Open your document. There.
All right. So.
I don't know if
we all have to walk down. Here.
To turn off your house.
Yeah,
it's it's a county. So we had
to restart the whole computer.
But. But look, you don't need
it. No.
We've been waiting for
you. I'm just. I'm joking.
Okay?
Yeah, well, let's not look at
that right now. Let's start
with what we need.
Metro tv 30s.
Good afternoon and welcome to
the regularly scheduled
planning and Zoning committee
meeting. I am Scott Reed, the
vice chair of the committee.
Today is Tuesday, JUNE the 2nd.
And joining me in the chambers,
we have COUNCILWOMAN Parish
rights. We have COUNCILWOMAN
Raymond, we have COUNCILMAN
Hudson. We have COUNCILWOMAN
Rudy. We have COUNCILWOMAN
Jennifer Chappell. And online
we have Chair Owen. Just a
little bit of housekeeping. We
have item number five, which is
being held at the request of
the sponsor. And with that in
mind, we have starting off
ordinance pending legislation,
ordinance 0-127-26, an
ordinance relating to the
zoning of property located at
3827 proper level road
containing approximately 0.22
acres and being in Louisville
Metro. Case number 26. Zone
0025 do have a motion motion.
Motion seconded. Julia. Oh I'm
sorry. Disclaimer. This meeting
is being held pursuant to carry
61.826 and Council of five a
reading for. Thank you Cheryl.
Now to you, Julia. Julia
Williams Office of Planning. So
this is 26 zone 0025. This is
located at 3827 Poplar Level
Road in Council District ten.
The existing use is single
family. The proposed use is
multifamily. The existing
zoning is r five in the
neighborhood Forum district.
The proposed zoning is r six in
the neighborhood Forum district.
The request is for a change in
zoning from r five residential
to r six residential. There was
a waiver and a detailed
district development plan with
binding elements associated
with the site. The site is
approximately 0.22 acres. It's
an existing single family
structure to be converted to a
duplex with a detached third
dwelling unit in the rear.
There's no new construction or
expansion of the existing
structures. This is the
applicant's development plan,
showing the existing home in
the front and then the existing
accessory dwelling unit in the
rear. This is what the subject
property looks like along
Poplar Level Road. The rear of
the property along Jackson
Avenue. These are the existing
dwellings across the front of.
Along a level road. This is
facing northwest toward Poplar
Level Road and Trevilian Way
and then facing southeast
towards Pablo Level Road and
Grenade Avenue. The neighbor.
The applicant held their
neighborhood meeting on
FEBRUARY 25th, 2026. The
Planning Commission held their
public hearing on APRIL 23rd,
2026, where there was a motion
to recommend approval of the
change in zoning, passing by a
vote of 7 to 1. Are there any
questions? Whose council
district is this? Oh, I'm sorry,
would you like to speak to it,
COUNCILMAN Raymond, please.
Well, first I wanted to ask if
if you understood why there was
a no vote. That commissioner
did not speak as to why they
voted no. Yes, I'll speak to it,
if I MAY. So this is a this is
a property. It's a five bedroom
house that was previously
rented out and that there's not
the market that there used to
be for renting five bedroom
houses. And so the owner of
this property is converting it
with only internal renovations.
And so that each floor is
rented. So it's essentially a
duplex. I went to the
neighborhood meeting. There was
no objection actually at the
neighborhood meeting was the
couple who were the current
tenants who were supportive of
this change. So I was actually
really disappointed by this one
no vote because it's delayed
the progress. And it's, it's we
talk about how things move
really slowly. This is a very
simple change that enhances the
neighborhood and is desired by
the residents. And it has still
taken months and months. So I
ask for your support. Thank you,
COUNCILMAN Owen. Thank you,
Vice Chair. Quick, quick
question. So is my
understanding. My understanding
is that this will go from a
single family with a cup for an
for an Adu, or was it a and
then and now it will just be a
multi-family. And so will this,
the the Adu will go away and
there will be three units of
multifamily rental. Is that my
is that a correct understanding?
I don't believe the site had a
cup for an accessory dwelling
unit. So it was being rented,
not as a as a short term rental,
but as a long term rental.
Previously the back of the, the
back unit. It's the I know the
young man who lives in the back.
