Sep 02, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee

[00:19:31]

NEED.

[00:20:47]

[00:23:09]

[Call to Order]

[00:23:38]

[00:23:41]

WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF A LATE START. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I AM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE,

[Roll Call]

SHE HAS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. AND SINCE THAT'S THE CASE, WE NEED TO SAY THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO CRS 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE A. OKAY. SO WE ARE HOLDING A COUPLE OF THINGS AT THE REQUEST OF A COUPLE OF OUR COLLEAGUES. WE'RE HOLDING NUMBER 4018825.

AND WE ARE HOLDING NUMBER 5018725. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME

[00:25:02]

WE WERE GOING TO HOLD ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AGAIN. WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO CALL IT AND SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN VERY LIKELY TABLE IT AFTER WE'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

BUT THAT IS UP TO THE COMMITTEE OF COURSE. ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM

[1. O-206-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 570 EASTERN PARKWAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1649 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0045). Action Required By  October 29, 2-25 **Council Member Jennifer Chappell (D-15) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

CHAIR. YEAH. THIS IS ANOTHER PROPERTY IN MY DISTRICT GOING TO C1. THIS ONE IS LONG TIME RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT, COTTAGE IN THE SAME OWNERS WHO PURCHASED DAIRY CASTLE, WHICH IS ANOTHER ICONIC SPOT OVER HERE IN SAINT JOSEPH. PURCHASED THIS BUILDING AND REBRANDED THE COTTAGE IN TO PARKWAY DINER. THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE BEEN. THE REZONING HAS BEEN SOMETHING THEY'VE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS FOR A WHILE NOW. I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF IT.

I THINK THAT THE USE HAS TRADITIONALLY SUPPORTED THIS ZONING. SO I THINK IN MY OPINION, THIS IS MORE TO CLEAN UP THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY. AND SO IT HAS MY FULL SUPPORT AND I ASK FOR EVERYONE'S FULL SUPPORT ON THIS. MY ONLY QUESTION FOR JULIA WOULD BE IF SHE COULD MAYBE SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, THIS GETTING FILED IN JANUARY 2024 AND US JUST NOW APPROVING THIS IN SEPTEMBER 2025, NEARLY TWO YEARS? SURE. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING ACCESS TO THE SITE.

AND HAVING SOME PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AS WELL. CURRENTLY, THERE'S, I BELIEVE, JUST A EXIST, JUST ONE EXISTING CURB CUT ALONG THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO DISTINGUISH A PEDESTRIAN WAY AND SEPARATE THE ON STREET PARKING FROM ON SITE PARKING, AND SO THAT COMMUNICATION LASTED QUITE A BIT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND PUBLIC WORKS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BUT IT'S MY ONLY COMMENT ON THIS. BUT AGAIN,

[00:30:08]

[2. O-209-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3518, 3520, 3522 AND 3524 DUTCHMANS LANE AND 2901 CANNONS LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.66 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25ZONE0048). Action Required By  October 29, 2025 **Council Member Ben Reno-Weber (D-8) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THANK YOU. JUST I TRIED TO READ THE REPORT ON THIS TODAY AND IS THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT ON THIS ON THIS ONE YET. TRAVIS ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT? HAPPY TO TRAVIS FEASTER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. NO, IT IS NOT PRESENT ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. JUST ON BEHALF OF COUNCILMAN WEBER, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT HE WOULD HAVE A, A, AN ISSUE WITH ADDING THAT STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT HERE. YES. I WAS NOTICING IN THE REPORT SOME COMMENTS FROM A NEIGHBORS THAT THEY, THE PERSON OR THE GROUP OWNS OTHER PROPERTY AND THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PERHAPS THIS BECOMES PART OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT. SO STANDARD BINDING ELEMENTS WOULD HELP TO PROTECT THEM IN CASE THEY DO CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THE PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS WOULD BECOME BINDING ELEMENT NUMBER SEVEN. IT WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS. ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO THE STRUCTURES EG INCREASES IN BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF UNITS. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY ON THE PROPERTY, ANY CHANGE IN USE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SUBCOMMITTEE

[00:35:02]

CHAIR. OWEN, YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES. THANK YOU. CHERYL, WITH SIX YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE FORWARDED UNANIMOUSLY TO THE TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ITEM NUMBER 3016925. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8000 NATIONAL PIKE, CONTAINING CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.34 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE

[3. 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). 8/19/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled 8/5/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By September 23, 2025 **Council Member Dan Seum (R-13) can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

WE'VE HEARD THIS ONE FROM YOU. JULIA, CAN YOU GIVE US A JUST A QUICK THUMBNAIL JUST TO BRING US KIND OF UP TO SPEED ON WHERE WE ARE HERE? SURE. SO THIS ONE HAS BEEN HEARD A COUPLE TIMES.

THERE'S EXISTING USE ON THE COMMERCIAL USE ON THE SITE, PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE ON THE SITE R4 TO C2 SUBURBAN WORKPLACE FORM DISTRICT. R4 TO C2. AND THEN THE PROPOSALS FOR AUTO SALES AND REPAIR WITHIN AN EXISTING ONE STORY STRUCTURE WITH ACCESS FROM TOLLS. LANE.

AND THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS ONE WAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL ON THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R4 TO C2, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 2. OKAY, SO IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WE WERE KIND OF GOING WE WERE HOLDING THIS FOR A COUPLE OF TIMES.

WERE THERE SOME BINDING ELEMENTS THAT WERE BEING ADDED HERE OR IS I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMAN SEIM. I THINK THIS IS IN HIS DISTRICT SO HE CAN SPEAK TO IT. I'M JUST HERE TO ENCOURAGE THE THE COMMISSION. THE. I'M SORRY. I'M JUST HERE TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE ZONING CHANGE. VERY SUBTLE, VERY SUBTLE. COUNCILMAN HUDSON. YEAH, IT WAS TABLED. I WAS THE ONE THAT TABLED IT.

THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION WHEN WE BROUGHT IT TO THIS COMMITTEE LAST TIME, AND I PROBABLY OWN MOST OF THAT CONFUSION. AND I THINK COUNCILMAN SIMON WAS ABSENT THAT TIME. SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT CONFUSION TO BE CLEARED. AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN AND I SUPPORT COUNCILMAN SIMON'S POSITION ON THIS. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE? I MEAN, I WILL JUST STATE THAT WHEN I WHEN I SAW THIS ONE, WHEN IT FIRST CAME THROUGH, IT SEEMED TO ME IT SEEMED LIKE AN ODD DENIAL BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED. BUT I'VE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR, I THINK. BUT I'LL MAKE IT EVEN MORE CLEAR TODAY THAT MY MY BIGGEST PUSH HERE AT PLANNING AND ZONING IS TO TRY TO GET HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED, BECAUSE WE ARE IN SUCH DIRE NEED OF OF HOUSING AND, AND SO ON THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS. I THINK THERE THERE NEED TO BE LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND PUSHBACK. AND WHY ARE WE DOING OR NOT DOING THIS? AND FOR, FOR ME ANYWAY, THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE MY PRIMARY FOCUS IN THIS CASE. I DON'T THINK THE DENIAL WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE. I'LL PROBABLY BE VOTING PRESENT AS A RESULT, BUT I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IF THE COUNCIL COUNCILMAN HAS MADE HIS HIS HIS STATEMENT HERE AND I THINK COUNCILMAN SIMON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THAT? WE DO WANT MORE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND WE DO

[00:40:05]

YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR OWEN GOLDEN'S CLOSING. YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES AND ONE PRESENT.

THANK YOU. SO THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. ITEM FOUR IS BEING HELD. ITEM FIVE IS BEING HELD. ITEM 60-13925. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS

[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). (AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION)(AS AMENDED) 8/28/25 Metro Council  Recommitted [to Planning and Zoning Committee] 8/28/25 Metro Council  Recommitted [to Planning and Zoning Committee] 8/19/25 Planning and Zoning Committee  Amended; Recommended for Approval 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), Betsy Ruhe (D-21)]

SO IS THAT ARE THE AMENDMENTS ON THE SYSTEM, TRAVIS, THAT WE THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING? THEY ARE NOT THEY ARE NOT. OKAY. SO DO YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE THOSE AMENDMENTS OR AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE WE ARE. I'M HAPPY TO I WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS EITHER ONE OF THEM FIRST. OKAY. I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS EITHER ONE OF THEM FIRST OR JUST GO WITH BOTH? NO, IN EITHER ORDER. OKAY, SO THE FIRST DEALS WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL USE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE COMMITTEE WILL RECALL JUST TO KIND OF REFRESH YOU ON THIS SECTION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE STRUCK BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT CAME BACK IN IN LAST COMMITTEE THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO REINSERT IT. SO 4.2.65 IS SORT OF A LIVE SECTION. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, IT SORT OF RENUMBERS THINGS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A NEW SUBSECTION, BUT IT IT REQUIRED A LOT OF STRIKETHROUGHS AND UNDERLINES TO GET THAT DONE. BUT IT BUT IT

[00:45:04]

