Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Metro TV will get started in 30 seconds.

Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Committee for Tuesday, June 16th. It is 104 p.m. We had a little bit of technical problems, so getting started just a second late here, but... So this meeting is being held pursuant to KRS 61.826 and Council Rule 5A. I am Committee Chair Andrew Owen. I'm joined by my Vice Chair, Scott Reed. Committee Member Shamika Parrish-Wright has an excused absence. And we're joined in chambers by Committee Member Josie Raymond, Committee Member Stuart Benson, Committee Member Betsy Rui, Committee Member Jeff Hudson, and Committee Member Khalil Batshon. So we have a special discussion number one on the list, but I'd like to get through the items that we need to vote on first. So we'll hold that until the last. So we'll start with item number two, OAT-166-26, an ordinance relating to the zoning of property located at 524 Baxter Avenue, containing approximately 0.36 acres and being in Louisville Metro, case number 25, zone 0097. Can I get a motion? Properly moved and seconded. We have Joe Haberman with us.

Good afternoon, Joe Haberman with Metro's Office of Planning. This is a rezoning that is under case number 25 zone 0097. So this property is at 524 to 532 Baxter Avenue. There's a couple different buildings, which is why it has a couple different addresses. It's in Councilman Herndon's district and District 4, but it is near several other council districts in the area. Here is the property. The existing use is industrial, although it's mostly vacant, I believe. The proposed use is a mix of commercial and residential space. Here's the zoning as it is today. It is kind of split zoned. Part of it is zoned M2 to allow for that industrial use, but the southern portion of it is zoned C1, and that includes a vacant lot that's been used for storage or parking. They're asking for a change in zoning from that M1 and C1, or M2 and C1 to C2, and then they also needed approval of a detailed district development plan with some binding elements. The property is about a third of an acre. Again, it's an existing structure that they plan on converting into this new development with these new uses. At this time, they're not proposing any new construction. They have shown some past or some ideas for new construction that was not approved at this time. If they decide to move ahead with adding additions or new buildings, they would need a revised development plan approval. This is the site plan, which is largely showing existing conditions. This is a view of the site. The building is to the right there, that kind of white concrete brick building. Here is another view of the building from Hull Street. Here is across the street on Baxter. Here is across the street from Hull. Here is looking down Hull Street. So they had their neighborhood meeting on September 18th of 2025. It got to the Planning Commission on May 7th of 2026. The Planning Commission recommended approval to Metro Council of the change in zoning passing by a vote of seven to two. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Joe. I'll start off by saying I've spoken to Councilman Herndon about this case, and he is supportive of the change in zoning. Joe, can you go back to the zoning map quickly where it shows the split zoning between C1 and M2? Okay. So instead of the whole thing going to the purple C1, then we'll actually be down zoning the M2 to C2. And is that an up zone from C1 to C2?

It would be considered an up zone. C2 would allow some additional uses and that's part of the reason why they need C2 as opposed to C1 is they're proposing a microbrewery or bar type use and that would require C2.

And so the proposal is for it to be Whole Street Brute Pub or something along those lines. And then one of the things I wasn't 100% sure, we had talked about offering a residential housing. Did it distinguish what type of housing we're talking about there?

So we don't have a lot of details, but my understanding is they were proposing a handful of dwelling units in the rear part of the building that would be used as short-term rentals. So they would get approved as multifamily, and then they would be able to come in and get those annual registrations to lease them out as short-term rentals if they wanted to, or they could be permanent.

And just for the record, that zoning does not require a CUP for short-term rentals?

C1 or C2 would not require a conditional use permit. M2 would not allow short-term rentals. At all? Yes. Okay.

All right. Let's see. I am, how do I do this? How do I get to the queue on this new system?

Yeah, there is no one in the queue. Oh, no, you're. I've gotta go on the floor.

There you go. On the floor. All right, all right. Thank you. Why didn't I just throw it over to you? I knew you would be in the queue. Sure, why not?

It's okay, thank you. Councilman Batchelor. Joe, can you give us any insight on the two nos out of the Planning Commission?

So they didn't state why they were voting no in the buildup, but if you just kinda listen to their comments, I think there was some concern from those two commissioners over the lack of detail in the plan. There wasn't any opposition at the meeting. There was some concerned statements and letters from neighbors, but those were largely addressed through some binding elements, including the binding element related to hours of operation. But if I had to sum it up again, it would be there wasn't a lot of detail that the commissioner used to seeing, and I think some of the members would have liked to see that.

Okay, and one last question. And I can't really tell on the report here. Are they tearing this building down and rebuilding something new? Or are they gonna be using the existing structure to do commercial and residential in the same space?