It's the owner's son. And so do
we know again, I'm I'm I'm, I'm
a I'm for this. I was just
trying to get some
clarification. So so the
current tenants who now occupy
the entire house will now
occupy one floor. The young man
who lives in the Adu in the
back will stay there. And then
a new tenant will move on to
the second floor. Great. And I
just wanted to mention that,
you know, when we do break up a,
a five bedroom house, for
example, we do into two units,
we have created smaller units
that will be more affordable to,
to people. And I think that is
a net positive here. So just
wanted to highlight that. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Chair.
Any other comments? We have
been joined by COUNCILMAN
Vachon. Stewart. COUNCILMAN
Benson, you. Oh, I thought I
acknowledged you. COUNCILMAN
Benson is in the chambers as
well. With that, I think we're
ready to vote. On. Yes. Thank
you. Voting's closing. Vice
Chair Reed, you have eight yes
votes. Thank you very much.
This passes and we'll go to new
business at the next council
meeting. Next is item number
0-137-26. An ordinance relating
to the area wide zoning of
property located at 1901 r
Payne Street, containing
approximately 3.09 acres and
being in Louisville Metro. Case
number 26, zone 0030. Do I have
a motion? Motion and seconded
chair Owen would like to speak
to this, I'm sure. Thank you,
Vice Chair Reed, this is a long
time coming. I'm excited about
this. So a couple of things I,
I want to highlight again here.
We've talked about this
previously, but I wanted to say
that, you know, this I don't
expect to be precedent. I do
not think that we as Metro
government should proactively
go after properties that are
historically that are
grandfathered in as industrial
zoning and pull the industrial
zoning designation out from
under companies who are
operating in in those locations.
I think that is bad practice,
bad business. And I do not
think that this should set that
precedent precedent. So I
wanted to say that, first and
foremost, in the case of this
property, the property has had
multiple explosions over the
years. At least two of those
explosions were deadly. And
frankly, the most recent
explosion. Is it's a small
miracle that it wasn't more
that it didn't take more lives
than it actually did. When you
you saw the the huge chunks of
metal that went flying
throughout the Clifton
neighborhood. And so once that
happened, the mayor came
forward and, and I was in full
agreement that this should
never operate as heavy
industrial again. And we
requested that the Planning
Commission take a look at what
this might look like to down
zone it. The recommendation was
to, to change from m-2, which
is a heavy industrial zoning
zoning designation to cm, which
does allow for some light
industrial zone, but also
allows for some housing,
multifamily housing and some
other things. So it, it adds
more flexibility to what the
property can be used for going
forward, which I think is a
good thing and does will make
it easier for the for the
company to sell going forward,
because they'll be more users
that that could potentially use
the property as opposed to a, a,
only a heavy industrial user
using the property. I wanted to
acknowledge that Commissioner
Lannert voted against this at
the Planning Commission. He was
the sole no vote at the
Planning Commission. And I do
respect Commissioner Lambert's
expertise as it relates to
industrial properties. He's. He
has brokered industrial
properties in Louisville for
the past four decades, and he
suggested that we were reducing
the value of the property by by,
by lowering the zoning, lower
the intensity of zoning from m2
industrial to cm. Again
acknowledging his expertise. I
do have to disagree. In this
particular case, I think that
we have at. I think we've, like
I said previously, we've added
some value to the property in
the sense that we have added
the number of different uses
that can be used, that can be
taken advantage of at this site
going forward, which I think
adds some value. We have
allowed some light industrial
to continue here, which, you
know, could could obviously
turn into to future cash flow
at this site going forward. So
at the very most, I think we
have I don't think we have
reduced the value of this
property in making this zoning
change. One other thing and
then I'll, I'll I'll step back
here with the Planning
Commission, sorry, the planning
staff at Metro Government,
under the leadership of Brian
Davis, has reached out to
Geveden on a handful of
occasions since this process
has been in place. What what I
had requested from the company
is that they come out and
explicitly say that they they
were not against the change in
the zoning. They did not agree
to say that explicitly, but at
the same time, we have given
them multiple opportunities 4
or 5 on 4 or 5 different
occasions to come out and say,
please don't do this. You are
really, you know, taking away
the value of the property by
doing this. And they have not
done that either. And I think
that their silence on that
should be there's something to
be said for the fact that they
did not take the 4 or 5
opportunities to, to state
their opposition to this. And
so I think that's that's
important. So with all of that
said, I would really ask for
your support and hopefully we
can. The this change in zoning
will bring closure to the
neighborhood in a way that I
think will be incredibly
healing. So I ask for your
support and hope to move it
forward. Thank you. Thank you.
