TWO THINGS. ONE OF THEM IS THE PARKING ISSUE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SO MUCH OF AN ISSUE. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A RESTAURANT, AND THINK THAT. WE'RE ALMOST IN A SENSE SAYING LIKE, I HOPE THAT THEY DON'T GET BUSINESS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE PARKING. INSTEAD, WE SHOULD BE SAYING, WE REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO BE COMING TO THIS BUSINESS AND SUPPORTING IT. AND I LIVE IN A VERY WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU CATCH MY CAR PARKED OUTSIDE OF THIS PLACE, THEN LIKE, SHAME ME BECAUSE I WALKED. I DIDN'T

[01:00:04]

AND THEN SOUND ALSO CAME UP AND LIKE NOT TO OPEN THIS BAG OF WORMS. BUT WHEN MY CLOTHES DRYER GOES OFF, MY NEIGHBOR KNOWS THAT MY LAUNDRY IS DONE. I LIVE IN SHOTGUN, AND IF I OPEN UP A WINDOW, I CAN LITERALLY TOUCH THE SIDING OF MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU FART AND THEY CAN HEAR IT. SO THIS IDEA THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY BUSINESS THAT WOULD BE IN THIS BUILDING AND WOULD BE. UNABLE TO PRODUCE A SOUND THAT WOULD GO NEXT DOOR IS KIND OF RIDICULOUS. BUT I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO. WHY CAN'T WE JUST EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS? AND I THINK THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL? VOTE? OKAY.

CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN UP THE ROLL VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CHAPPELL. YES. VOTING'S CLOSING CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. THIS IS WILL BE UNANIMOUSLY PASSED ON TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU. NUMBER

[5. O-192-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 513 AND 513R ATWOOD STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1376 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25ZONE0018). Action Required By October 15, 2025 **Council Member Jennifer Chappell (D-15) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THERE WAS ALSO A WAIVER AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THE SITE IS ROUGHLY 0.13 ACRES. THERE'S AN EXISTING ONE AND A HALF STORY RESIDENCE TO BE CONVERTED INTO A HEALTH SPA. THERE'S A TWO STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE SPA ACTIVITIES, AND THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE SECOND FLOOR, WHICH ISO REMAIN. THERE'S A 68 SQUARE FOOT SAUNA AND 308 SQUARE FOOT PAVILION IN THE REAR YARD. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FM ATWOOD, THE SUBJECT PROPTY FROM THELLEY AND TIS WESF SU PPE CNE TWANRITTENDENRIVE D THEN EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON JANUARY 23RD, 2025. LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS HELD ON APRIL 17TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 29TH, 2025, AS WELL AS JULY 17TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R6 AND R6 TO C1, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS IN DISTRICT 15. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? THERE WERE THERE WERE NO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION TO THIS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. I SUPPORT THIS.

[01:05:05]

YEAH. SO I MEAN, I'LL I'LL CONFIRM YOUR HESITANCY. I, I THINK IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THE LAST CASE GOT THE SCRUTINY THAT IT DID. AND THIS ONE, SEVEN ZERO DIDN'T AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. THIS IS SAINT JOSEPH. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. THIS IS IN SAINT JOSEPH. THIS IS LIKE, HONESTLY FIVE MINUTES AWAY FROM THAT LAST PLACE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. SO MAYBE THEY JUST DON'T KNOW THEIR AREAS. AND I KNOW IT IS. IT IS A LITTLE BIT ODD THAT IT THAT THIS ONE TRAVELED A VERY DIFFERENT PATH. YEAH. BUT I MEAN SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OF LO IT OR WHOSE PARKING LOT IS THAT? THAT IS NOT THEIR PARKING LOT. I BELIEVE. I. I'M NOT SURE WHO OWNS THAT PARKING LOT. I DON'T RECALL WHO OWNS THAT PARKING LOT, BUT THEY THE USER OF THIS STRUCTURE DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD BE USING THAT PARKING LOT. OKAY, SO WHEN THEY CALL THEMSELVES A SPA AND THEY HAVE A PAVILION OUT BACK, ARE THEY GOING TO BE HOSTING EVENTS OR SOMETHING? OR IS THIS JUST INDIVIDUAL 1 OR 2 PEOPLE'S SPA DAY? HOW IS THIS EXPECTED TO OPERATE? I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WENT INTO THAT MUCH DETAIL ON THE OPERATION OF WHAT WOULD BE OCCURRING IN THE PAVILION. IT IS NOT ZONED FOR EVENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. JULIA, IS THERE A PARKING REQUIREMENT HERE? NO, NO PARKING REQUIREMENT HERE EITHER. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. I BELIEVE I KNOW THE APPLICANT. I'M TRYING TO LOOK IT UP RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY ARE ALSO THE PROPRIETORS OF JUBILEE FIELD, WHICH IS OPENING IN. REALLY NEARBY ON MERRIWEATHER AVENUE. AND IT'S AN EVENT SPACE, AND IT HAS AN ART GALLERY, AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE A FOOD TRUCK PARK. AND THEY ALSO OWN THE CHURCH THAT'S THERE, AND THEY LEASE THAT OUT TO THE BARD. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET FOLKS KNOW THAT THIS WAS FORMERLY THEIR HOME, AND NOW THEY'RE CONVERTING IT INTO A SPA. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO LIVE, BUT THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS. AND THEN THEY DO HAVE THE PROPERTY AT JUBILEE FIELD. SO AGAIN, IF I'M GOING TO CRITICIZE THIS ONE, I WILL ALSO ADVOCATE AND THAT THESE ARE NEIGHBORS MAKING A SAFE AND WELCOMING PLACE. I I'M HOPING IN THE NEIGHBOR THEY'RE BEING GOOD COMMUNITY. PERHAPS INVESTORS, PERHAPS THEY'RE LIVING IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF

[01:10:06]

PROPOSED USE IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R4 AND R7 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE SUBURBAN WORKPLACE FORM DISTRICT. THE REQUEST IS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENTS REGARDING TREE CANOPY. THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENT STATES TREE CANOPY CREDIT AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED IN ANY MANNER. THE PROPOSED BINDING ELEMENT WAS OR IS TREE CANOPY CREDIT AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED IN ANY MANNER EXCEPT FOR, AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CASE NUMBER 25 0046.