So as of now, there is not any approval to remove or demolish any part of the building. So they're going to reuse it. They did show some plans that might've required partial demolition or altering the building in some way, but those weren't approved. And they were told that if they wanted to pursue those plans, we would need more detail and they'd have to come back for a revision. Sounds good, thank you.

Councilman Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I noticed that there were several people that spoke in favor. Nobody spoke in opposition, correct? At the hearing, no one spoke in opposition, correct? Okay, so normally if there are no votes, since I've been on council, if there are no votes by the commission, there are at least some negativity expressed by the public at the meeting. Is that normally the case as well?

Typically, they're responding to concerns brought by somebody that would be impacted by it. There were some letters written to the commission that had concerns with the project, so I just will note that was in the record. But again, I think they were more concerned that this particular project didn't have a lot of detail, like how much of the building would be part of the brewery, restaurant, bar concept, how many units they would have. They didn't have that kind of detail, and I think that's why they were concerned. They didn't necessarily have a problem with the rezoning. It was more the plan. Okay, thank you.

And I think it is important to acknowledge that the binding elements, one prohibits outdoor music after 10 p.m., and another restricts hours of operation, you know, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. So I think that was probably in an attempt to satisfy some of the concerns. I don't have anybody else in the queue. Anybody else have questions or concerns before we open a roll call vote for this item? Cheryl, can you open the roll call vote, please?

Voting's open. Voting's closing. Chair, you have seven yes votes.

Okay, this will be forwarded to the old business on the next council meeting.

Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Yes, old business or consent?

It has to be old business. Change in zoning. Okay. Okay. Item, that was item number two. Item number three is O-135-26, an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on rezoning conditional use permits and plan certain category 2B and three development plan applications relating to telecommunication hotels and data centers pending a review and recommended changes by the Planning Commission. Can I get a motion? properly moved and seconded. So this item was tabled at the last meeting. We have Councilwoman Chappell here joining us, who's the sponsor of this, and I'm assuming she would like to speak to it.

Thank you, Chair. Make it a bit shorter than the last time that I was here talking about data centers. I'll start by acknowledging the work of the planning department. Following months of research and extensive community public engagement, they've released draft recommendations that would prohibit.

Point of order. Point of order. Sorry. Are we untabling this? Oh.

Yes, and I'll explain why I feel that.

Right. I think it's untabled as soon as it's called.

I thought we had a motion on table.

So let me tell you two things.

First of all, this is Sonya Harvard, the clerk. So we never do that. Robert's Rules does do that. By precedence, we don't. If you want to choose to do that, you can do that if someone wants to ask that you take a motion to take it off the table. That's fine. We already got the motion. You're just going to vote on that motion.

Say that again.

You've already got a motion on the floor, right? So we'll use that as our motion to untable, which we're not using anymore. Right. And if they want to take a vote on that, you can if you want to.

So I was happy to have, because of the new proposal came out from them, I was happy to have Councilwoman Chappell speak to it again. And if we decide to retable, we can retable it. So that's where we are. Councilwoman Chappell.

All right, thank you. Start from the top. I want to start by acknowledging the work of the planning department. Following months of research and extensive public engagement, they have released draft recommendations that would prohibit hyperscale data centers and establish regulations for smaller facilities. I appreciate the work that has gone into these recommendations, and I encourage the public to participate in the public comment process, which is open until July 10th. But I also think it's important we recognize how we got here. The proposed moratorium did help create urgency around this issue as we learned in the last planning and zoning meeting. It accelerated the planning department's work that many community members had been asking for for months. In that sense, this legislation has already been successful and I'm very glad for that. But some may ask whether the moratorium is still necessary now that the recommendations have been released. And I would argue that it is. Recommendations are not regulations. They have not yet gone before the Planning Commission, they have not yet been adopted by Metro Council, they are still open to public comment. Until that process is complete, there remains a window in which Louisville lacks the protections that planning itself is now recommending. To me, it's not about symbolism, it's about housekeeping and good governance. If there is a broad agreement that hyperscale data centers are not appropriate for Louisville, then a temporary pause while permanent regulations move through the public process seems reasonable and prudent. If this moratorium is truly unnecessary, as some of my colleagues have suggested, then I would respectfully ask what is the harm in voting yes? The regulations are still months away from final adoption, and this simply provides certainty and stability while that process unfolds. This regulation does not ban data centers permanently. It does not prevent planning from doing their work. It does not prevent Metro Council from considering any permanent regulations. It simply ensures that the community's work, the planning department's work, and this body are not undermined while those regulations are finalized. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support in this moratorium.