Chairman. Does anybody have any
questions? COUNCILMAN Bacon?
Thank you, Vice Chair Reed. And
thank you, Chair Owen, for your
explanation. And and just you
know, for the record, I want to
I've I've stated these issues
before, but I want to state
them again. And I think I think
we're opening up a can of worms.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think I
think we should allow the
market to play its role and do
what it needs to do, and not
rezone a property outside of
the scope of allowing the owner
to go through that zoning
process like they should. This
is going to increase the value
of the property. I can agree
with you on that. COUNCILMAN
Owen, and create a new market
value for this property to be
sold or redeveloped. I strongly
believe that we should not be
doing this for the purpose of
that. Owner needs to go through
this process like everybody
else does. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN. Any other questions?
Would you like to respond to
COUNCILMAN Owen? Okay. Any
questions? That said, I think
we're ready to vote. Chair Owen.
Yes. Thank you. Ordinance
closing. Vice chair Reed, you
have five yes votes and three
no's. Thank you. With that,
we'll go to new business. I'm
sorry, old business. In the
next council meeting. Next is
item number three, an ordinance
imposing a temporary moratorium
on rezoning conditional. And
this is item number 0-135-26.
An ordinance imposing a
temporary moratorium on
rezoning conditional use
permits and plan certain
category two b and three
development plan applications
relating to telecommunication
hotels and data centers pending
a review and recommended
changes by the Planning
Commission. Do I have a motion,
motion, motion and seconded? I
think we have COUNCILWOMAN
Chapel that would like to speak
to this. Sure. Thank. I used to
be on planning and zoning, and
our meetings were much longer.
Preface. No ai has been used to
write this plea and all the
words are my own, as is all of
my words I've said in this
chamber thus far. Colleagues,
we have kicked. This can far
enough down the road. On
JANUARY 23rd, the Planning
Commission was supposed to
release the recommendations for
the changes to the Land
Development Code regarding data
centers. 130 days have passed
since that deadline and we are
without recommendations. Still,
what's even more puzzling to me
is that recommendations were
published online on JANUARY 2nd,
and they were taken down just
hours later. It seemed like the
work was completed. So where
did it go? And to be clear,
these are recommendations that
we're waiting on. It's not
legislation and its final form.
They aren't automatic updates
to our land development code.
They're recommendations that
have the opportunity to be
molded, which will be subject
to public comment and will be
under review by this
legislative body. There's a lot
of work ahead of us, but we
can't move forward without the
foundation of these documents.
Data centers are a hot button
issue worldwide, and they're
certainly one that folks care
about here since they're in
their infancy. We don't
understand a lot of the
implications of a data center.
How big of a population does
one data center serve? How many
data centers does Louisville
need to power its population?
What communities outside of
Louisville benefit from data
centers located here? Do those
communities have buy in?
Louisville has more water than
anyone could than we could ever
need or use is something I've
heard before. But how much has
to be used in order for that
precious finite source to be
tapped and threatened? Solar
panel energy advances as
quickly as televisions do, and
computers are no longer the
size, as buildings. Look how
tiny this one is here. Does
technology in a data center
advance as quickly? And are the
monstrosities that we're
building now appropriate in 510
years? I don't know the answers
to these questions, and I have
a slew of others that are going
around in my head, and I doubt
that anybody else in this room
has answers to these questions,
but I'm sure that you have a
whole lot more. I know that I
am not willing to let
Louisville be a guinea pig for
these data centers. It's
convenient to rally against a
moratorium when it's not your
backyard being threatened. And
let's be clear I live in a very
dense urban area, and I doubt
that a data center would ever
be coming to my backyard.
However, that doesn't mean that
I can't prevent myself from
fighting for someone that might
have one in their backyard.
Beyond that, we all pay a
monthly L.G.A bill and a bill
to Louisville Water. We're all
subjected to the same price
hikes, including the one that
msd is proposing right now. So
if you don't care about the
deforestation of data centers,
their light pollution, their
noise pollution, the creation
of a brown field, etc. Then
maybe you will care when your
water turns brown and your
electricity bills rival your
mortgage payment. Maybe these
are all fears, but they're not
ones that I want to test. Now
let me bring address some
concerns about the moratorium
that my colleagues have brought
up. First, there are no data
centers in the pipeline, so
this legislation would be moot.