THIS IS THE APPLICANT SITE PLAN. THIS WAS AN AREA WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO ENCROACH INTO TREE PRESERVATION, AND THEY WERE MAKING UP FOR THAT AREA HERE IN THIS RED AREA. IF YOU COULD SEE, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN TELL IT'S RED, BUT THE HATCHED AREA. YES. SO REMOVING TREES FROM THIS AREA IN EXCHANGE FOR TREES IN THIS AREA, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE NORTH PARCEL, SOUTH PARCEL PROPERTIES TO THE RIGHT OF THE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTIES TO THE LEFT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STREET. PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 17TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENT PASSING BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. ANY QUESTIONS? FIRST, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I SOMEHOW READ LESS LANE AND IT'S LEES LANE. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT IT AND WAS WONDERING WHAT I SAW. BUT THIS IS 3714 LEES LANE. WHAT WAS WAS THERE A REASON GIVEN FOR NEEDING TO MOVE THE TREES FROM THE ORIGINAL LOCATION, VISIBILITY, OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES? THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CUL DE SAC? I CAN GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO THEY WOULD NEED TO GRADE AND DRAIN AROUND THAT CUL DE SAC. THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED THAT THIS KIND OF LINEAR PROPERTY TO THE NORTH TO DEVELOP SUBDIVISION, AND WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE CUL DE SAC, IT WAS GOING TO ENCROACH INTO THAT TREE PRESERVATION AREA OR TREE CANOPY CONSERVATION AREA. DON'T SEE ANY SPEAKERS IN THE QUEUE. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? ARE YOU GOING TO QUEUE? OH, COUNCIL.

COUNCIL. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS OH, THIS ISN'T THIS IS IN DISTRICT ONE. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS HAS JOINED US VIRTUALLY. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN NOW. YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I'VE BEEN ON HER FOR A WHILE. YOU PROBABLY JUST DIDN'T SEE ME. YOU'VE BEEN KIND OF BUSY, SO THE DEVELOPMENT. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THE. I SPOKE WITH THE DEVELOPERS ABOUT THIS SOME TIME AGO, AND THE, THE HOUSING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THE

[01:15:07]

THEY'RE NOT SURE ON THAT. SO I DO WANT TO COMMEND THEM AND SAY THANK YOU JUST FOR GIVING US SOME HOUSES AND GIVING US SOME HOMEOWNERSHIP. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY REALLY APPRECIATED. THE ONLY CONCERNS REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT MY CONSTITUENTS DID HAVE IS THE TRAFFIC. THE TRAFFIC ON LEE'S LANE DUE TO THE ONE SIDEWALK ON LEE'S LANE AND THE CURRENT CAR RIDERS. I KNOW QUITE OFTEN WE NEVER LOOK AT THE BEFORE DEVELOPMENT. WE YOU KNOW, WE'RE SO CAUGHT UP WITH LOOKING AT THE LENS OF WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IT IS, WE LOSE SIGHT OF THE TRAFFIC AND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE DON'T THINK ABOUT THAT UNTIL AFTER THE FACT. I KNOW MOST PEOPLE DON'T. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHAT MEASURES ARE BEING TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LIKE 300 AND SOME APARTMENTS ALREADY THAT'S GOING TO BE LIKE RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDE LANE. AND THEN I THINK ANOTHER 300 MORE. SO THAT'S 600 RIGHT THERE, THE 63 APARTMENTS, I MEAN THE 63 HOUSES ON THE RIGHT SIDE. WAS THERE A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE. THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS. AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. SO IF I COULD GET THAT ANSWERED. SO THIS WAS. A PART OF A PRIOR CASE.

WHAT YOU'RE HEARING TODAY IS JUST REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENT. SO THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE ORIGINALLY WITH THE CHANGE IN ZONING THAT OCCURRED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE. AND THOSE TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS WILL STILL BE ADHERED TO. THERE WASN'T A NEW TRAFFIC STUDY DONE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE NORTH PROPERTY AND THE SUBDIVISION. OKAY, SO IT WAS ONLY ONE DONE FOR THE OTHER SIDE AND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT DID THAT INDICATE? WHAT DID THE ONES THAT INDICATE IF, IF YOU COULD SPEAK THAT TO THE RECORD. SO I DON'T HAVE THAT FILE IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE THAT WAS A CHANGE IN ZONING THAT WAS APPROVED A COUPLE YEARS AGO. AND BECAUSE THIS CASE ONLY INVOLVED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE SUBDIVISION AND YOUR METRO COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENT. SO I COULD GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. IT IS IT'S LOCATED IN THE EXISTING CASE FILE FOR THE ORIGINAL CHANGE IN ZONING. OKAY. SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS YEAH, PLEASE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT.

BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE A DYNAMIC CHANGE FOR THAT AREA. HAS ANYONE SPOKEN TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL FARNSLEY YOU KNOW, REGARDING CAPACITY AND WHAT THESE 63 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COULD MEAN INCREASE FOR STUDENTS FOR THE NEXT SCHOOL YEAR? AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE IT WAS MENTIONED TO MY OFFICE WHEN THE APARTMENTS WAS BEING DONE ON THE OTHER SIDE, THAT FARNSLEY HAD TO TAKE THE STUDENTS THAT LIVED IN CERTAIN PROXIMITY TO THE SCHOOL, WITH IT BEING THEIR RESIDE SCHOOL. OR IF THEY TALK TO THE SCHOOL BECAUSE I, I, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE PRINCIPAL OF FARNSLEY HAVE THEY TALKED TO ANYBODY AND THEY DON'T KNOW THESE THINGS UNTIL LIKE AFTER THE FACT. SO THAT THAT'S THAT'S A LITTLE CONCERNING FOR ME AS WELL. SO JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS RECEIVES A COPY OF THE PLAN EVERY TIME WE GET A PROPOSAL IN. THEY DON'T EVER COMMENT ON THOSE PLANS. SO WE DON'T EVER HEAR FROM THEM. ALSO, WHETHER OR NOT A SCHOOL HAS CAPACITY IS NOT PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW. SO WE JUST WE RELY ON JCPS TO NOTIFY US IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY ISSUES WHICH THEY HAVE NOT. AND WHEN DID YOU SAY WAS THE LAST TIME THAT THE NOT THE NOT THE SAD THAT THE NEW UNITS ARE GOING ON, BUT THE SAD WERE THE APARTMENTS ARE. WHEN DID YOU SAY THE LAST TRAFFIC STUDY WAS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THAT

[01:20:04]

ALRIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. THANK YOU. I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE X AMOUNT OF UNITS IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT WORK. AND I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS, NOR DO I CARE WHAT THEY ARE. BUT PREFACING MY QUESTION WITH THAT INFORMATION, BECAUSE I'M JUST WONDERING, WITH THIS ENCROACHMENT, IT'S SUCH A LINEAR STREET. IS THERE ANY TIME THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD SAY, JUST SHAVE OFF TWO OF THE UNITS AT THE END, AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO ENCROACH? IS ARE WE BEING TOO GREEDY? I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, WHO SAYS THAT AND WHEN? LIKE I'M LIKE, WHAT'S WRONG WITH LOSING TWO HOUSES? DOES THAT MAKE THE ENTIRE PROJECT GO UNDER? WHAT'S THE REASON TO ENCROACH? I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AN APPROVAL OR DENIAL, BUT IT'S NOT, HEY, WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS? ONE UNIT COULD MAKE IT SHORTEN FIVE FEET AND THAT MIGHT BRING IT IN THE AREA, BUT THEY'RE THEY COULD HAVE NEGOTIATED THAT AT PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE THAT CONCERN. DO THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN DO THAT? I WOULD SAY YES BECAUSE THEY'VE NEGOTIATED OTHER THINGS LIKE SIDEWALKS, NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT, BUT ON OTHER PROPERTIES. AND I'LL JUMP IN. THEY ALSO IN THIS ONE BECAUSE THE ROAD IS SO LONG. AND THIS ONE, THEY THEY AGREED TO IT BEING THAT LONG AND STRAIGHT WITH THE ADDITION OF SPEED HUMPS, BUMPS PUT ON IT. AND IN THIS CASE THE TREES ALL EXIST. AND SO IT'S JUST ON PAPER, THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA BOUNDARY LINE WILL MOVE. SO ALL THE TREES ARE THERE RIGHT NOW. AND SO IT'S THE SAME NUMBER OF TREES. IT'S JUST THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE TREE AREA IS. THAT CHANGED. COUNCILWOMAN MARY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. SO WE'VE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF LAND HERE THAT IS NOT BUILDABLE. WHAT WILL THE STATE OF THAT LAND BE? IS IT GREENSPACE? IS IT FORESTED SWAMP? WHAT IS IT? A LOT OF IT IS WETLAND. SO YOU CAN SEE. WELL, I'VE GOT AT LEAST IN FRONT OF ME. I HAVE THE SITE PLAN SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN THERE'S SOME HATCHED AREA THAT'S EXISTING FLOODPLAIN. THERE'S A TRIBUTARY THAT GOES THROUGH THE SITE. THERE'S A LOT OF IT IS JUST FLOODPLAIN. AND THIS AREA JUST HAS A LOT OF WETLANDS. SO IT WOULD MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING TO DEVELOP THAT KIND OF SOUTH PART OF THE SITE. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND AS I WAS NOTING, THE COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, I BELIEVE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, THERE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE HEARD WHEN WE GOT ON THIS COMMITTEE BACK AT THE BEGINNING. AND YEAH, WE'RE BUILDING ON A SWAMP. SO YEAH, THE THIS IS A LARGE LOT OF AREA. YEAH. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT OTHER AREA IS IT GOING TO BE IS IT GOING TO BE KNOCK ALL THE TREES DOWN AND MAKE IT GRASS.

AND THEN WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS MAINTENANCE ON IT. WHO OWNS IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO THE OWNER IS GOING TO BE. THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT PROPERTY. SO TRACK TWO, WHICH IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THERE'S MULTIFAMILY LOCATED. SO. THERE I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL OFF THIS PIECE OR IF THEY'RE GOING

[01:25:09]

WE'LL SEND IT TO CONSENT ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 1001 9125. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED WITHIN THE PARCEL AT 1000 EAST MAIN STREET, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2000FTS AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO.

CASE NUMBER 25. STREET CLOSURE 0006. CAN I GET A MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED.