Thank you, Councilwoman Chappell. Councilman Reed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the last meeting, I specifically asked Travis Feaster if there was an applicant in the queue for a data center, if we could, as a body or as a committee, vote to untable this legislation and prevent that from happening. And I'm going to ask that question again.

Travis Feaster, Assistant County Attorney.

So similar answer to that last time, I'm not aware of any application have been received. And I think that staff has indicated to the sponsor of the original legislation, as well as this committee generally, that they'd let folks know if that happens. As far as from a timing perspective, it is highly unlikely that anybody could get from the sort of pre-application phase all the way to scheduled for a public hearing, which is where we more or less draw the line of some amount of vested rights to be heard prior to council being able to take action. Now, admittedly, you all are coming up on your summer break. That's the longest period on the near calendar where that, in theory, could happen. It's pretty unlikely based on the precedent of any kind of project of this scale. I'm not going to say it's mathematically impossible, but it's highly unlikely that council wouldn't have some opportunity to put this in place prior to being notified of something being filed.

Okay. Thank you.

We've been joined by Councilwoman Hawkins, and she would like to be in the queue. So the floor is yours, Councilwoman Hawkins.

All right, thank you so much. Excited to be a co-sponsor for this. I think that this just kind of flew under the radar and has caused a huge impact on District 1, the one that is being developed right now presently. I just want to make sure that any time any data center is even proposed or anything that it definitely is brought to our attention and that this just doesn't happen again. This is really, like I said, impacted my district and I just wanna be a part of, even though we can't do anything right now about the one that has been proposed, I just wanna make sure that no other council person has to go through what I've went through since this one Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Hawkins. So I was joining virtually last time and kind of spoke about this a little bit, but I'll kind of reiterate some of my thoughts here. I appreciate Councilwoman Chappell for being here the last two times and for introducing this legislation. It's important. It already has been effective. Councilman Winkler, similarly, before when he sponsored similar legislation, we kept that legislation here at committee. and had it in our back pocket to use whenever we need it. So would there be any harm necessarily in passing a moratorium? No. I don't think there would necessarily be harm. But at the same time, what I said last time is I am 100% confident we can accomplish the exact same goals that Councilwoman Chappell and others have with this legislation by basically doing an administrative moratorium. I talk to the gatekeepers at Planning and Zoning and Economic Development about this issue at least once a day. If anything comes, whether we're on summer break or any other time, they know that the instant something hits their desk, they're to let us know and we can immediately do this moratorium. So why hold it? Why hold it in our pockets instead of going ahead and using it? The way I look at it is, both accomplished the exact same thing except one of them is a sledgehammer and one of them is a scalpel. And since I've been on council, we have effectively used these administrative moratoriums and we've effectively used this one or the one Councilman Winkler proposed and the one Councilwoman Chappell proposed have been effective as well. I mean, we do not have applications in front of us, and I know that Economic Development and Planning are telling anybody, there have been people sniffing around, but they've been telling them, go watch the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting. you know we and listen to what we're telling you we do not want any of these until we have the guidelines in place so if i had any concerns at all that we were not going to be able to accomplish the same thing then i would say yeah let's go ahead and vote it in place but i don't and so with that being said i'm in the same place i was last time is that i would like to uh table this i know i'm gonna i'm not gonna propose i'm not gonna move to table it yet because i know councilman batshon you're fine with me tabling it. I'll let you do it, actually. It's easier if it comes from not being the chair doing it. So why don't I, that's Councilwoman Hawkins.

Thank you. I just gotta say this, y'all know I just say the things that a lot of people just don't like to hear or just don't wanna say, but I don't understand, why do we keep tabling this? Can you give me more, a little bit better explanation you know explanation like we held it before is committee right i wasn't here then so i'm just asking like is it something that we're waiting on or so so what i'm trying to say a little bit understanding yes so you can do a moratorium in two different ways and we've done this in the past we did this with floyd's fork uh most recently okay where we had a moratorium in committee

Okay. And everyone knew we had a moratorium sitting in committee, but instead of going ahead and passing the moratorium, we've decided like, so again, from my perspective and many of the people on this council's perspective, a moratorium should be an absolute last resort. It's a sledgehammer kind of tool to use to prevent something to happen. So instead of using the sledgehammer, We're going to use the SCAPL, which we have this moratorium sitting in committee. If we need it, we'll use it. Until then, I'm 100% sure we can use this administrative moratorium and accomplish the exact same thing. So it's just the difference between using a sledgehammer and using a SCAPL. Listen, they both work. Other jurisdictions around the country have used the sledgehammer.