GOD forbid that Louisville
metro government takes a
proactive approach to something.
Instead of laying in the weeds
and being reactive to something,
why are we too afraid to put
our residents over private
predatory development? Besides,
if plans for a new data center
were to be submitted tomorrow,
any action by Metro Council
would take little too late. Let
me remind you, we're about to
go on break for about three
weeks. It might be too late. A
moratorium will signal that
Louisville is closed for
business. How could we
insinuate that Louisville is
closed for business? When one
Louisville distributed these
talking points before Derby,
over 2 million packages moved
through ups every day, and we
just passed Memphis as the
largest air cargo hub in North
America. Louisville saw over $3
billion in new capital
investment last year, an amount
that's on par with Austin,
Nashville and Raleigh. Ford is
reinventing the assembly line
in Louisville and how cars are
put together. Ge is building a
new 800 job, half a billion
factory, half $1 billion
factory that will manufacture a
washer and dryer units across
this, an area the size of 33
football fields, slate auto and
new Jeff Bezos backed startup
is building an affordable ev in
their global customization hub
is right here in Louisville.
Taiwan based Foxconn is
investing $173 million into a
new facility that, for the
first time since the 1980s,
manufactured consumer
electronics at scale in America
in downtown, has over two $2.5
billion in development underway.
That includes a 1000 room
convention hotel in Humana's
old hq and a new J.W. Marriott
hotel. And our airport is in
the middle of $1 billion
modernization, improving the
experience and the number of
flights. I've also heard the
administration has promised
these recommendations in JUNE,
and they're actively working on
tightening them up for
distribution. These
recommendations are coming to
us from the planning department
via the Planning Commission.
The administration will have
the same opportunity to offer
their feedback, as does Metro
Council and the public. When we
get these distributed. Besides,
why should we trust that we're
getting these recommendations
when we were told we were
getting them in JANUARY and
then in MAY, and now in JUNE.
And I also hear from my
colleagues, I never support
moratoriums, a moratorium on
moratoriums is a weird flex,
but okay, I'm sure that there's
other, more nefarious reasons
that would prevent a council
person from voting in support
of this moratorium, since there
are only assumptions, I'm not
going to address them, although
I can assure you that your
voters want this moratorium,
and I promise you that there is
no price worth the sale of your
dignity. I'm wrapping up. So.
You know you're coming, but I'd
love to read an email from my
friend David Kaplan. Who or
sorry, David Kaplan, who had
emailed all of the members of
the Planning and Zoning
committee this morning. And I
just want to read this email.
It's fairly short. My friend
Jennifer Chappell asked me to
reach out to seek your yes vote
on a moratorium for data
centers today. These centers
really intrigued me as I own a
parcel where one could be built.
If I were to build one, I would
wait until best management
practices are adopted regarding
them. As my friend Stuart
Benson will tell you, a
machinist or a builder, one
needs a blueprint or a diagram
to get the project done
correctly. This is what a
moratorium would provide, and
I'm puzzled at how the Office
of Planning started on this.
Then it suddenly disappeared.
But the Office of Planning has
made this common practice. They
have studied the Floyds Fork
watershed for decades without a
plan being adopted, not only a
major issue of our tax dollars,
but it's worth showing the rest
of the nation that we're not a
smart growth city building
without future generations in
mind. So let's pass this. These
are my own words. Now it's the
end of his email, but I just
want to encourage my colleagues
to vote yes on this so we can
pass this moratorium, get the
recommendations, have the tough
conversations that we need to
have, and update the ldc
responsibly so we don't sell
out any more of our communities.
Thank you. Thank you,
COUNCILMAN Chappell, what is
the length of the moratorium?
How long are we or is there a
length 180 days, which would be
six months? Okay. COUNCILMAN
Parrish. Right. Thank you, MR.
Chair. I don't I think
COUNCILWOMAN Chappell gave a
great explanation of all of
this. I've. And I've thought
about what I would say because
I have pre-typed message that I
wanted to use. But I just want
to say this makes sense. It
gives us an opportunity to be
proactive. This is what our
constituents are asking for. It
is in the backyard of my
district, even though the one
being built is in district one,
I can you can throw a rock over
into district three. I went to
some neighborhood meetings, and
I heard the concerns from
people who are living in those
communities who, who just found
out about it, who are still
trying to understand it. I then
drove and walked the property
with a constituent and it was
huge. And we and I know that
life thrives around water. I
know that we have a good source
of water, but we need to be
able to make decisions that
mean something to our community.