BIG PARAGRAPH. LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. BASICALLY, THESE NEW SHELTER USES. IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING, WHETHER IT'S NON-CONFORMING OR YOU HAVE A CUP, IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING LEGAL, PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL USE, WHETHER THAT BE A CHURCH OR A COMMUNITY CENTER OR WHAT HAVE YOU, YOU COULD OPERATE A DAY SHELTER, ACCESSORY, OVERNIGHT SHELTER OR EXTREME WEATHER SHELTER WITHIN THE CONFINES OF YOUR EXISTING BUILDING. NEW CONSTRUCTION.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A NEW CUP. YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A REVISED CUP. BUT IF YOU'RE STRICTLY ALLOWING FOLKS IN COMPLYING WITH THE LDC TERMS INSIDE OF YOUR EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THESE SHELTER BASES, THEN THAT'S FINE. AGAIN, THAT'S ARGUABLY ALREADY SORT OF IMPLIED BY THE EXISTING LANGUAGE HERE, WHERE AS MORE SPECIFICALLY REGULATED ELSEWHERE, BUT WANTED TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS ARE SPECIFICALLY FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. AND SO THERE'S AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, AND THEY WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE AS AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT BASIS INTO THEIR EXISTING BUILDING. THEY CAN DO SO WITHOUT NEEDING SOME ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL APPROVALS AS FAR AS THE CUP GOES. SO THAT'S PART ONE. IT DOESN'T OTHERWISE AFFECT ANY OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USES, DOESN'T AFFECT THE ABILITY OF ANYBODY TO GET OR AMEND AN EXISTING OR NEW INSTITUTIONAL CUP. JUST ALLOWS THESE NEW SHELTER USES FOR EXISTING ONES. THE SECOND ONE, AND THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THIS AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK. THE DAY SHELTERS SECTION 4.0 I'M SORRY, ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS 4.3.33 SUBSECTION H AND EXTREME WEATHER SHELTERS AND 4.3.34 SUBSECTION D. BOTH CURRENTLY HAVE A CLAUSE THAT SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO NEED AN AE LICENSE TO OPERATE THIS USE. THE PROBLEM IS THESE ARE BRAND NEW USES THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE. AND SO THERE ISN'T A DIRECTLY ON POINT LICENSE IN EXISTENCE. IT'S TOUGH TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE PASSED THIS CURRENT LANGUAGE. MAYBE CODES AND REGS WOULD TRY TO CRAM THESE IN UNDER THE EXISTING HOMELESS SHELTER LICENSE, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST THING, BUT IT'S NOT A 1 TO 1 HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LARGER DEDICATED FACILITIES. A LOT OF THESE ARE MORE TEMPORARY IN NATURE. WITHIN ANOTHER USE. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR MOST OF THESE TO GET A HOMELESS SHELTER LICENSE FOR ONE OF THESE SMALLER SHELTER USES WE'RE CREATING. SO THERE'S NOT AN EXISTING GOOD LICENSE FOR THESE. AND THE NEED FOR A LICENSE ISN'T REALLY STRICTLY NEEDED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IF CODES AND REGS OR THIS BODY WANTS TO GO OUT AND CREATE A LICENSE SPECIFICALLY FOR DAY SHELTERS, THEY CAN DO SO. DAY SHELTERS WILL STILL NEED TO GET THAT LICENSE. THEY JUST WON'T NEED THE LICENSE FOR THE ZONING APPROVAL. BUT IT CAN STILL BE ENFORCED THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO THINK OF IT LIKE AN ABC LICENSE. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE AN ABC LICENSE IN ORDER TO GET AC2 ZONING FOR A RESTAURANT. WE DEAL WITH THE ZONING PIECE AND THEN YOU GET THE THE ALCOHOL PIECE ELSEWHERE. SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO STRIKE THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS SINCE, AGAIN, THESE USES WON'T LIKELY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE EXISTING LICENSES. AND THE EXISTING LICENSES AREN'T MADE FOR THESE USES. SO THAT LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE BIT PROBLEMATIC. IT MIGHT MAKE IT SO THESE CAN'T REALLY EXIST ANYWHERE DESPITE THEM BEING CREATED BY THIS ORDINANCE. I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS FOR TWO RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD THINGS. AGAIN, TO SUMMARIZE, THE GOAL IS TO ELIMINATE THE LICENSE REQUIREMENT IN THE LDC. IT COULD STILL BE IN THE LMC, BUT IN THE LDC, GET RID OF THOSE TWO BECAUSE THE LICENSES DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST. AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THESE USES CAN BE INSTALLED IN EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL USES, ASSUMING THEY AREN'T EXPANDING THEIR FOOTPRINT WITHIN EXISTING BUILDINGS, THEY COULD BE TEMPORARY SHELTERS AND THE LIKE. I HOPE THAT'S CLEAR. I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HOW MESSY THESE DRAFTS HAS BECOME. BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS. GREAT. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU TRAVIS. SO BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING WITH THAT, LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO ANYBODY TO TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT ON THAT YET I WANTED TO DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, WHAT TRAVIS HAS BROUGHT UP THERE. SO COUNCILMAN REED. HIT THE WRONG BUTTON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK

[00:50:01]

WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT AS HE'S LOOKING IT UP IF YOU WANT TO GET SOMEBODY ON. OKAY.

COUNCILWOMAN BECKMAN, THANK YOU. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I WANT TO START HERE, I, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE THE BACK AND FORTH AND TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE FINALLY HERE. SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE COVERING ALL OUR BASES. THE LICENSING FACTOR OF THIS HAS GOT TO BE IN SOME REGARDS. RIGHT? I THINK IT IS VERY WISE OF US TO REMOVE THE LICENSING PIECE OUT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER OR EMERGENCY SHELTERS. I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT SECTION. SO I HAVE THE ACTUAL WORDING, EXTREME WEATHER SHELTERS. I THINK THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. WE HAVE HAD RECORD BREAKING TEMPERATURES, WHETHER IT COMES TO WINDCHILL OR HEAT INDEXES AND AIR QUALITY CONCERNS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THOSE MEANS TO ALLOW. AREAS OF OUR COMMUNITIES TO TO BRING FOLKS IN WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'VE HAVE IN THIS, IN THIS PARTIAL, WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS, AS YOU SAID, TRAVIS, THAT WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FOR MAINLY, I GUESS YOU SAID, FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AGAIN, I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY WISE THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN AND THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE THINKING ABOUT ALLOWING THEIR LOCATIONS TO BE AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER IN SOME CAPACITY, I THINK THERE SHALL BE SOME TYPE OF CUP OR LICENSE REQUIREMENT IN ADVANCE SO THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IT ON FILE. SO WE DON'T END UP IN ANOTHER SITUATION LIKE WE DID THIS PAST WINTER AT A SPECIFIC SPOT IN COUNCILWOMAN RUBY'S DISTRICT. RIGHT. A LITTLE DIFFERENT SCENARIO, BUT I'M USING THAT AS THE EXAMPLE.

I THINK THAT THE HOMELESS SHELTERS ALSO SHOULD HAVE THOSE PROPER CUPS AND LICENSING. I THINK IT'S OKAY TO REMOVE THAT LICENSING FOR THE EXTREME WEATHER SHELTERS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IN SOME FACET. TRAVIS, THE QUESTION I THINK FOR YOU IS WHAT IS THAT LMCO LICENSE LOOK LIKE, CONSIDERING WE DON'T HAVE IT IN PLACE TODAY AND OR THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR JOEL AND JULIA, DO WE NEED TO TIE SOMETHING IN WITH CODES AND REGS BEFORE WE MOVE THIS ON THAT PIECE? SO THERE IS AN EXISTING LICENSE FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS. AGAIN IT'S IT'S PRETTY EXPANSIVE. I IMAGINE MOST, IF NOT ANY ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTERS WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS. IF COUNCIL WANTS TO CREATE A LICENSE FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE THEY COULD. IT CAN'T BE DONE AS IN THE MIDDLE OF SORT OF THIS ORDINANCE, IT NEED TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM, SINCE THIS IS REALLY JUST DEALING WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT THAT COULD BE CREATED IF THAT IS CREATED, IF WE HAVE A LICENSE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, ANY ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER AS DEFINED IN THE LDC IS GOING TO NEED THIS LICENSE AS WELL, THEN THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO BE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I MEAN, IF WE CREATE A LICENSE FOR YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THE LICENSE FOR THE USE. SO IF YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE LEAVING THAT IN THAT LANGUAGE, YOU COULD. BUT IF YOU LEAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN AND WE HAVE A PERIOD WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THAT LICENSE IN PLACE, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE SOME USES THAT CANNOT OBTAIN THE ONLY EXISTING LICENSE THAT'S CLOSE, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CODE AND SAYING, WELL, THAT LICENSE DOESN'T EXIST, SO WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SITUATION WOULD END UP IN FOR SURE. AND IT MIGHT CHANGE. AS YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS DO. MR. CHAIR, CAN I CAN YOU BACK IN OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, TRAVIS, THAT BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER POINT IN THIS AMENDMENT, THE NEWEST AMENDMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OUR SYSTEM YET. BUT YOU SENT OUT EARLIER IN AN EMAIL, WE WENT FROM NOW ALLOW FROM WHAT WE HAD IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, WHERE IT