So just for understanding purposes, just so my constituents are aware for clarity. So you're saying just leave it here. And when we need to use it, use it. Right. But wait until we need to use it. Right. And hold it here.

And in the meantime, planning and zoning. No. Exactly what we're doing economic development knows exactly what they're doing. So when anybody reaches out to them with an application They're informing those applicants of the same thing. You can go ahead and file an application But if you do we're calling Metro Council today and they're gonna file the moratorium So it's not gonna you can do it, but you're wasting your time.

Okay, then I think that that makes sense. Yeah makes sense I can understand that

Before going to you, Councilman Batchan, I'm gonna give Councilman Chapo one more bite at the apple.

Sure, thank you. Because an administrative moratorium represents an official policy or a legal pause, it requires formal documentation to establish scope, timeline, and purpose. Is there written documentation that we have on this administrative moratorium from either the mayor's office or the planning director?

I will first turn to legal counsel to respond to the legal aspect of that question.

So. I'm not aware if there is any written policy at this point. However, my understanding of the procedure, as it was just laid out by the chair, is effectively notification to counsel. That doesn't require anything. Something being filed is public information. At that point, counsel would take action to put the moratorium in place. So if counsel does not take action, presumably, an application would be processed as it normally would. maybe there's a little extra effort to say, Hey, get this on your radar. We know you are interested in this topic and may want to prevent it from moving forward. Um, but that is not the same thing as staff turning people away at the door and saying, no, you're not allowed to file this. Right. Um, so I don't know that that notification piece needs any documentation because again, it's, it's public record. There's nothing wrong with council and staff and the mayor's office all communicating about this issue. Um, So that's the only piece that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any sort of formal written document outlining anything beyond that or even those details, frankly.

Sure. At the end of the day, a moratorium is a moratorium, whether it's via the administration or this council. The difference between an administrative moratorium and what I have proposed is It is not, I heard through a friend in the planning department that they have an administrative moratorium on it. This accomplishes the same thing yet it's just called something different, but there is tangibility to what I have proposed. So I hope that through that lens, and as a non-voting member of this committee, that if you choose to table it, I would hope that that written proof and documentation could be obtained, and I wouldn't have to go about an open records request to get it.

I mean, all I can tell you is I know, I don't know.

And economic development. And we're all on the same page that there will not be one, an application processed. Sure. We can't, so is what you have proposed tangible? Yes, which is why it's still sitting in committee. And if we need it, we'll drop that hammer. So it's pretty much the exact same thing to leave it in committee. I mean, it's not the exact same thing. I understand the difference. But we can either use it now or we can use it if somebody decides to defy economic development and planning in Zoom. And if they do, then we'll use it.

To paint a scenario, and I don't think that this would happen given the timelines that Mr. Feaster has already laid out, but let's say I am the person that intercepts in the planning department an application and I start moving it forward. I have no basis to say, oh, well, I was told not to do this, or yes, I was. If it advances, then there's no binding element to say, oh, I was told not to do this. And so to me, this adds a protection for our employees in addition to a protection for our residents.

Thank you. Councilman Batchelor.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Colleagues, thank you for your help on everything here. Joe, thanks for all the work that you all are doing. I'm just gonna try to keep this super simple. Every single time we try to create A moratorium or legislate reactively. I think we send continuous signals to developers, investors and anyone that wants to do business in the city of Louisville and we are showing significant. instability and inconsistency in our processes because we don't like something. I think that is a terrible signal to send and I think we should be a growing, if not the fastest growing city in this nation and we are not. We are 20 years behind the curve and I will continue to say that because we have inconsistencies. I think untabling this is, it sets another precedent that we do not need to continue to do We need to move forward and I make the motion to table this moratorium again with the facts that you have presented. Mr. Chair, as we move forward, I think the planning staff and their team has done instrumental work in making sure that these regulations are moving forward properly. We need to stop putting the sledgehammer on every single thing that goes on that we are not happy with. So I motion to table, sir, thank you.

have a motion to table and a second so do we have do we have discussion on the motion to table or do we just go ahead and vote at this point and uh we i think we should go ahead and do a roll call vote for this motion so voting's open

Voting's closing. Chair, you have five yes votes and two no.

So the item is tabled. Okay, the next item on the agenda is item number four. O-140-26, an ordinance amending the Louisville Metro land development code regarding digital display, off-premises signs and billboards. Case number 25-LDC-0006. Can I get a motion? Properly moved and seconded. Joe.