JULIA. YES, THIS IS 25TH STREET CLOSURE 0006 FOR AN UNNAMED ALLEY CLOSURE. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. IT'S FOR CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CLOSE ABOUT 2000FT■!S OF UNIMPROVED, UNNAMED ALLEY, FULLY WITHIN THE PARCEL AT 1000 EAST MAIN STREET. IT'S A FORMAL, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PLUMBER SUPPLY LOT. THE PROPOSED STREET CLOSURE IS IN THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE CLOSURE IS REQUESTED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL. SO THIS IS THE. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE OUTLINED IN RED IS WHERE THAT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS LOCATED. AND YOU CAN SEE THE SITE IS ZONED M-2. AND AGAIN HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS WHERE THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS LOCATED. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S PLAT FOR THE CLOSURE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINING THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THAT ALLEY. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HELD A MEETING ON JULY 10TH, 2025. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC MEETING OR PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 17TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT CLOSURE, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA. COUNCILMAN HERNDON REACHED OUT AND SAID HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS AT ALL. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS? COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, I'M SURE YOU ALL MISS ME ON PAZZI BECAUSE YOUR MEETINGS PROBABLY GO A LOT QUICKER WITHOUT ME. I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW DID A BUILDING GET BUILT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY JUST DID AND NOBODY CARED. BUT WHAT? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? I CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO HOW THAT HAPPENED. THIS PORTION OF THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING IS A LOT, I WANT TO SAY, A LOT NEWER THAN WHAT YOU SEE ON THE FACADE OF LIKE THE BUILDING THAT SITS ON EAST MAIN STREET. SO I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY GOT PERMITTED PROPERLY. AND BECAUSE THIS SITE HAS ALWAYS BEEN OR NOT ALWAYS, BUT HAS BEEN OWNED BY PLUMBERS SUPPLY, THAT IT WAS OKAY BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WAS USING THIS ALLEY OTHER THAN PLUMBERS SUPPLY. THAT'S ONLY MY ASSUMPTION FOR THIS AS WE SEE THIS SOMETIMES IN THESE URBAN AREAS WHERE YOU'VE GOT LEFTOVER RIGHT OF WAY.

RIGHT. I JUST REMEMBER SILLY LITTLE THINGS LIKE THIS COMING UP, AND IT'S JUST LIKE, I WISH THAT OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD MORE CAPACITY TO GO THROUGH AND SAY, WHERE ARE THESE KIND OF

[01:30:02]

HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. JUST. DID I SKIP IT? I'M SORRY. OKAY, SO THIS IS SORRY. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 12. WE SKIPPED ITEM NUMBER 11. WE'LL GO BACK TO THAT SHORTLY. CONTINUE. THE FLOOR IS YOURS OKAY. AS I SAID, 25 LDC 0005 RELATED TO FACTORY BUILT HOUSING THAT CAME OUT OF STATE LEGISLATION CHANGES. SO THIS IS A REQUEST. THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO UPDATED STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THE KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES. THIS WAS BROUGHT ON BY A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION THAT WAS RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE, SERIES 2025, THAT WAS APPROVED ON MAY 8TH TO REVIEW CHANGES THAT HAD BEEN MADE AT THE STATE LEVEL DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN THE SPRING, STAFF DETERMINED THAT MINOR AMENDMENTS WERE NEEDED TO ADDRESS MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND OTHER PLANNING RELATED CHANGES TO CRS DID NOT REQUIRE ACTION AT THIS TIME. THIS WAS HEARD AT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON JULY 15TH, SO HOUSE BILL 160 FROM THE MOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AMENDED CRS 100.348. THAT IS, COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES. THEY UPDATED THE DEFINITION FOR QUALIFIED MANUFACTURED HOME AND THE AUTHORITY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE. SO HERE'S THE UPDATED DEFINITION IN CRS 100.

FOR A QUALIFIED MANUFACTURED HOME. THIS IS A MANUFACTURED HOME THAT IS MANUFACTURED ON A DATE NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF INSTALLATION. IT IS AFFIXED TO A PERMANENT FOUNDATION. IT HAS A WIDTH OF AT LEAST 20FT AT ITS SMALLEST WIDTH MEASUREMENT, OR IS TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, AND IT'S ORIENTED ON THE LOT SO THAT ITS MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR FACES THE STREET, AND IT HAS A MINIMUM TOTAL LIVING AREA OF 900FT■!S. E UNDERLINED BULLET POINT ON THE FIRST ONE THERE IS THE PRIMARY CHANGE THAT WAS MADE TO THE DEFINITION. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THE DEFINITION BEING UPDATED, AS I SAID, THE AUTHORITY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE WAS ALSO UPDATED. SO BEGINNING JULY 1ST, 2026, QUALIFIED MANUFACTURED HOMES MUST BE REGULATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS SITE BUILT HOMES. SO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT EXCLUDE THESE HOMES FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHERE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE PERMITTED. CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST QUALIFIED MANUFACTURED HOMES. CANNOT IMPOSE FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH CRS OR HUD STANDARDS. AND FINALLY, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT APPLY ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT EQUIVALENTLY APPLIED TO OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. SO THE LAST POINT AGAIN IS UNDERLINED THERE BECAUSE THAT WAS THE IMPORTANT CHANGE THAT WAS MADE. THESE ARE OUR EXISTING FACTORY BUILT HOUSING FACTORY BUILT HOME REGULATIONS. IT'S THEY'RE LOCATED IN LDC 4.1.2. THERE'S THE DEFINITION AT THE TOP HERE. AND THEN THESE ARE OUR ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO FACTORY BUILT HOMES. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO EXEMPT QUALIFIED MANUFACTURED HOMES FROM THE REGULATIONS IN 4.1.2 AND ONLY REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ZONING AND FORM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. WHILE WE WERE REVIEWING THIS, WE DISCOVERED SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE FACTORY BUILT HOME REGULATIONS. WHEN WE DID THE UPDATE THAT CAME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN 2024, WE DID NOT TAKE A REVIEW OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK REGULATIONS, AND SOME RECENT CASES HAVE BROUGHT TO

[01:35:04]