Louisville has never been
closed for business. There's
not a time I've seen Louisville
close for business. So I think
that if that is a concern, that
doesn't make sense to me. I
think the email from that
Jennifer read is so important.
This person is saying they have
a parcel that could be
considered for that, but they
would not build without having
these regulations in place. And
I think that with us going on
vacation with all the things
that are going on and how this
first one got in because of it
was already zoned, and it's
already ahead of the the laws
we have. The moratorium makes
sense. That's all we're asking.
Let's do something to show the
community we're listening.
Let's do something proactive.
Let's work together. This is
not negative. This is not
against business. This is not
us trying to shut down every
developer. This is saying to
the community that we hear you,
we heard you, and we're taking
action. Thank you. COUNCILWOMAN
Freeman. Yes. Is it appropriate
to ask the planning team
questions about the rollout of
the recommendations? I'm sorry.
MAY I ask the planning team
questions about that? Yes, yes,
yes. Could you all explain
better to us and to people
who've been watching but
haven't quite been able to
grasp it like me? Right. What
has been the timeline for the
recommendations? Why the delay
and when can we expect them and
what will they look like? Sure.
Now, so Brian Davis, the Office
of Planning in terms of when
you can expect something, we
are in the process of
finalizing a draft. We hope to
release it next week. So this
has been an this has been an
interesting and challenging
task for us to complete for a
number of reasons and. And
COUNCILWOMAN Chappell, you know,
addressed several of them just
because there isn't a whole lot
of information out there, a lot
of communities are all kind of
in the same spot and that, you
know, you have this use that is
a somewhat fairly new use,
especially when you think about
the hyperscale data centers and
people are treating it all
kinds of different ways
depending on how the
regulations are. We reached out
to some of the peer cities that
we speak with. And, you know,
they were treating data centers
anywhere from like an office,
like any other office use to,
you know, some sort of heavy
industrial use. And so, you
know, people are all over the
place in terms of how they're
dealing with those. And it's
been a topic where really,
every week there's new
information out there about,
you know, what goes on at the
data centers, how they're
operating, why they're
operating the way they do, and
how communities are dealing
with them. So it's something
that we, we've been watching
and kind of following, you know,
another challenge that that we
were kind of dealing with while
we were in the process of, of,
of, you know, doing all this
research was the state
legislation. And in the session
that we just concluded in APRIL,
there were five different bills
that were proposed that were
called an act relating to data
centers. And so, you know, kind
of the thought was like, you
know, before we put anything
out there, before we we do
anything with this draft, let's
watch and see what the state's
going to mandate, because we
didn't want to produce a
product that was going to be,
you know, essentially null and
void because of an action that
the state was going to be
taking. Now, none of those
wound up passing. But, you know,
they they were out there. And
if you've watched the
legislature in the last couple
of years, you know, you have to
wait until the last two days of
the session for anything,
because that's when everything
gets done. So we were watching
that. So as I stated, though,
we are in the process of
finalizing the draft, it'll be
in a form that is, well, it'll,
it'll look like a, like a
strike through of the current
ldc, because that's how we
write the the proposed
amendments when we do it, you
know, basically it's saying,
okay, this is going to be added,
this is going to be subtracted.
And so, you know, we we will be
releasing that document again,
hopefully next week. And, and
then once, once we do release
that, there will be a 30 day
public comment period in which
we take feedback on that. And
then we take that, take the
public feedback into
consideration before we
consider moving it for a public
hearing before the Planning
Commission. Thank you. A quick
follow up. It
coincidence that we're hearing
this moratorium ordinance, and
those are coming next week,
right. Did this force your hand
again? We've we've been working
on this, you know, as you all
know, for a while. And so, I
mean, you know, we just for
various reasons and obviously,
I, I would not, you know, the
moratorium probably did help to
accelerate things. But, you
know, I think in terms of
having a product where, you
know, we're addressing some of
the concerns that were that
were brought to us by the
community whenever we were
doing our round of public
engagement and, and getting the
feedback and getting all the
information that we've been
gathering. Now, it's taken a
while to put this together.
It's not been an easy thing.
Okay. Thank you. Just one
question for Brian before we
get to COUNCILMAN Chappell.