Good afternoon again, Joe Haberman with Metro's Office of Planning. So this is a text amendment to the Land Development Code that was requested by Metro Council, at least in terms for us to look into the issue and prepare some recommendations. And it relates to off-premise signs, which for ease of saying, I'll just refer to as billboards moving forward. That's just another way of saying it. and more specifically about having digital displays being allowed as part of a billboard. So again, council asked the Office of Planning and Planning Commission to take a look at the existing regulations as they relate to digital displays on billboards and forward some recommendations to council to consider. Currently, you cannot have a digital display on a billboard in Louisville Metro. The ones you see, out in the community and there's only a handful. There's some exemptions to how they exist, but if you were to come into our office and wanna do a full blown digital billboard, the code currently does not allow that. And these are the signs that have technologies like LEDs effectively video screens to kind of convey that information so it can change instantaneously. It could be the whole billboard, it could be part of the billboard, they kind of exist in both forms, but that's what we're talking about. So the rules vary. There are different rules in place for the suburban cities that have zoning authority. I know we're only talking about what's under Metro Council's zoning authority today, so that you're aware some of the cities have opted to not allow billboards, period, and that includes Jefferson Town and Middletown. And some of the other suburban cities have varying regulations as they relate to billboards, but they're mostly the same as what Metro Council has. And just as I research back, our regulations have been pretty much untouched for several decades, so they've been in place for some time. So what did the current rules do? Just so that you can kind of get an idea of where we're at before I get into what we're changing. They regulate billboards differently than on-premise signs in a completely different chapter of the code. Effectively, what we consider a billboard is its own use. It's its own principle use as opposed to a business sign, which is an accessory use and serves that property by advertising the business on that property. We only, again, allow static signs, which are non-changing signs, no digital technology. They're permitted by right in a series of commercial and industrial districts, but that's it. And then the size requirements vary. For example, in CN, you can't have a larger billboard. You can only have a smaller billboard. They're prohibited in several different form districts that are mostly residential or commercial. historic in nature, so that includes neighborhood and traditional neighborhood, which are the two big residential form districts, but it also includes traditional marketplace corridor, traditional workplace, town center, and downtown. Downtown's an important one to remember. And then it regulates by three different size categories. So just to kind of know the constraints that we have with billboards, The rules are the rules. There are no waivers or variances. If you do not meet the requirements, you cannot have that billboard. So you might be able to get a rezoning or change your form district if that's your only issue. But if your issue is the separation requirement, those are kind of absolute and you have to meet those. And those separation requirements range from 75 feet to 1500, depending on where the billboard is and what type of use. But those separation requirements, the big one is from another billboard, but there's also from parks and historic properties and intersecting roadways, which is more of a safety requirement. So there's a series of separation requirements. And I'll note because a lot of the rezonings that council have done over the years have included a binding element that also prevents billboards. So there's a bunch of case by case where a condition of approval or a binding element might prevent a billboard which has really nothing to do with the zoning regs but was important when we considered the rezoning. So on this slide there's a lot and I'm not gonna read through it but what's important to consider when we do look at billboards is the state has requirements and they are objectively more restrictive than our requirements. And these are gonna be in place no matter what we do. So state regulated billboard when it is effectively near or visible to a state road, which is where you would find most billboards and those include the highways and Bardstown Road and all the kind of major corridors that come out of the the county are state roads. So they have some more restrictive requirements, but they do allow digital signs. So it's our local requirement that's not allowing digital signs. The state allows it. But I will say that if you want to do a digital sign to get approval from the state, there is a takedown requirement of six nonconforming signs elsewhere in the state. So that is a barrier to some people that want to do these. That would only apply though on signs that are regulated by the state. So the issue that we have to consider, we already allow billboards. It's whether or not you want to allow them to have digital displays. We can't just interpret that digital displays are allowed because there is a BOZA decision that was part of a court case that kind of affirmed that we cannot have digital signs under the existing language that we have. But even if we want to, when we looked at some of the other cities, they have very specific requirements for digital signs, for safety, and for some other reasons, community character, that we would want to include, and those are included in the draft. So I'll just note that we looked at other cities. The takeaway was cities do things very differently across the board in terms of their separation requirements, whether or not they allow any billboards, whether they just allow static billboards. It's kind of all over the place. I can give you an example of virtually any type of regulation from one of these cities. But I will note that a lot of the peer cities that we look at did allow digital signs with some additional protections and regulations, including Nashville, I think Hamilton County near Cincinnati. These are two examples that we typically look to that allow digital signs. So I'll just jump into what we're recommending because we are going to recommend allowing digital signs effectively only where static signs are allowed now. We're not proposing any new zoning categories be included to allow signs with one or two exceptions that I'll note. But first, we have to define digital and static. Second, we would continue to allow static where static signs are allowed now, so they are effectively not impacted by any of the recommendations. But we wanted to create an allowance. The rules were probably written before EZ-1 and PRO and PEC, those kind of, semi-industrial zoning districts were created or found throughout the community. They're not, currently can't have a billboard there now, but we allow M1, M2, and M3, so we felt that was a conflict. So we are proposing to expand billboards into those industrial type zonings. And then, We want to allow the digital, or we're recommending that you allow the digital display signs in C2, C3, CM, EZ1, PRO, PEC, M1, M2, and M3. If you'll notice, that doesn't line up exactly with where static signs are currently allowed. We didn't include CN and C1. for digital signs, because those are more low intensity neighborhood serving commercial areas, sometimes just one or two blocks, or one or two parcels. But I'll also note that we added C3.

