[00:28:39] 30S. [Call to Order] [00:29:22] OKAY, WELCOME TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING [00:29:27] COMMITTEE. IT IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18TH AT 1:03 P.M. I AM THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, [Roll Call] [00:29:35] ANDREW OWEN. I'M JOINED BY MY VICE CHAIR, COUNCILMAN REID, JOINED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER, [00:29:41] COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. COMMITTEE MEMBER, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER AND COMMITTEE MEMBER, COUNCILWOMAN [00:29:48] PARRISH. RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE. BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME JOINING US ONLINE. THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO KRS 61 .826. AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE, A OKAY. ITEM [1. O-277-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 9115 TO 9119 PRESTON HIGHWAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.0 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 25-ZONE-0070). Action Required By May 13, 2026 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ] [00:30:07] NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA. 0-27725. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERT LOCATED AT 9115 TO 9119 PRESTON HIGHWAY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.0 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 25. DASH ZONE DASH 0070. CAN I GET A MOTION? AND A SECOND, PLEASE? SECOND. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. JULIA. JULIA WILLIAMS, OFFICE OF PLANNING. THIS IS 25 ZONE 0070 PRESTON HIGHWAY REZONE. THIS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 24 AT 9115 AND 9119 PRESTON HIGHWAY. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED IS COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS R5 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. THE PROPOSALS FOR C-1 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FORM DISTRICT. AS MENTIONED, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM R5 TO C-1. THERE WERE VARIANCES, WAIVERS AND A DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH BINDING ELEMENTS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RETAIL. THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED FROM PRESTON HIGHWAY WITH A THREE QUARTER ENTRANCE ON PRESTON AND A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ENTRANCE ON EAST MANSLICK ROAD, AND THERE'S A DETENTION BASIN ALONG PRESTON HIGHWAY. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ON MANSLICK, AND THEN THE THREE QUARTER ENTRANCE ON PRESTON AND THE DETENTION BASIN AND THE STRUCTURE. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PRESTON HIGHWAY. THIS IS ADJACENT PROPERTY ACROSS THE INTERSECTION OF PRESTON AND MANSLICK ROAD. THE APPLICANT HELD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON MAY 7TH, 2025. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2025, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R5 TO C-1, PASSING BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU JULIA, QUICK QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS A THREE QUARTER ENTRANCE? I HAD A FEELING YOU WERE GOING TO ASK THAT OR SOMEBODY WOULD. YEAH, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT. SO A THREE QUARTER ENTRANCE WOULD BE IT'S A RIGHT OUT ONLY, BUT IT'S A LEFT END OR RIGHT END. SO YOU CAN TURN LEFT OFF THE PRESTON HIGHWAY, OR YOU CAN GO RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE A LEFT OUT. OKAY. IS THAT KIND OF MAKES SENSE? YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. IT IS A NEW ONE. BUT OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. JUST BECAUSE IT HURTS MY SOUL TO SEE MORE HOUSES GO DOWN IN OPEN LAND, GO INTO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AS I LOOK AT THE WAY PRESTON HIGHWAY IS BEING DEVELOPED AS A BUSINESS CORRIDOR, CAN YOU JUST HELP EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT FITS OUR PLAN 2040 AND EVERYTHING? BECAUSE I GUESS THE RESIDENCES ARE ALL BEHIND IT AND THE BUSINESSES ARE ALL OUT THERE ON THE MAIN DRAG, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO THE WAY THIS WAS JUSTIFIED, JUST IN A NUTSHELL, WAS THAT THE C-1 ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND SO WHILE IT MAY BE GETTING RID OF TWO EXISTING HOMES, THERE'S POTENTIAL. IF THIS PLAN DIDN'T GO THROUGH TO HAVE THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL TO BE ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE C-1 ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. HEATHER, ARE YOU I ASSUME THAT YOU'RE ON HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF COUNCILWOMAN MULVEY WOOLDRIDGE? YES. SHE IS WALKING INTO THE AIRPORT, GOING THROUGH CUSTOMS AS WE SPEAK. SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO JUMP ON. I EMAILED LATE IN THE GAME, TRYING TO SEE IF WE COULD GET MOVED TO SECOND ON THE AGENDA, BUT SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO JUMP ON. BUT SHE HAS PREPARED ME WITH WHAT SHE HER CONCERNS WERE. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RECORD FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SHE WANTED TO SEE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY AND I DIDN'T KNOW OR SHE DIDN'T KNOW. WITH THE TURN ON EAST MANSLICK, IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO ADD A TURN LANE THERE WITH THAT TYPE OF RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT, IF THAT'S EVEN A POSSIBILITY. [00:35:03] SHE'S JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC BACKUP ON EAST MANSLICK GOING TOWARDS NORTH PRESTON. I'M SORRY. JULIA, CAN YOU BRING THE MAP BACK UP SO WE CAN. OH, IT'S OVER HERE. GOT IT. OKAY. SO WHAT? SO ON THE EAST. EAST MANSLICK COMING TOWARD PRESTON. YEAH. THE POSSIBILITY OF OF ADDING A TURN LANE THERE TO HELP WITH THE FLOW OF PEOPLE GOING INTO AND OUT OF. THE THE RETAIL CENTER. DO YOU MEAN A LEFT TURN LANE OFF OF MANSLICK. NO, A RIGHT, AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT LANE. SO, SO THERE'S A THERE'S A RIGHT ONLY TURN IN, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A WIDENING POTENTIALLY A SLIGHT WIDENING. WIDENING. YES. WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE ROOM FOR BACKUP OF THOSE TURNING RIGHT INTO THE PROPERTY AND THOSE COMING OUT RIGHT ONTO THE PROPERTY ONTO EAST MANSLICK. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THAT WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD QUESTION FOR TRANSPORTATION, A TRAFFIC STUDY WASN'T REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE, SO THERE WAS NO EVALUATION DONE FOR AN ADDITIONAL LANE. OKAY. SHE DIDN'T KNOW. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN PUT IN AS A REQUEST OF ANY ELEMENT, SOMETHING WHERE THERE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT OR NOT A POSSIBILITY. SO I CAN ADDRESS THAT. I THINK TRAVIS, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE ALSO JUST CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS THAT AT THAT SORT OF RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ON MANSLICK HEADING TOWARDS PRESTON, THERE WOULD BE A SORT OF DEDICATED ADDITIONAL LANE THERE. SO YOU TAKE A RIGHT OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT ONTO PRESTON HIGHWAY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE TURNING RIGHT INTO THE PROPERTY AND FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS TURNING RIGHT OUT OF THE PROPERTY ONTO EAST MANSLICK GOT IT. SO THERE IS I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY FOR CERTAIN, BUT LOOKING AT THE PLAN, I DOUBT THERE IS SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY CURRENTLY TO THAT FOR THAT TO EXIST. SO IT REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN, WHICH IS SORT OF AN INITIAL ISSUE. ALSO ONE OF SCALE, JUST THAT THIS IS A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT, THE KIND THAT WE DON'T TYPICALLY SEE SIGNIFICANT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON. ALL THAT TO SAY, ANY SORT OF. YOU KNOW, INCREASES TO COST, ESPECIALLY OF A ROAD IMPROVEMENT, ISN'T SOMETHING WE CAN IMPOSE ON AN APPLICANT. THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE CAN HAVE IF YOU'D LIKE. BUT AGAIN, MY SUSPICION IS THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN BECAUSE OF WHAT THE RIGHT OF WAY LOOKS LIKE. NOT TO SAY THAT THE PLAN COULDN'T BE RADICALLY ALTERED, BUT AND JULIA, REMIND US AGAIN, YOU JUST SAID IT. BUT TELL ME AGAIN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE HERE. IT'S A PRETTY SMALL DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? SO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING IS 9000FT■!S, AND IT H. LET ME LOOK AT THE PARKING. I PROBABLY COULD COUNT BEFORE I COULD GET TO THIS NUMBER. 