[00:55:02]

ORIGINALLY THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT TALKED ABOUT NO MORE THAN TWO SHELTERS WITHIN 1000FT. THAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL VERSION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION, I THINK. BUT THEN WE ADDED IN SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE. REGARDING THE TYPE OF SHELTER, BECAUSE THERE WAS SORT OF A GENERAL YOU COULD HAVE ANY OF THE THREE SHELTERS, THEY DIDN'T BORROW FROM EACH OTHER.

I THINK I'M REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY. BUT IN ANY CASE, THAT WAS NOT ON THE MOST RECENT CHANGES FROM THE EMAIL EARLIER TODAY. THAT WAS A PREVIOUS VERSION THAT THAT THIS COMMITTEE. OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M TRYING NOT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS HERE, BUT WE'RE IF WE'RE ALLOWING TO HAVE TWO OF EACH OF THESE SHELTERS WITHIN PROXIMITY OF EACH OTHER IN ANY GIVEN ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS ALLOWED, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME INTEGRITY IN THE LICENSING FACTOR OF WHERE WE HAVE TO REQUIRE SOME LICENSING, OR THEY'RE JUST GOING TO POP UP IN EVERYWHERE WITH NO WITH NO, NO CONSEQUENCE OR NOT NECESSARY. I DON'T WANT TO SAY CONSEQUENCE, NO, NO ACCOUNTABILITY. WELL, BUT WE'RE REALLY WE'RE REALLY TARGETING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS HERE FOR THAT CARVE OUT. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO POP UP EVERYWHERE. THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN AN EXISTING FACILITY THAT IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.

IS THAT CORRECT? TRAVIS. YES, AND IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TO FIND THAT, ADMITTEDLY, BECAUSE THAT REQUIREMENT IS LOCATED IN THE DEFINITION RATHER THAN THE THE SORT OF SUBSEQUENT.

REGULATIONS. BUT AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER IS DEFINED AS A FACILITY FACILITY THAT IS SUBORDINATE TO AN ACTIVE RELIGIOUS BUILDING AND SO ON. SO IT CAN ONLY OCCUR AS AN ACCESSORY TO AN ACTIVE RELIGIOUS BUILDING IN USE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN A. ACTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION THAT IS SAYING THEY'RE DOING THIS, BUT THEN THEY'RE DOING THIS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GRAY AREA. CORRECT. WELL, SO THIS IS THE SO I, I THINK THAT THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T HAVE INSPECTIONS OR EVEN A LICENSE FOR ACCESSORY UNITS OR ACCESSORY SHELTERS AND THAT SORT OF THING. I JUST AND I THINK WE COULD DO THAT SPECIFIC FOR THAT USE. WE JUST CREATED THAT USE ON THE BOOKS WITH THIS, WITH THIS ORDINANCE. AND SO IF WE I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM HAVING SOME LICENSING REQUIREMENT OR INSPECTION REQUIREMENT, I THINK WE SHOULD I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. BUT IT'S IT'S WHAT I THINK WHAT TRAVIS WAS SAYING IS THE ONLY LICENSING THAT'S CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IS FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS, AND NONE OF THE USES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THESE NEW USES THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A LICENSE UNDER THE HOMELESS UNDER THE CURRENT LICENSING STRUCTURE. SO I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT WE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY TURN OUR ATTENTION TO CREATING A LICENSING STRUCTURE FOR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED ONE FOR THE TEMPORARIES OR THE EMERGENCIES, BUT FOR OTHERS, WE MIGHT NEED TO CREATE A LICENSING STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY AND AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CREATING IT SPECIFIC FOR THAT USE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO SHOEHORN A LICENSE FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER INTO THESE OTHER USES THAT WE'VE CREATED. WITH THAT BEING SAID, CHAIR, THEN WE SHOULD BE WE SHOULD LEAVE SUBSECTION H IN THERE AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TURN AROUND AND START CREATING LICENSE FOR CODES AND REGS. I THINK WE'VE WE WILL HAVE CREATED A OUR WILL. WE WILL HAVE CREATED A PROBLEM.