Did you say you didn't include CM and C1? I see that C1 was excluded, but CM is on the list that is included for digital display.

CM is on the list. I said CN, commercial neighborhood. Sorry, I might have mispronounced that. But commercial neighborhood and C1 would only continue to allow smaller static billboards. They currently allow them. New digital display wouldn't be allowed in those zoning districts, but we are proposing C3, which is effectively downtown. There are some scattered C3 areas throughout the county, but for the most part, they're found downtown. But static billboards, which are currently not allowed downtown in C3, we're not proposing those. And then we would continue to allow the static signs in deformed districts where they're currently allowed, but we had to look at deformed districts because we're including C3 and some other zoning districts that are found in traditional forms, and we decided to recommend allowing digital display in some of those form districts where billboards are currently not permitted. So the separation requirements, we're not proposing any changes to, so what's in place now would apply to both static and digital. Those were thoughtful. We felt separation requirements largely in line with what the state does. and what other cities do, so we're not recommending any changes to that with one small exception related to historic districts. We've lined up one of those separation requirements for consistency, but you still can't put one in a historic district. This is adjacent to a historic district. We're not recommending any changes to the static signs, but we wanted to set some special standards for digital signs in terms of the rate of change, the color, and things of that nature. And then in the C3 district, we're proposing, remembering that the state has a takedown requirement of six to one. For the C3 district only, which is downtown, we proposed a takedown of one for one. But the reason it's highlighted is we've received some new information. What's recommended by the Planning Commission might not be practical. So what's recommended by the Planning Commission for the takedown is For every digital display sign you put in C3, you need to take down one static sign in C3. That would be basically a no net gain of billboards downtown. The problem with that is we did an audit of the static billboards downtown and there's only 20 or so. That makes that not a very big pool of signs to draw from. We've prepared, we can move ahead with that recommendation, but we've prepared some alternatives to kind of increase that pool. Like for example, you could do any nonconforming sign, because we want to get rid of a nonconforming billboard, one that doesn't meet the code. We don't want them to just take down any billboard. In traditional forms, or we can just do any non-conforming billboard in Metro. So those are just two examples that we could do. And that increases the pool of non-conforming signs by hundreds each time. So with that, the Planning Committee of the Planning Commission heard this in December. The Planning Commission held two public hearings. They recommended approval of the LDC amendment by a vote of eight to zero. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Joe. Turns out it's pretty complicated.

It wasn't easy.

Councilman Hudson.

Thank you, Chair. I think I heard you describe it this way. I just want to make sure. So the KYTC regulates the signs along the interstates and does allow digital sign, or I'm sorry, does not allow digital signs, but this ordinance does. would override that and would allow digital signs on interstates?

So they do allow digital signs, just they don't approve them in Louisville Metro because they respect our local ordinance that doesn't allow the signs. So elsewhere in the state, you can have digital signs along state roads, which include the highways. So what we're proposing is to allow it, then they would be able to permit those at the state level. But what doesn't change is the state will still have that, if you wanna do a digital billboard, they'll still have that six to one takedown. So you'll have to take down six non-conforming to state requirement signs elsewhere in the state that may or may not be in the Louisville area. and that's what they'll have to do, but the state will be able to permit these if we make this change. It doesn't override it. They just, they each apply. One doesn't supersede the other.

Okay. Second question, if I may, is there some kind of, a requirement in there for digital signs on how frequently they can change the image or how much time it takes to change the image? Is it a flash or is it a gradual change?

Yes, all that. So what's in the draft now is a straight no video prohibition. We don't want them showing full video. And we do an eight second rate of change, I believe, which is consistent with what the state allows and what many other municipalities allow. And then there's some language to how those transitions occur. No flashes, nothing that could cause an issue to a motorist because these billboards are gonna be orientated towards roads in virtually all cases. Okay, thank you, thank you.