42 SPACES. I MEAN, I GUESS ON MY INITIAL THOUGHTS OR NOT INITIAL, I MEAN MY THOUGHTS ON THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE COUNCILWOMAN'S CONCERN, BUT 42 SPACES FOR 9000FT■!S IS IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PARKING. AND IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE CHANCES OF CARS STACKING UP EITHER COMING IN OR COMING OUT SEEMS AWFULLY LOW TO ME BASED ON, YOU KNOW, MY MY EXPERIENCE. BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO. IT'S A PRETTY SMALL DEVELOPMENT TO, TO, TO REQUIRE KIND OF A DEDICATED RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT TURN FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LIKE I SAID, SHE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS POSSIBLE. SHE'S JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT'S ALREADY THERE. ALREADY. SURE. JUST ADDING TO THAT. SURE, SURE, SURE. HER OTHER CONCERN WAS SHE RECEIVED AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AN EMAIL THAT WAS WE REQUESTED TO BE PUT INTO THE THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD SPOKE AGAINST THE PROJECT AND DIDN'T FEEL THAT HE HAD THE ABILITY TO FULLY VOICE HIS CONCERNS. AND WE WERE JUST I THINK THAT WAS HER CONCERN WAS, DO WE FEEL LIKE THAT? ALL THOSE CONCERNS WERE FULLY HEARD AND ADDRESSED? BECAUSE WE HAD NOT SEEN ANYTHING. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, [00:40:02] TRAVIS, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY A JULIA QUESTION SO MUCH AS POTENTIALLY A QUESTION FOR YOU. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HEATHER IS TALKING ABOUT? I AM TWO QUICK THINGS. ONE. YOU KNOW, ONCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS COMPLETED AND THE RECORD IS CLOSED, WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERING THAT SORT OF INFORMATION. THAT BEING SAID, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS A DUE PROCESS CONCERN RAISED, THAT INDIVIDUAL SPOKE AT THE MEETING, THAT INDIVIDUAL SUBMITTED MULTIPLE EMAILS AND LETTERS FOR THIS WAS GIVEN ULTIMATELY AS MUCH TIME TO TESTIFY AS HE'D LIKE. THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT HE BE GIVEN TIME TO TESTIFY, AND THAT'S ALL ON THE RECORD. SO I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SOME COMPLAINTS AFTER THE FACT, BUT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY CAME IN ON THE RECORD FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE SHOULD CONSIDER ABOUT THE TESTIMONY THAT IS EXISTING ON IN THE FILE AND ON THE VIDEO, AND LOOK AT THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS THERE, BECAUSE THAT TESTIMONY WAS ALLOWED. YEAH. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT THAT THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL. SO I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COMMITTEE WOMAN JOSE RAYMOND. HEATHER, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? THOSE WERE THE TWO THINGS YOU WANTED TO KNOW. THOSE WERE THE TWO THINGS OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR FOR PARTICIPATING AND APPRECIATE IT. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN MY QUEUE. IT IS. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE? OKAY. WITHOUT FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. CHERYL, CAN YOU OPEN THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? VOTING IS OPEN. SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT. IS IT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR NUMBERS STAGE. SURE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ME, BUT MARK ME AS A YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MERRIMAN. YES, VICE CHAIR REED. YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES. THANK YOU. THIS WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO OLD BUSINESS ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD MAKE JUST A QUICK NOTE REAL QUICK, THE CLERK'S OFFICE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE AN INCORRECT ACTION REQUIRED DATE ON THIS. IT'LL BE IN JANUARY 2026. WE'LL GET THAT CORRECTED JANUARY 2026. YES. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 28, 2026 JANUARY 28TH, 2026 AS ACTION REQUIRED DATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT'S. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, GENERAL QUESTION. SINCE WE GOT ALL THE EXPERTS IN ONE ROOM, THIS ORDINANCE WE PASSED RECENTLY WHERE IF IT'S UNANIMOUS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IT DOESN'T COME TO METRO COUNCIL. IS THAT TRUE? I MEAN, I KNOW IT IS. I'M JUST. RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, THE CASE TODAY IS IN FRONT OF US AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE. IF A CASE IS UNANIMOUS, THERE'S SORT OF TWO WAYS IT COULD STILL GET TO METRO COUNCIL. IF A METRO COUNCIL PERSON SUBMITS A RESOLUTION AND GETS I THINK IT'S TWO THIRDS. TO ELEVATE THE CASE, THEN COUNCIL CAN TAKE IT UP STILL. ALTERNATIVELY, IF I BELIEVE THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS ANY AGGRIEVED PERSON, SO OTHER THAN COUNCIL, YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO WAS AT THE MEETING, A PERSON WHO'S CONCERNED ABOUT THE ZONING CASE, WHATEVER FILES A REQUEST, THEN IT CAN ALSO BE ELEVATED. SO THERE ARE THERE ARE STILL PATHS FOR A UNANIMOUS CASE TO GET COUNCIL. UNANIMOUS CASES JUST DON'T COME HERE AUTOMATICALLY ANY LONGER. WHAT DOES ELEVATED ELEVATED MEAN? JUST JUST A WORD I'M THROWING OUT THERE. I MEAN JUST JUST A WAY TO GET IT IN FRONT OF YOU. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS AS THE CHAIR, I THINK ANYTIME A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO HAVE IT COME IN FRONT OF US, I'D BE I WOULD BE INCLINED TO VOTE TO BRING IT OVER. I MEAN, I THINK I THINK THAT AND I WOULD TOO. BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT I THINK GENERALLY SO. BUT TECHNICALLY IT'S A TWO THIRDS VOTE IS WHAT IT IS. TRAVIS. YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT. AND FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD LIKELY APPEAR AS A RESOLUTION AT A COUNCIL MEETING DONE BY EMERGENCY BECAUSE OF THE THE TIME WINDOW THAT'S SET BY THE STATUTE. I THINK IT'S 21 DAYS, 21 DAYS. SO WE'D LIKELY BE AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION THAT WOULD BE FILED. AND ASSUMING THAT RESOLUTIONS PASSED, THERE'D BE A SORT OF ORDINANCE IN WAITING. SO THAT ORDINANCE WOULD THEN COME HERE LIKE A NORMAL ONE DOES, ASSUMING THE VOTES WERE MADE. OKAY, I'M STILL NOT CLEAR. SO LET'S SAY LET'S SAY ONE. AND I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR CASE OF I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE NEW RULE. SO LET'S SAY SOMETHING PASSES PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY DAY ONE, AND [00:45:05] THEN SAY THAT CHAIR OWEN WANTED TO HAVE IT IN HERE, BUT IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. WHAT WOULD HE DO? SO IF HE'S THE ONE WHO WANTED THAT TO HAPPEN, HE WOULD PUT IN AN ITEM FOR NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION. THE RESOLUTION? HE'D WORK WITH OUR OFFICE. WE HAVEN'T MADE ONE YET, BUT IT WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE A RESOLUTION. IN WHICH THE COUNCIL HAS CHOSEN TO TAKE ACTION ON CASE NUMBER, WHATEVER, AND THAT RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO BE VOTED UPON AND APPROVED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE. AND THEN THE NEXT SESSION IT WOULD COME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE. YES. YEAH. SO WE IF WE EVER FILE ONE OF THOSE RESOLUTIONS, WE WILL FILE A COMPANION ORDINANCE THAT WILL ONLY GET READ IN THE NEW BUSINESS IF THAT RESOLUTION PASSES THAT NIGHT. SO IF IT DOES, WE'LL HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON NEW BUSINESS SO THAT IT CAN THEN GO TO COMMITTEE. WE CAN DISCUSS THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTER AND THAT WOULD BE PASSED, YOU KNOW, THE SUBSEQUENT OR FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEETING. SO WHAT'S THE 21 DAY, 21 DAYS IS THE STATUTORY PERIOD FROM 21 DAYS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IS WHEN THAT ACTION BECOMES FINAL. IF IT'S UNANIMOUS IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCE. SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS, YOU KNOW, TODAY AND IT'S UNANIMOUS DECISION AND NO ONE ELSE, NEITHER COUNCIL NOR AN AGGRIEVED PERSON FILES A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO REVIEW, THEN IN 21 DAYS, IT'LL BE FINAL ACTION APPEALABLE TO COURT. OKAY, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THIS IS THE CRUX OF MY QUESTION NOW. QUESTIONS. IF SOMETHING PASSES UNANIMOUSLY IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING, I MEAN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY UNLESS WE GO THROUGH THE TWO THIRDS PROCESS, THE 21 DAY PROCESS, WE HAVE NO FURTHER ABILITY TO PUT A BINDING ELEMENT ON IT. IS THAT TRUE? CORRECT. SO TYPICALLY WHEN COUNCIL, THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL HAS TO DIRECTLY PUT BINDING ELEMENTS ON A CASE IS WHEN IT'S IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. AND SO AFTER THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE. IT DOESN'T GET THEN PICKED UP BY COUNCIL FOR ONE OF THOSE TWO REASONS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. THEN. YES, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR BINDING ELEMENTS TO BE ATTACHED, BECAUSE IN MY SHORT TENURE HERE IN THIS THIS OPERATION, BINDING ELEMENTS, YOU KNOW, MANY TIMES MOSTLY MINOR BINDING ELEMENTS THAT'S COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM US. NOW, IF IF IT'S A UNANIMOUS DECISION WITH LESS WE GO THROUGH THAT THOSE HOOPS. RIGHT? YES. YEAH. THERE WON'T BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD THEM IF IT'S A UNANIMOUS VOTE. AND THAT AND DOESN'T GET PICKED UP. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN RUTH. THANK YOU. SO WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, WHAT IS THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE FOR AN AGGRIEVED PERSON TO REQUEST? DO WE HEAR IT. SO BASICALLY THAT THEY'D REACH OUT TO TO PLANNING STAFF MOST LIKELY. I MEAN, THEY COULD REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE. WHOEVER THEY REACHED OUT FIRST TO WOULD WANT TO GET IN VERY QUICK COMMUNICATION WITH THE OTHER. BUT EITHER WAY, YOU KNOW, WITH ONE OF THOSE BODIES, EITHER THE COUNCIL CLERK'S OFFICE OR WITH PLANNING STAFF SLASH THE COMMISSION. BUT ULTIMATELY, IF IT WENT TO, YOU KNOW, IF IT CAME DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR SOME REASON OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WE WE WORK TO TO GET THAT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. I THERE ARE OTHER COUNTIES THAT HAVE A SORT OF STANDARD FORM FOR THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE FINALIZED ONE AT THIS POINT, BUT IT'S NOT TERRIBLY DIFFICULT. YOU SORT OF LIST, YOU KNOW, THE CASE NUMBER AND WHO YOU ARE AND THAT YOU'RE A RESIDENT AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS AND THAT YOU ARE AN AGGRIEVED PERSON. OKAY. SO MEMORY SERVES ME. THEY HAVE 21 DAYS TO REGISTER THEIR GRIEVANCE. SO IF THEY COME ON DAY 20, DOES THE CLOCK THEN GET EXTENDED TO ALLOW THE CHANCE TO HEAR IT IN COUNCIL OR IN COMMITTEE? SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, I COULDN'T QUITE MAKE OUT WHAT BRIAN WAS SAYING. HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON, BRIAN DAVIS OFFICE PLANNING. SO IF A IF AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NOTIFIES THE OFFICE OF PLANNING THAT THEY WANT METRO COUNCIL TO HEAR THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY COMES OVER TO METRO COUNCIL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TWO THIRDS VOTE SYSTEM TO HAVE IT COME OVER. AGGRIEVED PARTY SAYS, HEY, WE WANT OUR LEGISLATIVE BODY TO HEAR THAT. THEN WE SEND IT OVER JUST LIKE WE DO IN ANY OTHER CASE. SO SO THAT IS THAT IS ALL CORRECT. IF WHAT YOU WERE ASKING IS, LET'S SAY DAY 20 IS ON A SATURDAY AND THAT, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT'S POSTMARKED OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I WANT TO LOOK AT EXACTLY THE SITUATION, BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOME STRANGE CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE WITHIN THAT PERIOD, IT'S GOING TO BE ELEVATED. AND AT THAT POINT WE'D EXTEND OUT TO THE REGULAR 90 DAY TIMELINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER. THANK YOU. SIR. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AGGRIEVED PERSON? GOOD QUESTION. DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER. WE HAVE CASE LAW ON WHAT INJURED AN AGGRIEVED MEANS AND INJURED [00:50:04] AND AGGRIEVED IS THE STANDARD FOR AN APPEAL TO COURT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE LEGISLATURE, WHEN THEY DEALT WITH 2111 JUST SAID AGGRIEVED. SO IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING LESS THAN INJURED AND AGGRIEVED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT DEFINITION FOR IT. I THINK, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, WE'RE LIKELY TO TREAT ANYONE WHO YOU KNOW IS QUALIFIES TO. TO FILE A GRIEVANCE. WE'RE PROBABLY JUST GOING TO ELEVATE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO A SUBSTANTIVE LOOK AT WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE CONSIDER THAT AGGRIEVED OR NOT. I THINK WE'RE LIKELY TO SAY, HEY, YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL, YOU LIVE IN METRO, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE AGGRIEVED. THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR OUR PURPOSES. MAYBE AT SOME POINT THAT WILL GET APPEALED BY SOMEONE AND WE'LL GET A CLEARER DEFINITION FROM THE COURTS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ONE AT THE MOMENT. I THINK IT'S PRETTY FAIR TO SAY AGREED PERSON IS A LOW BAR. YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, COULD SOMEBODY IN HAZARD, KENTUCKY BE AGGRIEVED? WELL, I MEAN, I THINK YOU SAID WITHIN JEFFERSON COUNTY. YEAH. MORE LIKELY. AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME CASE LAW ON LIKE FOLKS OUT OF COUNTY, FOLKS OUT OF STATE. AND I NEED TO REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION ON SOME OF THAT. I MEAN, IF SOMETHING'S RIGHT ON THE COUNTY LINE, I CAN'T RECALL IMMEDIATELY WHETHER SOMEONE FROM LIKE OLDHAM COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I'LL NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THAT. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEONE WITHIN JEFFERSON COUNTY. AND I MEAN, WE DON'T GET MANY PARTICIPANTS FROM OUTSIDE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE FIRST PLACE, OTHER THAN A DEVELOPER WHO'S OUT OF STATE OR SOMETHING. AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT, TRAVIS, CAN WE I MEAN, THERE IS PRECEDENT AT OTHER PLACES FOR THIS. THIS WAS A STATUTE THAT WE WERE RESPONDING TO. SO CAN YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT? WE'RE NOT SUPER UNIQUE HERE, RIGHT? RIGHT. I MEAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLANNING UNITS THAT UTILIZE THIS, AND WE'VE LOOKED AT MULTIPLE OF THEM JUST TO KIND OF SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY DO PROCESS WISE. AGAIN, WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME OF THEIR FORMS FOR HOW PEOPLE FILE THESE SUBMISSIONS. THE WHAT DO THEY CALL THEMSELVES. THE IS IT S3 M3. THERE'S LIKE A TRIO OF COUNTIES THAT ALL USE THE SAME SORT OF PLANNING BODY. TRIPLE S THE TRIPLE S. THANK YOU. WHICH IS WHAT SHELBY AND SHELBY COUNTY, SHELBYVILLE AND SIMPSONVILLE. YEAH. SHELBY AND SIMPSON. SO THEY'VE ALL USED THIS FOR SOME TIME. SO THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON WITHIN THE STATE. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE. TYPICALLY IT'S LOOKED AT AS A WAY TO SORT OF ACCELERATE THE PROCESS. I THINK THAT WAS THE THOUGHT HERE WAS IF YOU'RE A UNANIMOUS VOTE, DO WE NEED TO HAVE YOU GO THROUGH ALL THE ADDITIONAL PROCESS? EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE GENERALLY OKAY WITH IT. AND AND IF SOMEONE'S NOT OKAY WITH IT, THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GET IT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. SO RATHER THAN WAITING THAT FULL 90 DAY CLOCK, NOW YOU CAN WAIT FOR 21 AND HOPEFULLY GET TO CONSTRUCTION QUICKER. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE SOME OF THE MINOR BINDING ELEMENTS IS IMPORTANT THING. WHAT WE DO, WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR IN THE PAST YEAR. OR MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S IT'S A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, JUST IMPROVE, YOU KNOW? AND MANY TIMES DEVELOPERS WILL BE LIKE, OH, WELL, I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THAT. I'LL JUST GO WITH YOU. THAT'S A GOOD POINT YOU BROUGHT UP. I MEAN, THOSE DAYS ARE GONE, RIGHT? IF IT'S UNANIMOUS. SO AGAIN, THE SORT OF OPPORTUNITY IS NOT THERE. I DON'T HAVE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT I KNOW THAT WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT IN THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERING THIS CHANGE, SORT OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO. AND TYPICALLY THE CASES WHERE WE SEE BINDING ELEMENTS ADDED WERE CASES THAT WERE CONTROVERSIAL, THAT HAD SPLIT VOTES. OFTENTIMES, THE CASES THAT ARE UNANIMOUS THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED IN THE PAST HAVE EITHER MOVED FORWARD WITH NO ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS OR HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH MAYBE THE STANDARD BINDING ELEMENT. SO IT'S PRETTY RARE FOR US TO HAVE GOTTEN SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL BINDING ELEMENTS ADDED ON A UNANIMOUS CASE HISTORICALLY. NOT THAT IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. IT HAS, BUT TYPICALLY IT IS THE CASES FLIP VOTES THAT YOU ALL WERE ALREADY TAKING MORE SIGNIFICANT ACTION ON AND THAT WILL STILL OCCUR WITH ANY SPLIT VOTES ON FUTURE CASES, OR AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY WILL BE THERE. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO ITEM NUMBER TWO WILL NOT BE CALLED. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IN OUR BACK POCKET IF WE NEED IT. THAT'S THE LAST THING ON THE AGENDA SHOCKINGLY FOR THE FOR THIS WEEK. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE ADJOURN. HEARING NO FURTHER COMMENTS WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.