AND SO THE INSPECTION DEPENDS ON WHAT TYPE IT IS. BUT IF IT IS A MANUFACTURED HOME THAT'S BUILT TO THE FEDERAL HUD. HUD CODE, AS THEY CALL IT, THOSE ARE INSPECTED. HUD GIVES THE INSPECTION AUTHORITY FOR THOSE STRUCTURES TO A THIRD PARTY. AND IN THIS CASE THE THIRD PARTY IS THE STATE. SO KENTUCKY INSPECTS THOSE AT THE FACTORY AND KENTUCKY DPC INSPECTS THOSE ON SITE WHEN THEY'RE PLACED FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES, FOR MODULAR HOMES. THEY'RE ALSO INSPECTED IN THE FACTORY BY KENTUCKY DPC. BUT THEN WHEN THEY'RE PLACED, THE FOUNDATION PERMIT AND THE FINAL INSPECTION IS DONE BY OUR LOCAL CODES AND REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT. SO THAT IS HOW IT'S LAID OUT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROCESS AND IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT PROCESS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING OFFICE OF PLANNING. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF CODES AND REGULATIONS TO KIND OF IRON OUT THAT PROCESS AND TRY TO GET IT MAKE MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR FOR OUR RESIDENTS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THE WAY YOU HAVE ARTICULATED IT ALIGNS 100% WITH THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, IN THAT THE BIGGEST WRINKLE SEEMS TO BE IN THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. AND MY CHALLENGE OR QUESTION TO YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT HERE, WOULD BE TO COME BACK AND TELL US HOW THIS BODY CAN HELP GET THAT STRAIGHTENED OUT. SURE, WE WOULD ACCEPT ANY HELP. WELL, I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF HELP TO PROVIDE. I THINK I THINK AT THIS POINT, HONESTLY, WE'RE WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE WORKING IT OUT. YOU KNOW, BRIAN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH DIRECTOR PRICE, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT WE'VE UPDATED THE

[01:40:03]

COUNCILWOMAN. THANK YOU. NOW, ALL OF US HAVE SEEN DECREPIT MOTORHOMES, TRAILER HOMES, TRAILER PARKS, WHATEVER. NOW, THE REGULATION SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT PLACE ANYTHING OLDER THAN FIVE YEARS. AND THE MODERN MODULAR HOMES AND SUCH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN GENERAL, THESE ARE NEVER MOVED. CORRECT? PRETTY MUCH. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT STATISTICS ON IT.

WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE, BUT ACCORDING TO SOME DATA THAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE KENTUCKY MANUFACTURED HOUSING INSTITUTE, I THINK IT'S ONLY IT'S LESS THAN 5% THAT EVER GET MOVED IN THEIR LIFETIME. THEY CAN BE MOVED, BUT A SITE BUILT HOME CAN ALSO BE MOVED, RIGHT? YOU CAN ALSO PICK UP THE FOUNDATION OF A SITE BUILT HOME AND MOVE IT. OKAY, NOW, JUST AS KIND OF A HYPOTHETICAL THING HERE, I CAN PICTURE A TRAILER PARK THAT'S OFF TAYLOR BOULEVARD AND IT'S SO BAD BACK IN THERE. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL TELLS ME SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GO BACK IN THERE AND KNOCK ON DOORS. BUT GIVEN TIME, THOSE ARE EVENTUALLY GOING TO BECOME UNINHABITABLE.

IF WE HAD ANY THOUGHT TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THESE PROPERTIES WHEN EVERYTHING BACK THERE IS SO BAD, IT'S NOT INHABITABLE AND THEY WIND UP SHUTTING DOWN? I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT SECOND EXCEPTION THAT WE LOOKED AT PUTTING IN, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS COME THROUGH OUR OFFICE IN THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, PROBABLY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO REVAMP THOSE EXISTING PARKS, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR THOSE REALLY KIND OF IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF INVESTMENT FOR THOSE MOBILE, EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARKS TO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO THE EASIEST OPTION IS TO TRY TO REVAMP THAT WITH NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT SECOND EXCEPTION CAME IN. THAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING WAS BECAUSE WE FOUND PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO COME IN AND PUT NEW, BETTER QUALITY MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK. AND OUR REGULATIONS WERE ACTUALLY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR FOLKS THAT WANT TO INVEST IN THOSE EXISTING PARKS TO PUT BETTER QUALITY HOMES IN THE EXISTING PARKS. OKAY. WHAT? JUST BASED ON MY RECOLLECTIONS, THE LOT SIZES IN THERE ARE MINUSCULE. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THIS? WELL, MOST OF THE TIME THEY DON'T HAVE LOTS, MOST OF THE TIME THEIR LEASE LINES. SO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY ONE PERSON. AND THEN THEY LEASE THE PADS BASICALLY FOR THE OLD MOBILE HOMES OR THE MANUFACTURED HOMES TO BE ON. SO GENERALLY THEY DON'T THEY AREN'T SEPARATED OUT INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ITEM CHERYL. SHE'LL OPEN UP THE ROLL PLEASE.

COUNCIL MEMBER RAYMOND VOTING'S CLOSING. CHAIR. OWEN, YOU HAVE FIVE YES VOTES. WITH FIVE YES VOTES. WE'LL FORWARD THIS TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. GOING BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 1101 9925, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 4.3.22 AND APPENDIX TWO A OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, CASE NUMBER 25 DASH LDC DASH 0001. CAN I GET A MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. YES, THIS IS 25 LDC 0001. REGARDING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THE REQUEST WAS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. METRO COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION NUMBER NINE, SERIES 2025 THAT DIRECTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RESEARCH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND RECOMMEND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES. THIS WENT. THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON JULY 15TH, 2025. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IN SUMMARY, SPLITS THE DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INTO CHARTERED AND NON CHARTERED. AND THEN THERE'S CHANGES TO ZONING CATEGORIES FOR CHARTERED AND NON CHARTERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. SO THE GENERAL DEFINITION OF A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IS LIKE A

[01:45:04]