Many of our constituents, many
of my constituents, are asking
the question, how did they get
this last one in under the wire?
What happened? So there's a
classification in the land
Development code that talks
about data hotels. Would you
explain that a little bit,
please? Sure. So under the the
current regulations there's a
use in there called
telecommunication hotels, which
it's kind of an antiquated term
now given, you know, where
we're at, but it is a type of
data center. And so based on
the information that that, that
we have that's available out
there, then the interpretation
was made that data centers fall
under that particular type of
use under that category, you
know, similar to that. And so
that that is why the project
that was previously, you know,
proposed on Campground Road, it
was allowed to progress through
the system underneath that,
that interpretation, how many
if you had to guess how many
small data centers do we have
in the city? Depending on what
you read, they say there's as
many as three dozen or so of
the smaller data centers. And I
ink, you know, that they they
operate in all different type
of parts of the community. They
look like normal office
buildings or normal warehouse
buildings. You don't really
know what they are out there
right now. The big change in,
in, in the use has been just
the, the expansion of this into
these hyper hyperscale data
centers that you're seeing
developed in other communities
right now. And so that's,
that's what is really got the
attention of people is that,
you know, these larger
facilities that are taking up
massive pieces of land that you,
that, you know, MAY use a lot
of power and water and things
like that for their operations.
So that that's what got people
has gotten people's attention.
And so, you know, that that is
kind of like the, you know, why
you all created a request for
us to research this and kind of
re-explore that so that we can
kind of move away from that
interpretation that we had
before and, and better classify
this new use that's out there.
Okay. Thank you, COUNCILMAN
Chappell. I want to make clear
that I don't have any ill will
towards our planning department.
And I think that you all have
done a lot of work thus far.
And I just feel like your hands
have been tied behind your back.
You didn't tie your own hands,
right. But, you know, there
were public meetings that were
held and you all got
information. And I'm looking
forward to what you all put out.
I think it will be thoughtful,
but it leads me to my question.
This five page document that
was published and then taken
down. Who wrote it? Where did
the mistake happen? Was this,
you know, another cities and we
drafted our own, but it went to
an intern and they accidentally
published it on our website. Or
like, how did this happen? No,
we created that's kind of like
a first draft, a first run at
what, you know, we some of the
things that we were working on
based on the comments that we
had received and we were
planning on having a working
meeting with our, with the
planning committee to kind of
go through that and get some of
their feedback so that we could
then go back, you know, the the
agenda was published. Then we
got word that we weren't going
to be having the meeting
anymore. So we took the agenda
down. So because we lost, we,
we, we weren't going to have a
quorum at the meeting whenever
we were conducting that. When
was your next meeting? I don't
know when their next meeting
was. I mean, we, you know,
after after it was taken down,
then, you know, then, you know,
we had spoke with COUNCILMAN
Winkler and he's like, you know,
if you all need additional time
to research this, feel free to
do that. And so we just, we,
you know, we never got to a
point where we wanted to have
another working meeting with
the planning committee to talk
about this. Is Marcus your boss?
No, but he was the sponsor.
Anytime, anytime. There's a
sponsor for some legislation
that is proposed to us. And we
we will reach out to them and
give them updates on what's
going on with that. And so we,
you know, he, he knew that that
we had been doing a lot of
research and that, you know,
there was still a lot of things
coming in. And so we, we had
reached out to him just to see
what he, you know, what his
opinion was on the matter. Sure,
sure. Yeah. And I just want to
say, I understand that there
were things that were hpening
at the state level regarding
data centers, and that would
naturally. Naturally give you
pause. But I also want to say
to my colleagues that wouldn't
have had an impact on whether
or not we passed a moratorium.
So if anything, I'd like to
apologize to the public that we
have not addressed this sooner.
COUNCILMAN Hudson, thank you.
Chair, gen t testimony from
staff, I'd like to me to
table, please. Tre is
motion o the floor. I sry
Oh, son'm sry Tre
mionn e floor table.
This is aoice vote. Correct.
All those in favor say I can, I
can we can. I would like a roll
call. Vote please. Skirt. Vice
chair chair chair. Yeah.
COUNCILMAN Hudson, could could
I before before you make that
proposal, can we can I ask a
question, a follow up question
of Brian Davis. I think it's an
important clarification before
we make any motion going
forward. Is that something
you're willing to allow me to
do? I think the motion has
already been made and seconded.