Councilor Batchel.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Joe, for the tireless effort I guess you put into this and making sure it was done. Mine is more of a zoning question. And I'm looking at the proposed language of the Chapter 8. And it allows it to be in village districts and others. And you've got C2. So if something was a C1 village, that would not be allowed or allowed?

I'm just asking for that particular, for any sign, you would have to be first permitted by the zoning district that it's in and then be in one of the forms that are allowed. So it's not one or the other. You have to meet both requirements. So if we allow it in C1 and we allow it in Village, then it's allowed. But if it's in C1 and has an

district if if they could get that application approved got it all right thank you i had a quick quick question about this um so Originally I thought that the sponsors of this were Councilman Piacentini and Councilman Herndon. It's now showing me as the primary sponsor. I don't know when that changed. So this item that we're discussing now, O-140-26, originally it was sponsored by Councilman Piacentini and Councilman Herndon. And it's now showing me as the primary sponsor. And I wondered, I just, I didn't notice it.

No, no, no. So if that's just a technical correction, I will do a little bit of research to make sure that that's the case. And either way, I can change it. Okay. It could be when we moved it from prime government.

Okay. Okay. I just hadn't noticed before and just noticed that the primary sponsors had, and Herndon. I'm sorry. I'm 99% sure that's the case and maybe if you can check with both of them, that would be great. I don't see anybody else in the queue. I did have a question about the last part where you had a couple of additional recommendations. Have you discussed that particular piece with Councilman Piacentini and Councilman Herndon?

So there are some remaining issues, and we've been working with the county attorney's office to figure out how to move forward with those. The first is I think what you're referring to, which was there was some conversation at the planning commission about a different type of sign. that somebody would have liked to see allowed? That I'm okay with. That we decided to look at as part of our larger LDC review process. Right, right.

No, that part I understand. It's just that last part that you were talking about where you offered recommendations.

Yeah, so what we will also need is another ordinance that amends Metro code. So the way billboards are permitted is All billboards are signs, not all signs are billboards. So every billboard, when it gets permitted, first needs a sign permit, then it needs an annual registration. That's already a requirement. So we need to revise that ordinance to move the responsibility for reviewing the billboard registrations to the Office of Planning. Currently that's done by the Department of Codes and Regulations. We already do the sign reviews so it makes sense for us to shift that responsibility. There's also some ideas that have been discussed by some people as we went through this process and what some of the other cities have done that would be changes that would be best found in metro code. For example, some cities when they move to allowing digital display want try it out before they make it permanent. So in their ordinances, they put basically a quota or a cap on the initial number of permits they'll issue. Then they want staff to go back and take a look at it and decide if we want to make the change final or pull it back or change it in some way. That would likely need to be in Metro code. And there was some other ideas like if we wanted to require the billboard to allow PSA content or a certain amount of public art

content we could require that as part of metro code okay and the fees the fees too so i know that these are all set by ordinance i know there are a couple of things floating out there but my understanding from councilman piagentini and councilman herndon is that they're willing to that they want this to go ahead and and move through and deal with that other stuff um in in separate legislation so um all right anybody else have any questions or concerns about this before we open up

So I know that there's an outstanding question about the C3 issue and that takedown requirement and whether or not we, council wants to consider expanding that beyond C3 or not and in what fashion. There is a separate document on here called proposed attached language. I'm not sure what that. Okay. I'm not sure by looking at it where it would belong

this ordinance it's not it's not numbered or labeled I can try to dig into it a little bit more but I just can't at first reading know where this goes okay well I I think so we need to deal with that here in committee right that proposed language Or we can deal with it on the floor. Okay, that's what I would prefer to do then. Anybody else have questions or concerns? I did talk to the sponsors this morning. They did want it to be moved if we were okay moving it. So that's what I'd be inclined to do and we can deal with any of the other kind of outstanding issues on the floor. Okay, roll call.

Voting's open.

Thank you.

Voting's closing. Chair, you have seven yes votes.

Thank you. With seven yes votes, this will be moved to old business on the agenda. Okay, item number five, O-160-26, an ordinance amending Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances, Chapter 153, regarding the processing of applications for zoning map amendments and conditional use permits if there are delinquent taxes or valid liens held by Louisville Metro that are unpaid. Can I get a motion?

Move and seconded, Joe?

I think this is something that you all are considering to pass a resolution to ask us to look into. I'm not really prepared to speak to it. I can answer any questions about existing processes.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to speak for Councilman Winkler, but I know he's the sponsor, and I could at least speak to what I helped draft here, if that would be helpful.

Sure. Why don't we do that? I have read it as well, and would have agreed to be a co-sponsor, except that confused me a little bit.

I misunderstood what it was. Yes, Travis worked on this. He'd be the person.