IF WE DO THAT, THAT I THINK WE'RE BETTER OFF. AND JOEL, I WOULD PLEASE STEP IN AND AND ADD ADD YOUR YOUR COLOR ONTO THIS PLEASE. SO I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON INSPECTIONS BECAUSE INSPECTIONS WERE MENTIONED. SO IF ONE OF THESE FACILITIES, WHETHER IT BE AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT AND I HAVE THE RELIGIOUS BUILDING DEFINITION IN FRONT OF ME, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO READ, WHETHER OR NOT THEY REQUIRE A LICENSE OR NOT, THEY REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS FOR A CHANGE OF ESSENTIALLY THE OCCUPANCY YOU WOULD BE GOING FROM, SAY, LIKE A GYMNASIUM TO AN ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT OR, YOU KNOW, THE THE PARISH HALL, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS ONE BUILDING CODE, OCCUPANCY TO ANOTHER BUILDING CODE OCCUPANCY. AND SO, WHILE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRING THE LICENSING, WHICH IS ANOTHER STEP BEYOND THESE, ALL WOULD REQUIRE ESSENTIALLY A

[01:00:04]

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD WOULD WOULD HAVE A SAY IN IT, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE A SAY IN IT AND PLANNING REVIEW. SO ESSENTIALLY THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD JUST BE AN ADDITIONAL STEP ON TOP OF A STEP ALREADY, WHERE MUCH OF THE SAME INFORMATION IS COLLECTED.

AND WE KNOW THROUGH EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER USES THAT THE CHANGE OF USE PERMIT PROCESS REQUIRES.

A LOT OF OPERATORS ALREADY THAT IS ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONALLY A LICENSE, WHERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ARE ALREADY IN THE KNOW, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE FACILITY IS IS IN EXISTENCE. THAT'S JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON INSPECTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED, JUST NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THE LICENSING PROCESS. AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO READ THE RELIGIOUS BUILDING DEFINITION FOR COUNCILMAN READ IF IF HE WOULD LIKE THAT READ, THAT'D BE GREAT. SO A RELIGIOUS BUILDING IS DEFINED AS ANY BUILDING AND THE GROUNDS OF A BUILDING USED BY AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS USED FOR INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE TRADITION AND TENETS OF A RELIGIOUS FAITH, OR FOR OFFICES OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE FAITH BASED ACTIVITIES OF THE RELIGION, OR FOR SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES OR CHILDCARE CENTERS, OR AS A MEETING HALL. SUCH BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS MAY NOT ALSO BE USED FOR RETAIL SALES OR OTHER MERCHANDIZING PURPOSES, EXCEPT THAT SUCH BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS MAY BE USED FOR RELIGIOUS BAZAARS AND SUPPERS. NO SUCH BUILDING OR PORTION OF A BUILDING MAY BE USED PRIMARILY AS A COMMERCIAL THEATER, EXCEPT THAT OCCASIONAL PLAYS OR PAGEANTS FOR WHICH A PRICE OF ADMISSION IS CHARGED MAY BE HELD. CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, TEMPLES, AND MOSQUES ARE CONSIDERED RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT SHELTER IS VERY SPECIFIC TO JUST RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS. COUNCILMAN READ. NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THAT READ, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, JOE. SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC. HERE'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. WHAT IF AN ACTOR WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA OPERATING AS, LET'S SAY, A A DAYCARE CENTER CALLING THEMSELVES A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, WHEN IN FACT THEY'RE NOT AND THEY DON'T HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS IT IS NOW, I KNOW THAT THAT EXISTS IN THE COMMUNITY. THERE'S ONE IN MY DISTRICT. THERE'S THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. WOULD THAT PREVENT THEM FROM HAVING TO SEEK A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? SO ESSENTIALLY THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE, IN FACT A RELIGIOUS BUILDING? YES. I WOULD DEFER TO LEGAL COUNSEL ON THAT LEGAL COUNSEL. SO VERY GENERALLY THERE'S GOING TO BE SORT OF THREE CATEGORIES, RIGHT? THERE ARE INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE A CEP, THAT THERE ARE SOME OF THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE SORT OF COME INTO COMPLIANCE SINCE WE PASSED THESE RULES CIRCA 2017. THERE ARE NON-CONFORMING. THERE'S A LOT OF NON-CONFORMING USES, ONES THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE WHEN THESE RULES WERE PASSED IN 2017, BUT THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. THE NEW SECTION AT THE END OF THE OF THE CODE THAT IS MEANT TO ALLOW THESE NEW SHELTER USES COVERS THOSE TWO EXAMPLES, THOSE ARE SORT OF THE LEGALLY COMPLIANT OPTIONS. THE THIRD IS SOMEONE WHO CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE CIP REQUIREMENT WAS CREATED AND NEVER GOT ONE. SO THEY ARE, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, OPERATING ILLEGALLY, AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO THEN EXPAND THEIR USE TO A SORT OF SHELTERED SUB USE. THEY NEED TO BE LEGALLY COMPLIANT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN ORDER TO TO THEN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF HAVING THESE SHELTER USES BY RIGHT. SO THEY WOULD NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE ON THE INSTITUTION PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL USE FRONT.

NOW, IF THEY'RE OPERATING ILLEGALLY AS A AS A PRIVATE INSTITUTION USE, THEY MIGHT WELL THEN OPERATE ILLEGALLY AS A SHELTER USE. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE TO, YOU KNOW, NOT CREATE MORE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES FOR THEMSELVES. OKAY. BUT BUT ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL. SO IF THEY'RE OPERATING ILLEGALLY NOW, THEY MAY OPERATE ILLEGALLY IN THE FUTURE. AND IT'S UP TO US TO PUT AN END TO THAT BASICALLY.