THEY HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DOES NOT YET TRACK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHECK CASHERS AND DEFERRED DEPOSIT. THE SENATE BILL 145 RESTRICTS NEW LICENSES FOR DEFERRED DEPOSITS, BUT NOT FOR RENEWALS, WHICH MEANS A NEW DEFERRED DEPOSIT BUSINESS CANNOT OPEN. THE KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES SUBTITLE NINE ALSO DETAILS A MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNT OF $500. MINIMUM LOAN TERM OF 14 DAYS. MAXIMUM LOAN TERM OF 60 DAYS. MAXIMUM OF TWO OUTSTANDING LOANS PERMITTED. FINANCIAL CHARGES $15 PER $100 OF PRINCIPAL. THE COLLECTION FEES ONE NON-SUFFICIENT FUNDS FEE. IF DISCLOSED UP FRONT, THERE'S NO INCOME BASED RESTRICTIONS AND NO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ABILITY TO REPAY. KENTUCKY REQUIRES THAT THE CHARGES FOR TRANSACTION ARE CONSIDERED FEES AND NOT INTEREST. SO THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 28 LICENSED CHECK CASHERS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY. THOSE LICENSED CHECK CASH CHECKERS ARE LOCATED CURRENTLY IN THE C1, C2, C3, AND EZ ONE ZONING DISTRICTS, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THOSENG LOCATED IN C1. SO THIS IS A MAP OF SHOWING WHERE THOSE LICENSED CHECK CASHERS ARE LOCATED. THERE YOU'LL SEE THESE LITTLE BLUE DOTS. HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE THOSE OKAY. BUT THERE'S ABOUT 28 LOCATED ACROSS JEFFERSON COUNTY. CHECK CASHERS ARE ALSO THESE LITTLE BLUE DOTS. SO THIS IS JUST IN REFERENCE TO THE ZONING. AS I MENTIONED, ABOUT HALF ARE LOCATED IN THE C1 ZONING DISTRICT. SO STAFF DID A PEER CITY REVIEW. I WON'T GO INTO ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT PEER CITY REVIEW, BUT WHAT STAFF FOUND WAS THERE'S NOT A CONCLUSIVE THIS IS HOW. STATES DO CHECK CASHING.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE REGULATIONS, OTHERS DON'T HAVE REGULATIONS. SOME HAVE DISTANCE REGULATIONS.

IT'S REALLY JUST ALL OVER THE PLACE. AS FAR AS PEER CITY REVIEW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TO RESTRICT CHECK CASHING AND DEFERRED DEPOSIT, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IT AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO FIND IT IF YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR IT. SO WE LOOKED AT SAINT LOUIS, NASHVILLE, INDIANAPOLIS, CINCINNATI AND CHARLOTTE. SO CURRENTLY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE PERMITTED IN THE C1, C1 OR C2 AND C1 AND C2, INCLUDING OTHER ZONES WHERE C1 AND C2 ARE PERMITTED. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN LAND USE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL BANKS AND DEFERRED DEPOSIT AND CHECK CASHING. SO THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION BE SPLIT INTO CHARTERED AND NON CHARTERED. WHAT THAT MEANS IS CHARTERED IS LIKE YOUR TRADITIONAL BANK OR CREDIT UNION AND SIMILAR TYPE OF USE AS A NON CHARTERED IS DEFERRED DEPOSIT CHECK CASHING AND CONSUMER LOAN COMPANIES AND OTHER SIMILAR USES. I DID WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT REGARDING. THERE'S OTHER TYPES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION LIKE MORTGAGE LENDERS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, HEDGE FUNDS, PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS AND THOSE ARE ALL REALLY

[01:50:03]

AND NON CHARTERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PERMITTED ONLY IN C2, AS WELL AS OTHER COMMERCIAL USES IN THE M1, M2 AND M3 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SO STAFF FOUND THAT THOSE CHANGES WERE MET. THE GOALS OF PLAN 2040. THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD A MEETING ON JULY 15TH, 2025, WHERE THEY AGREED TO MOVE THE CHANGES ALONG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 7TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THOSE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS PASSING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 1. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? DO I NEED TO REPEAT ANYTHING? THANK YOU. JULIA, THAT WAS A LOT. YES.

COUNCILMEMBER VACHON, I KNOW THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN, SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR AND HAVE YOU SPEAK TO IT FIRST. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JULIA. THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS, AS WELL AS STEVE MALEY, AND WE'VE JUST GONE A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. AND I THINK WE HAVE LANDED IN A VERY ADEQUATE SPOT TO MOVE FORWARD. IF THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR BUSINESSES. SO THIS IS REAL SIMPLE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE NOW MADE A DEFINITION FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS VERSUS CHARTERED AND NON-CHARTERED, WHERE WE FIND THE DIFFICULTY IN THE PAST, IF WE DON'T MOVE THIS AND WE STAY WITH THE STATUS QUO, IS WHEN YOU GO TO DO A REZONING AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE ELIMINATING OR YOU'RE TYING IN A BINDING ELEMENT OF CHECK CASHING PLACES, IT'S TIED IN UNDER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AND THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT IS. AND NOW YOU CAN HAVE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BIND THAT OUT IN YOUR PLANNING AND ZONING CHANGES. SO I LOOK FOR EVERYBODY'S SUPPORT ON THIS.

JULIA AND HER TEAM AND MY TEAM HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD ON MAKING THIS MOVE FORWARD. LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR DOING THAT. THAT WAS A LOT OF WORK. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN VACHON, FOR SPEARHEADING. I WOULD LIKE TO BE A I'D LIKE TO BE A SPONSOR AS WELL ON THIS. SONIA. CHERYL, WHOEVER DOES THAT. OH, WELL, I AM A SPONSOR, BUT SO I'M GOING TO SAY I WOULD LIKE TO BE I'M ALWAYS A SPONSOR ON THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO BE A SPONSOR OF THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

ANYBODY ANY. THIS IS WELL, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE OPEN THE ROLL? CHERYL, IF YOU'LL OPEN THE ROLL CALL, VOTE, PLEASE OPEN. COUNCILMEMBER.