I'll have to defer to the clerk.
How will withdraw my motion.
Thank you, chair, Vice Chair
Reed, can I ask Brian a
question here? Absolutely.
Thank you. Brian. So I think
one of the I think it's
important to to understand. So
what would the process be if
somebody wanted to, to reach
out to the to metro government
right now and say, we want to
create a hyperscale data center
or a data center of significant
size, what are. And we're still
kind of, you know, in this kind
of cat and mouse game of, of,
do we need to pass a moratorium
proactively or can we
effectively do an
administrative moratorium to
make sure that we do not have
any more of these, you know,
come down the pipeline before
we're ready for it? Can we talk
about that a little bit?
Because, I mean, my, my, my
preference right now, we have
effectively done an
administrative moratorium. We
do not have any more of these
proposed in front of us. And so
since JANUARY, we have
effectively enacted an
effective administrative
moratorium. So can you talk to
us a little bit about what that
process looks like and whether
we run the risk of allowing
another one of these to go
through the pipeline without
being more proactive about it?
Yes. I I'm reading the language
of the moratorium right now to
see how it's worded. Yeah. So,
so as well as wording the
moratorium, you know, if that
were passed, any applications
would be would be frozen as is
unless they have a public
hearing scheduled, you know,
administratively. I mean, I
think you're correct. I mean, I
think there's a lot of
hesitation for anyone to come
and submit an application for
any kind of changes related to
that. Middletown did pass a
moratorium. So if someone were
to come in and ask something
about a property there, I mean,
we we would obviously say, well,
Middletown's past moratorium,
we're not accepting the
application. I mean. This
moratorium sitting in committee,
we table it and it's sitting in
committee. Could we then pass
the moratorium like we had
talked about previously, when
COUNCILMAN Winkler had had
brought this to our committee
previously. And that's what our
plan was to let it sit in
committee. And if somebody
actually filed an application,
we thought that we could then
at the next committee meeting,
planning and zoning committee
meeting, we could then pass the
moratorium to to halt any
future development going
forward. Would that be an
effective approach here, or are
we running the risk that that
somebody would get in under the
wire? I mean, I think someone
could they could if they were
to submit an application, there
is no way that that we would
schedule a public hearing
planning and zoning committee
here. So I think if you know,
if if you know, if we this item
were tabled today and then
someone submitted a pre app
tomorrow, they're, they're not
going to have an opportunity to
get to a public hearing prior
to you all being able to take
action in two weeks on this
item. So I, I don't think we
run the risk of, of, you know,
something coming in and getting
in under the wire in terms of,
of scheduling a public hearing,
as is worded in the proposed
moratorium. Okay. I think
that's important because, I
mean, I do not want another
data center to move quicker
than we're able to respond. And
I I'm not stupid. I understand
that politically, the right
thing to do here is to be
proactive and pass a moratorium.
But just because it's
politically the right thing to
do doesn't mean to me that
we've been effective at
administratively stopping these.
And I think we can be
continuously continue to be
effectively effective at
administrating, iteratively
stopping this. And while it MAY
not mean anything to some
people, to me, a moratorium
should be the absolute last
resort. And we have another
option here, and that is to
basically sit, have this sit in
in committee and use it if we
need it. And to me, that's
another option that we can use
and a better option than
actually the last resort, which
is what is proposed here. So i
will not because I want another
data center to move quicker
than we're able to. I am 100%
confident that using this
strategy, we will able to keep
any data centers from moving
forward. I will be supporting
tabling this so we can leave it
in our back pockets and use it
when we need it, because I
again, I believe a moratorium.
Governments passing moratoriums
should be used as a absolute
last resort. Thank you, thank
you, thank you. CHAIRMAN. I
think I'd like to get a legal
interpretation here. Legally.
Can we stop something if
somewhere someone were to, you
know, apply make an application
for data center and we've got
this moratorium tabled. Can we
as a as a body then take a vote
at the next or an upcoming
planning and zoning committee
meeting and effectively impose
the moratorium in time to stop
it? Travis Feaster, assistant
county attorney here. So very
broadly, this is sort of a
vested rights conversation.
It's part of the reason why we
draft the moratorium to deal
with items that have been
scheduled for a public hearing
ady. Can can move forward
somewhere along the process.
You do have a sort of right,
your application being heard
and going through the process.