RIGHT. OKAY. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILWOMAN. RE OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE ROBUST DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING HERE. SO CLARIFICATION FOR COUNCILMAN BATSHON. THE THE PART THAT WE CHANGED ABOUT THE WITHIN 1000 FOOT RULE ORIGINALLY SAID SERVING DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. SO IT'S LIKE IF YOU HAD A POPULATION OF MEN, YOU COULD HAVE A POPULATION OF WOMEN, YOU COULD HAVE A POPULATION OF FAMILIES. SO THAT'S WHY IT GOT

[01:05:04]

RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? OH, YES, MR. CHAIR. I'M SORRY. I'M NOT IN QUEUE. APOLOGIES I'M LATE, BUT I. I JUST WANT TO JUST BACK UP THE COMMENT. I JUST THE LAST STATEMENT THAT HE JUST MADE, WE WERE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THINGS TO HAVE A RESPONSE. IF IF THINGS WERE TO SHUT DOWN TODAY AND THAT OHIO RIVER FLOODED EVERYBODY RIGHT THERE, PEOPLE WILL JUST GET UP AND GO WHERE THEY GO. PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS USED CHURCHES AND THESE PLACES AND IN EMERGENCIES FOR WHATEVER REASON. BUT THIS IS MAKING THIS IS AN UPDATE TO MAKE IT EASIER AND LEGAL FOR THEM TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT IS, THAT HONORS THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DIGNITY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO USE THOSE PLACES. AND I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, WE GOT TO CONSIDER THIS WAS TO REITERATE WHAT YOU ALL PASSED, WHAT WE PASSED IN 2024, AND TO MAKE SURE WE SEAL IT IN INTO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK THAT LICENSURES AND CUPS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY OUT THERE, ALREADY HAS LANGUAGE, ALREADY HAS ALL THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. I JUST DON'T WANT US TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE MAIN GOAL AND TO MAKING THIS A PROCESS SO THAT LOUISVILLIANS CAN RESPOND AND TAKE CARE OF LOUISVILLIANS, AS COUNCILWOMAN RUBY HAS HAS JUST SAID THIS. WE'VE SEEN IT. WE'VE SEEN IT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WHILE IT'S OUR TURN AS COUNCIL, THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ASSIST. NOW I GET IT. THERE ARE BAD ACTORS IN EVERY FIELD AND THERE'S WAYS TO DEAL WITH THOSE BAD ACTORS, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THINGS IN PLACE TO TO DEAL WITH THOSE PROCESSES. I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE ABOUT MAKING SURE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE GIVES US WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN DESIRING. AND I JUST WANTED JUST TO REITERATE THAT I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK AND FORTH. I'VE BEEN LISTENING AND I THINK ALL THE REASONING MAKES SENSE, BUT THIS IS A TIMELY MATTER THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF WHILE WHILE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR BECKER. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT OR MAKE A MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PUT SUBSECTION H BACK INTO 4.3.33 AND ALLOW US THE TIME TO GET THE LICENSING SQUARED AWAY AS MOVING THIS TODAY WITH THAT BACK IN THERE.

WE SO WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T MOTIONED A MOTION THAT FIRST BEFORE. WE CAN MOTION THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THIS. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE OTHER MOTION THE OTHER AMENDMENT MOTION YET. SO RIGHT. I MEAN, WE'VE JUST BEEN DISCUSSING THAT LANGUAGE WE HAVEN'T MADE. WE HAVEN'T EVEN INTRODUCED IT FORMALLY YET, I GUESS. ARE YOU WANTING TO MOVE EVERYTHING THAT I HAD READ, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LEAVING THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT LICENSE REQUIREMENT IN PLACE? OKAY, I THINK THAT'S A VIABLE MOTION. YOU'RE PROPOSING TO TO TO LEAVE

[01:10:04]

BUT IF WE PASS IT THE WAY I JUST MENTIONED, THEN IT GIVES US ACCOUNTABILITY AND TEETH TO COME BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT DONE. OKAY. SO. LET'S LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE THE EMAIL FROM IN FRONT OF US. AND IF YOU WANT, CAN I GET A SECOND? OKAY. SO PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THIS IS FOR THE AMENDMENT THAT TRAVIS READ EARLIER. EARLIER. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED OKAY. SO THE AYES HAVE IT. AND THE AMENDMENT IS IS IS PASSED. NOW DO YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE. THE AMENDMENT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE WOULD BE TO PUT SECTION H IN 4.3.33 BACK IN. THAT'S MY OKAY. SO WE HAVE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED.

CAN WE WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT NOW IF WE WANT. LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE QUEUE TO SPEAK ANY MORE ABOUT THAT. MR. CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO. YEAH.

COUNCILWOMAN PARISH ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILMAN SEAN IS DOING WILL MAKE THINGS HARDER FOR PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO HELP LOUISVILLIANS.

AND IF WE PASS THIS AMENDMENT, I WANT TO HAVE MY NAME REMOVED AS A CO-SPONSOR FROM THIS LEGISLATION AS IT AS THE MORE AMENDMENTS THAT THAT COUNCILMAN SEAN ARE ADDING REMOVES THE PURPOSE OF US DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND I THINK THAT'S NOT A GOOD PRECEDENT TO GO DOWN.

AND I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT. SO I JUST I THINK THAT WE THERE'S PARTS OF THIS THAT AREN'T EVEN READY YET. AND EITHER WE TABLE THIS AND COME BACK WHEN WE HAVE A BETTER THING OR WE JUST WE MOVE FROM THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO. OKAY? YOU WE YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED AS A SPONSOR. JUST SO, SO SO YOU KNOW, OKAY. WE DO HAVE ANYBODY ELSE HAVE. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KNOWING HOW LONG THE PROCESS TAKES TO GET ANYTHING BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE AND BEFORE COUNCIL, WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROCESS THAT'S LIKE SIX MONTHS LONG. WINTER WILL BE OVER. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GOING BACK TO THIS LATER. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE NEED TO GET THIS IN PLACE SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY SHELTERS THAT DO CHOOSE TO CHOOSE TO BE CREATED ARE SAFE, AND THEY HAVE BEEN INSPECTED AND THEY'RE READY TO GO. WE CAN LOOK AT THE LICENSURE LICENSURE THING LATER, BUT RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO WE NEED TO GET THIS AMENDMENT. THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCE. COUNCILMAN I'M SORRY, CHAIR, I DON'T MEAN TO KEEP GOING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE, BUT AS COUNTY ATTORNEY TRAVIS FEASTER ALLUDED TO AND COUNCILWOMAN RUBY ALLUDED TO, THAT THE LICENSE IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THIS STILL ALLOWS US TO MOVE AS AS GOING, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE LICENSING BECAUSE IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE CURRENT PLACES IN ORDER. NOW I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT JOEL KIND OF ADDRESSED THIS ALREADY, THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. FOR THE ACCESSORY OVERNIGHT