COUNCILMEMBER. BIRCHER. YES. VOTING'S CLOSING CHAIR. YOU HAVE FIVE YES VOTES WITH FIVE YES VOTES. WOULD YOU LIKE THIS TO GO ON OLD BUSINESS? ARE YOU OKAY WITH BEING ON CONSENT? HOW DO YOU WANT TO? LET'S PUT IT ON CONSENT. AND IF WE DECIDE WE WANT TO PULL IT OFF, WE CAN DO THAT AT A LATER DATE. WE'LL MOVE IT TO CONSENT WITH FIVE POSSIBLE. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 13 0-20125. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.1.1.9 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO FIVE YEARS. CASE NUMBER 24 DASH LDC DASH 0008.

CAN I GET A MOTION? MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. MORE MUSICAL CHAIRS BRIAN.

THAT'S RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, BRIAN DAVIS, LOUISVILLE METRO OFFICE OF PLANNING. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER TWO. 0-201- 25. IT'S IN RELATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 25 LDQ DASH 0008. IT'S 235. I'LL I'LL HIT THE HIGH POINTS. SO THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND SECTION 1.1.9 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING EXPIRATION DATES FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. THIS THIS THIS PROPOSED CHANGE CAME ABOUT THROUGH A RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED BY METRO COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER 52, SERIES 2025, THAT ASKED THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE A LOOK AT EXPIRATION DATES ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND SEE IF TAKE CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND THAT TO FIVE YEARS. WE TALKED ABOUT

[01:55:03]

[02:00:05]

COUNCILMEMBER BRECHER. YES. VOTING'S CLOSING CHAIR OWEN, YOU HAVE FIVE YES VOTES. THANK YOU.

THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. I THINK I'D RATHER HAVE THIS ON ON OLD BUSINESS. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ITEM NUMBER 1402 0225. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11 .4.6 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT THE ALTERNATIVE REGULATIONS FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, AS OUTLINED IN KRS 100.2111, CASE NUMBER 24 DASH LDC DASH 0009. CAN I GET A MOTION? PROBABLY MOVED AND SECONDED, MR. DAVIS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS STATED, THIS IS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 25 DASH LDC DASH 0009 REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND SECTION 11 .4.6 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. THIS PROPOSED REGULATION WAS INITIATED UNDER A RESOLUTION NUMBER ZERO 51, SERIES 2025, WHICH WAS PASSED BY METRO COUNCIL IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THE RESOLUTION REQUESTED THE REQUESTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT ALTERNATIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AS SET FORTH IN KRS 100.2111. THIS IS A PORTION OF THAT SECTION. IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1988, AND IT IS SOME A SET OF REGULATIONS THAT CAN BE ADOPTED IN LIEU OF THE PROVISIONS IN KRS 100.211. SO ONE LESS ONE THERE IN THAT SECTION. AND BASICALLY AGAIN PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE SO THAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES CAN CAN MORE QUICKLY COME TO A CONCLUSION ON

[02:05:04]

PROCESS, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES FOR THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND OUR ZONING PROCESS.

SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED DESCRIBED IT AS LENGTHY AND UNPREDICTABLE AND COSTLY, AND OVER TWO THIRDS OF THE RESPONDERS CHOSE, DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE IN RESPONSE TO, YOU KNOW, THE STATEMENT, THE TIMELINE MET MY EXPECTATIONS. WE TOOK A LOOK AT AT SOME OF THE TIMEFRAMES IN WHICH ZONING CASES WERE IN THE SYSTEM FROM THE FROM PRE-APPLICATION TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY DECISION. AND THAT RANGED ANYWHERE FROM 179 DAYS TO 877 DAYS. THESE ARE ALL CASES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT THIS YEAR. AND THE MEDIAN VALUE OF THAT WAS A 282 DAYS.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST UNDER A YEAR TO GET THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO AS FAR AS THE PROPOSAL GOES, THE PROCEDURES DO NOT CHANGE FOR NON-UNANIMOUS VOTES, A UNANIMOUS VOTE SHALL BE DEFINED AS A PASSING VOTE WITH NO VOTE CAST IN OPPOSITION TO THE MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION. WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT IN 20 24, 47 OF THE 64 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UNANIMOUS VOTES. AND THEN THROUGH JULY 17TH OF THIS YEAR, 25 OF THE 35 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE HAD UNANIMOUS VOTES. SO THIS IS THE THIS IS KIND OF A FLOW CHART OF THE CURRENT ZONING PROCESS. YOU CAN SEE IT STARTS WITH THE PRE-APPLICATION THAT'S FILED AND THE VARIOUS STAGES THAT IT GOES THROUGH UNTIL IT GETS TO THE METRO COUNCIL SECOND READING WHEN THE ACTION IS FINALIZED. UNDER THE UNDER THE PROPOSAL FOR THE ZONING PROCESS FOR A NON-UNANIMOUS VOTE, NOTHING CHANGES. AND SO IF IT GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S NINE ONE, IT'S SIX FOUR, WHATEVER. THEN THEN IT WILL COME BEFORE METRO COUNCIL OR THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, DEPENDING ON WHO WANTS TO ADOPT THIS THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS THAT WE KNOW TODAY. THE ONLY TIME IT WOULD CHANGE IS IF THERE'S A IF THERE'S A UNANIMOUS VOTE. AND SO IN THAT CASE, IT GOES THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION. AT THAT TIME, THERE WOULD BE A 21 DAY PERIOD IN WHICH EITHER AN AGGRIEVED PARTY OR A METRO COUNCIL COULD VOTE TO SAY THAT, HEY, WE WANT TO REVIEW THIS ACTION IF, IF, IF THAT IS RECEIVED BY OUR OFFICE, THEN WE IT WOULD PROCEED LIKE NORMAL THROUGH METRO COUNCIL AND GET A FIRST READING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE SECOND READING. BUT IF NO SUCH REQUEST IS RECEIVED BY EITHER FROM AN AGGRIEVED PARTY OR METRO COUNCIL, THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BECOMES FINAL IN 21. AT THE END OF THAT 21 DAY PERIOD, SO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE ITEM ON JULY 15TH, 2025, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON AUGUST 7TH, 2025, AND THE MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE LDC AMENDMENT THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 2. THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. BRIAN, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE LOST OUR QUORUM HERE AND SO WE WON'T. SO I GUESS CAN WE VOTE AND THEN OR DO WE JUST NOT VOTE WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, WE WILL SIMPLY FORWARD IT WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION AND WE'LL SEND IT TO ALL BUSINESS. OKAY. SO WE'LL WE'LL FORWARD THIS OUT WITH. BUT BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO SPEAK TO THIS. AND AGAIN I WANT TO THANK THE, THE STAFF FOR THAT. WE'VE GIVEN THEM SO MUCH RECENTLY TO DO AND THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB WORKING THROUGH THIS STUFF AND COMING BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAKE SENSE. I'LL SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT I SAID ON THE LAST ONE. EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT COMES OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS MY NAME ON IT. THIS ONE, LIKE THE