And the question is sort of
where that occurs. There's not
a hard and fast case or statute
in Kentucky to determine where
that is. But based on the case
law, we think it's
approximately at that sort of
public hearing phase where all
the agencies have commented,
they've gotten all the proper
stamps and approvals. The only
thing left is for Metro
government to hear it. And if
at that point, Metro government
says, actually, no, we're not
going to, that's potentially an
issue. So if it is earlier in
that process, you know,
pre-application or an
application, but still an
agency reviews those sorts of
things, that's where we felt
comfortable. Again, we don't
have a hard and fast case to
point to, but it sounds like if
we could catch a case in that
process, that'd be acceptable.
On the other hand, if case got
scheduled before council took
action, then we would start
having some tough conversations.
Okay. Thank you, COUNCILMAN
Parrish. Right. Thank you. MR.
MR. Chair, point of order,
COUNCILMAN Hudson. COUNCILMAN
Hudson, sorry about that. So I
guess I need to ask the clerk
for clarification here. I
withdrew my motion for. O q.
I'm going to allow COUNCILMAN
Hudson to make his motion to
table. Move to table, please.
Second, I have a motion and to
in a second, I think the
request was for voice, voice,
vote. I'm sorry. Roll call.
Vote. Chair. Owen. Yes.
Voting's closing. Vice-Chair
read. You have five yes votes
and three no. Thank you. It has
been tabled and. So we'll move
on to the next item, which is
item number 40-138-26. An
ordinance relating to the
detailed district development
plan for properties located at
9718 Dixie highway and 5308
Citation Road containing
approximately 2.7 acres and
being in Louisville Metro. Case
number 25ddp0085. Do I have a
motion? Motion. Motion seconded.
Julia. Julia Williams, Office
of Planning. This is 25ddp0085
for chick fil a. This is
located at 9718 Dixie highway
in Council District 14. The
existing use is institutional
with a proposed use of
commercial. The property is
zoned c two. The request for
revised detailed district
development plan with binding
elements. The property is zoned
c two and the neighborhood
forum district. They're
proposing a restaurant, and
they're also proposing Fiesta
Way to be extended to connect
to Citation Road. This is the
applicant's development plan
where you can see Fiesta Way
connecting to citation, and
then the location of the
restaurant. So this is the
subject property view from
Dixie highway. Adjacent
property. The residential
located along Citation Road.
Residential. View from Fiesta
Way. Residential. View from
Bella Vista. Commercial view
across Dixie highway. So the
Planning Commission held their
public hearing on APRIL 2nd,
2026, where there was a motion
to recommend approval of the
development plan, passing by a
vote of 8 to 0. Are there any
questions? Councilmember Sean?
Thank you, COUNCILMAN Read. I
don't really have any questions.
I would like to just make a few
comments, I guess, on behalf of
district 14 in support of this
development, the the developer
or the the restaurant that is
coming in is a well, well
established brand that the
community is has written
letters of support rather than
letters of opposition with. I
think 31 was the number to be
exact. I look forward to our
colleagues supporting this
development on Dixie highway as
it continues to grow and the
momentum is moving forward in
the right direction. Thank you.
What was the commission vote on
this 8 to 0. Travis, is this
another one of those situations
where this actually come to us
for a vote since it passed
unanimously? This is Laura
Ferguson, assistant county
attorney. This is a development
plan that had the council
review binding element, if I
remember correctly. Understand?
Cool. COUNCILWOMAN Marie. Thank
you. I read comments that came
in people very much in support
of the chick fil a, but they
were concerned about the exit
removing the dead end on Fiesta
Way. Is that still part of the
plan? Yes. There there's a
connection through Fiesta Way
to citation, so it won't be a
dead end anymore. It will go
through to citation. Do we have
any idea how much traffic
that's going to generate on
that road? I don't believe a
traffic study was required for
this development. Oh it was yes.
Yeah. There was a traffic study,
but I could see nothing in it
within the estimates of what's
going to happen to Fiesta. I
I'm not able to answer that
question. Okay. Thank you. Any
other questions from the
committee? Seeing none. This
requires a roll call vote.
Chair. Owen. Yes. Votes closing.
Vice chair rehab eight yes.
Votes. Thank you. And this will
go to old business at the next
council meeting. I am not
seeing anything else on our
agenda. Does anyone on the
committee have any questions or
anything they'd like to discuss?
Seeing none, we are adjourned.
Thank you.