[01:15:03]

OKAY. SO WITH THAT SAID, WHAT WHY DON'T WE DO WHY DON'T WE DO A GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON COUNCILMAN BEECHAM'S AMENDMENT SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER PARISH. RIGHT. NO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU'RE ON. YOU HAVE THREE NO VOTES AND FOUR YES VOTES. OKAY. SO THE AMENDMENT PASSES. SO WE HAVE THE AMENDED VERSION IN FRONT OF US. I CAN SAY THE AMENDED VERSION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US NOW, I WILL LIKELY VOTE AGAINST AT COUNCIL. I THINK WE HAVE MADE A MISTAKE AND I THINK WE'VE NOT DONE WHAT WE WERE SETTING OUT TO DO FROM THE BEGINNING. SO I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. SO I GUESS WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDED ORDINANCE. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN THE ROLL, PLEASE? OPEN. COMMITTEE MEMBER PARRISH. RIGHT. NO. VOTE CLOSING. HERE. WE HAVE THREE.

YOU HAVE FOUR YES VOTES, TWO NO VOTES AND ONE PRESENT. OKAY. IT'LL BE THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL. ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NUMBER. 017725. AN

[7. O-177-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE CHICKASAW NEIGHBORHOOD AS A LOCAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT AND THE ADDITION OF CHICKASAW TO THE LIST OF LOCAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS IN LMCO § 32.252(A) (CASE NO. 24LANDMARK0005). 8/19/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Held 8/5/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Held Recommended for Approval Action Required By January 31, 2026 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

[01:20:04]

I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY SPOKEN TO ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSAL. AT THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION, WE DID HAVE ABOUT 4 OR 5 PEOPLE THAT DID SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, AND SOME OF THOSE SPEAKERS WERE CLEARLY IN OPPOSITION, AS IS THEIR RIGHT. AND THEN SOME OF THEM HAD ACTUALLY SAID THAT THEY HAD LEARNED A LOT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING AND WEREN'T SURE IF THEY WERE STILL IN OPPOSITION AND LOOKED FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM ON WHAT THOSE GUIDELINES WOULD BE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY WHAT IS GOING TO BE REGULATED IN THE PRESERVATION DISTRICT BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HASN'T WRITTEN THOSE GUIDELINES YET. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS. AND JUST SO THIS CAN EITHER MOVE ON OR IT WON'T GET DROPPED, THE BALL WILL NOT GET DROPPED AGAIN. I'D ASKED IF I COULD BE A CO-SPONSOR TO THIS. RESPECTFULLY, MY COLLEAGUE DONNA PURVIS. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IS HER REASONS, BUT I CAN FULLY SAY THAT I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS. THIS IS PREDOMINANTLY MY DISTRICT. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR THIS ON THURSDAY. IF I'M CORRECT, SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING LAST WEEK. IT GOT CANCELED. SO NOW THERE'S ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING AND JUST, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE CHAIR WANTS TO BE RESPECTFUL TO MY COLLEAGUE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF MY CONSTITUENTS TIME. ALSO, I JUST, YOU KNOW, FEEL LIKE THAT WE SHOULD ALWAYS THINK COMMUNITY FIRST. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SO I WOULD LIKE TO I HAVE HELD THIS THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. I JUST IN FULL TRANSPARENCY. I WILL BE A YES VOTE ON THIS WHEN IT COMES BOTH IN FRONT OF COMMITTEE AND WHEN IT COMES IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. SO I'M ENTIRELY IN

[01:25:02]

BUT THAT WOULD BE MY MY REQUEST. EXACTLY. DOES ANYBODY I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION IF ANYBODY I CAN I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. I'M MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE. SECOND PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. SO THIS WILL THIS WILL BE A VOICE VOTE TO TABLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. SO WE KNOW WHO WHO HAS VOTED. IN WHAT WAY. COUNCILMEMBER PARRISH. RIGHT. YES. COUNCILMEMBER BIRCHER WELL, TWO THINGS I, I REQUESTED TO SPEAK, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SAW. HOLD ON A SECOND. I THINK WE WE'VE GOT A ROLL OPEN, SO WE NEED TO. WELL, THE SECOND THING IS MY DOCS DON'T WORK. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

SO YOU'RE A NO. VOTING IS CLOSING. MR. NO, NO, CHAIR. YOU HAVE FOUR YES VOTES, TWO NO VOTES AND ONE PRESENT. SO SO IT'S BEEN TABLED. OKAY. SO WE WILL THAT WILL COME BACK UP IN FRONT OF COMMITTEE MEETING. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 8020725. AN

[8. O-207-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6560 PATRIOTS CROSSING TRAIL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 9.86 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25DDP0019). Action Required By  February 28, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

JULIA. YES, THIS IS 25 0019 FOR WILLOW GREEN TOWNHOMES SIX. THIS IS LOCATED AT 6560 PATRIOTS CROSSING TRAIL IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO. THE EXISTING USE IS VACANT.