[02:10:03]

NUMBER ONE, IT POTENTIALLY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF WORK ON OUR PLANNING STAFF SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PREPARE A PRESENTATION ON EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT IS NOT CONTENTIOUS AND IS GOING TO PROBABLY BE, YOU KNOW, MOVED ON UNANIMOUSLY OUT OF OUR COMMITTEE ANYWAY. SO IT REDUCES A SIGNIFICANT WORKLOAD ON THEM. IT REDUCES THE SIGNIFICANT WORKLOAD ON US AS THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF PLANNING AND ZONING. AND WHAT WHAT WOULD THAT ALLOW US TO DO? AND I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER. IT WOULD ALLOW THE STAFF AND US MORE TIME TO SPEND THINKING OF GOOD POLICY, GOOD PROCEDURES TO MAKE THE PROCESS BETTER. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS OH, THIS ALSO POTENTIALLY, LIKE BRIAN WAS SAYING, CAN SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTEN SHORTEN THE DEVELOPMENT TIME FRAME, WHICH SAVES DEVELOPERS MONEY, WHICH IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, ONE OF THE REASONS WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF SMALL DEVELOPERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THE PROCESS TAKES FOREVER AND THEREFORE IS VERY EXPENSIVE, AND VERY FEW OF THOSE OF THOSE SMALL DEVELOPERS CAN CARRY A PROJECT THROUGH TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PROCESS. SO IF WE CAN SHORTEN THAT PROCESS, MAKE IT LESS EXPENSIVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE MORE SMALL DEVELOPERS ENTER INTO INTO THE GAME, WHICH I THINK IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS THIS IS GOOD POLICY. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT HERE IN COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE'VE LOST OUR QUORUM. BUT I'M HOPING AT METRO COUNCIL NEXT THURSDAY NIGHT THIS WILL THIS WILL PASS WITH WITH CLOSE CLOSE TO UNANIMOUS SUPPORT IF NOT UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY BEFORE WE. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT DEFINITION. WHAT IS AN AGGRIEVED PARTY? HOW'S THAT DEFINED? IT IS NOT DEFINED. THAT IS ONE THING THAT WE THAT WE LOOKED INTO. THAT IS A CRS TERM. AND I DON'T KNOW IF LAURA AND TRAVIS HAVE BEEN LOOKING INTO IT TO SEE IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY KIND OF CASES OR ANYTHING THAT THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT DEFINITION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL EVER WIND UP FINDING FINDING ANYTHING OR NOT. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF CASE LAW ON THE BROADER INJURED AND AGGRIEVED STANDARD THAT APPLIES IN COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR ZONING APPEALS, LESS ON JUST THE TERM AGGRIEVED ISOLATED. SO SOMETHING WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT, BUT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE END UP SEEING DECIDED IN REAL TIME IN A LOUISVILLE METRO ZONING CASE, WHICH IS BOTH EXCITING AND INTIMIDATING. I MEAN, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, CAN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BE AN AGGRIEVED PARTY? CERTAINLY. I THINK THEIR QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL BARRIER THERE, BUT SOME MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD BE AGGRIEVED. YEAH. AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO OTHER COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE IMPLEMENTED 100.2111, IS THAT. YEAH, IT'S EITHER LIKE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO, AFTER A PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, SAYS, HEY, I WANT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO HEAR THIS, OR THE LEGISLATIVE BODY SAYS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT CASE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT ARE SPELLED OUT IN THE CRS. AGAIN, I'LL JUST REITERATE THAT NOTHING CHANGES FROM OUR CURRENT PROCEDURE IF IT DOES NOT COME OUT OF PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY, EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINS THE SAME. COUNCILWOMAN RUTH. ALL RIGHT, BACK ON CONSIDERING THAT CURIOSITY, HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT A PROCESS FOR HOW AN AGGRIEVED PARTY WOULD NOTIFY OF THIS? SO.

WELL, CRS JUST SAYS THEY HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THE PLANNING OFFICE OR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO THE OFFICE OF PLANNING TO SAY, HEY, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE ITEM, WHATEVER CASE NUMBER, TO GO BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR CONSIDERATION. WE WOULD INSERT THAT INTO THE FILE, AND THEN WE WOULD PROCESS IT LIKE NORMAL AND SEND IT OVER LIKE WE DO ALL CASES NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WITH ANYTHING BEFORE WE ADJOURN? WE'RE ABOUT TO RUN UP AGAINST OUR NEXT MEETING. SO WITHOUT FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.