PROPOSED USE IS RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS C1 AND THE SUBURBAN WORKPLACE FORM DISTRICT. THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 9.86 ACRES. EXISTING ZONING C1. IT'S NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH HURSTBOURNE PARKWAY AND PATRIOTS CROSSING TRAIL. THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF 95 TOWNHOME UNITS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS 18 TWO STORY STRUCTURES. TRANSPORTATION AND MSD HAVE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED THE PROPOSAL. THIS SITE WAS REZONED FROM R4 TO C1 UNDER DOCKET 15, ZONE 1021. THERE IS A GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENT THAT REQUIRES THAT ANY MULTIFAMILY USE REQUIRE APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND METRO COUNCIL. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE ELEVATIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC MEETING ON JULY 31ST, 2025, WITH A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED PLAN, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN? COUNCILWOMAN RENEE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU CAN TELL I DID MY HOMEWORK TODAY. SO I WAS NOTICING IN THE CONCERNS THAT WERE PRESENTED BY THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT CONNECTIONS AND THE TRAFFIC PLAN AND ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS EXPECTED AROUND THERE. SO HOW IS THAT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE PLAN? SO THE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW ANY CONNECTION TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT'S NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE. MULTIFAMILY. SO WILLOW GREEN PHASE ONE KIND OF

[01:30:10]

I'M ON PAGE FIVE, APPARENTLY OF THE STAFF REPORT. NO, THIS IS THE THE DEVELOPER'S PRESENTATION. OKAY.

THIS IS LAURA FERGUSON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. THERE WAS ON THE PLAN AT THE TIME. THERE HAD BEEN A PROPOSAL THAT CAME THROUGH FOR THE UNION, THAT PORTION OF THE SITE TO USE FOR TRAINING. AND THEN THEY BOUGHT A CATTY CORNER PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S ALONG CLOSER TO MERCY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE AS A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, PROBABLY FOR OFFICE SPACE. BUT THAT PROPOSAL HASN'T. ON THAT SECOND PIECE OWNED BY THE UNION HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD YET. OKAY. IS THAT OKAY? AND THEN MERCY BOUGHT A PIECE THAT'S ADJACENT TO MERCY AS WELL. SO THERE'S TWO PORTIONS THAT ARE RIGHT ALONG MERCY. ONE OWNED BY MERCY AND ONE OWNED BY THE UNION. OKAY. I THINK EITHER ONE HAS A FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

OKAY. IT'S UNION LOCAL 502. YES. THANK YOU. THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE THEN. OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND HAS A STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT BEEN ADDED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN THEN. THE GENERAL PLAN HAS A BINDING ELEMENT THAT SAYS MULTIFAMILY HAS TO BE APPROVED BY METRO COUNCIL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, METRO COUNCIL. BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT HAVE THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT. SO WE HAVE AN OLDER VERSION OF THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT ON THE GENERAL PLAN. OKAY. SO WE'LL ENSURE SOMETHING IS ON THERE. SINCE I DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING TO SPEAK ON THIS. WHOSE DISTRICT IS THIS? COUNCILWOMAN FRANKLIN OKAY.

THANK YOU. WOULD THAT BUT AREN'T WE DOING WHAT IN APPROVING THIS DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN? AREN'T WE DOING WHAT THE BINDING ELEMENT ON THE GENERAL PLAN REQUIRED US TO DO? SO IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS IS THAT THAT THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT ISN'T REALLY NEEDED. WE'RE WE'RE AT THE PROCESS WHERE WE'RE DOING WHAT WAS BEING WHAT THE BINDING ELEMENT ON THE GENERAL PLAN ASKED US TO DO. AND JULIA DOES THAT. AM I MISSING SOMETHING THERE? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. THE GENERAL PLAN BINDING ELEMENT INDICATED THAT IF IF A PROPOSAL FOR MULTIFAMILY WAS TO BE ON THE SITE, THAT IT WOULD GO TO METRO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE? YES. COUNCILMAN HUDSON, I WAS ABLE TO GET THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION I HAD.

SO ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THIS ISSUE? OKAY. THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN THE ROLL, PLEASE? PLEASE. COUNCIL MEMBER. PARIS, RIGHT. YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR. OWEN, YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. CHAIR. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO OLD BUSINESS UNANIMOUSLY AT THE NET FOR THE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT. MR. CHAIR, IT CAN GO TO CONSENT IF YOU'D LIKE, AS A DEVELOPMENT

[01:35:02]

[9. O-208-25     JN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9309 SMYRNA PARKWAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8.96 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25DDP0057). Action Required By  February 28, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9309 SMYRNA PARKWAY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8.96 ACRES AND BEING IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 25 0057. CAN I GET A MOTION PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA, THIS IS 25 0057 SMYRNA PARKWAY APARTMENTS, LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 23 AT 9309 SMYRNA PARKWAY. THE EXISTING USE IS VACANT.

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R6 AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE PROPOSALS FOR A REVISED DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 8.96 ACRES ZONED R6 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM. THIS WAS REZONED UNDER 20 ZONE 0121 FOR 144 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 1600 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE WITH POOL, AND THIS ONE HAD THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT ADDED TO IT. REGARDING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND INCREASE IN BUILDING. SO THIS IS THE CHANGE TO THE SITE, WHICH IS ADDING A PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE TODAY. AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 31ST, 2025, WITH A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A REVISED PLAN PASSING BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. JULIA, THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN HUDSON'S DISTRICT.

THANK YOU. WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT. YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR. THIS SIMPLY JUST IMPROVES THE AMENITIES OF THIS COMPLEX. ADDING A CLUBHOUSE AND A POOL. THE SYSTEM IS DOING WHAT THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO DO. BRINGS IT BEFORE THE COUNCIL IF THEY MAKE ANY MAJOR CHANGES. SO I SUPPORT THIS AND ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN HUDSON. GOT NOBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE. WE'LL OPEN THE ROLL CALL. VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER PARRISH. RIGHT? YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR ON PHONES CLOSING. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. THANK YOU. IS IT OKAY IF WE SEND IT TO CONSENT, COUNCILMAN HUDSON? OKAY, SO WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, WE'LL SEND THIS TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR ON THE NEXT METRO COUNCIL AGENDA. WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE ON. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY'D LIKE TO DEAL WITH BEFORE WE

[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.]