All right, let's go ahead, Travis, and then we'll see where we are. Thanks.

Sure. So a little bit of background, and this is located in the warehouse clauses. In 2023, this council passed a new section of Section 153 of the LMCO that requires that if you are applying for rezoning, as part of that process, staff checks and sees if there are outstanding requirements. liens or taxes to be paid, and those need to be paid before the rezoning continues to a public hearing. That's been in effect for a couple years, and we got a request about whether and how that might be expanded. Rezonings, and in this case, conditional use permits, are different from some other planning applications in that some planning applications, for example, subdivision plans, are ministerial reviews, which means you sort of meet the regulations, check the boxes, In theory, you get an approval. And there's a number of both statutes and case law just sort of on that topic. And so there is some risk in trying to expand this into those kind of ministerial reviews. Conditional use permits, however, are discretionary in nature. And they are sort of larger asks. They're kind of the nature of a rezoning. something you wouldn't ordinarily be allowed to do on that property right so that is what this ordinance would do it would expand that check for outstanding taxes and in lanes two conditional use permits in addition to rezonings um eventually you might want some that on that see if it's you know producing actual restrictions or not um but that's that's the the basic concept um it's a pretty minimal text amendment really just sort of adds that check on the CEPs as well and clarifies that that would be done by Board of Zoning Adjustment staff since it's a different body than Rezonings and Planning Commission.

So just so I can repeat back what I think I heard. So we're not taking, we would be taking a risk if we were expanding further into ministerial review items. In this case, we're not taking that risk because it is a similar process to what we've already done.

Correct, yeah, we've had discussion, and when this originally passed on whether there should be any and all applications, and we said really no, let's narrow it down to rezonings, now we're expanding it a little bit, but still keeping it in the discretionary realm.

Right, so because it's discretionary, we're not getting into that risky category. Right, okay. um so i was confused by by what joe had said but so now i'm back to understanding where we are um and i i so a couple years ago we passed something very similar that was brought up i think by uh councilwoman flood but i can't i'm not sure about that And so we're basically just bringing this up to that same standard, which makes that people can't have outstanding taxes and other things if they're applying for a CUP, which makes sense to me. So anybody have any questions or concerns about this? Councilman Hudson?

Thank you, Chair. This is one of those that I can see both sides. On the one hand, If I have a business that the current zoning is preventing me from making a profit, so I'm not able to pay my taxes, and if I was zoned differently, I could be more profitable and pay my taxes, then I see why I would be in favor of this. On the other hand, if an entity is not paying their taxes, that's kind of the first price of admission to the legislative processes. So I'm gonna be of a yes vote on this just to further the conversation on it.

Great, thank you. I don't think I have anybody else in the queue. Anybody else in the queue have any questions or concerns about this? Okay, Cheryl, can you open up for a roll call, please?

Here you have seven yes votes.

And that was unanimous, right? Seven was unanimous, yeah. Okay, so this will be forwarded to Old Business on the next council agenda. Item number six, R-066-26, a resolution nominating Wolf Penn Branch Road, which runs from River Road to Chamberlain Lane, to be designated as a scenic corridor and requesting the Planning Commission to review such nomination. Can I get a motion? Second. Probably moved and seconded. Do you want to speak to this, Councilman Reed? I will.

Thank you. This is the Woolpin Branch traditional preservation road. If people have not been there, I would suggest that you do because it's beautiful. It's very, very nice. The residents there in the Preservation Society asked me to make that particular area a scenic corridor, not a scenic byway, and I'm just carrying out their wishes to do that, and it needs to be studied by the Planning Commission, and I urge your support, thank you.

So is the difference between a scenic corridor and a scenic bypass a local designation versus a state designation? That's exactly right.

Okay, great.

Councilman Benson?

I was just wondering, is there any billboards on that road?

Are you proposing one? No. Okay, I don't have anybody else in the queue. This is a resolution which can be a voice vote. All those in favor, please say aye. All those against? The ayes have it. You want this to go to consent or you want it to go to old business? All right, we'll put this on consent on the next. All right, so we do have one more thing here in front of us. We do have this quick special discussion. We asked Joe Haberman to give us a 30,000 foot kind of view of the data center regulations and then talk a little bit about the procedure. Because Brian Davis isn't here, I don't want to get into questions and all that stuff about it, but just to ask Joe to kind of present it at a very high level. So, Joe.

Good afternoon, Joe Haberman, Office of Planning. So this is just, as Councilman Owen mentioned, just gonna be a high level kind of overview of what the regulations, the draft regulations that we published on the following website that's up on the screen. We'll show this again. You could probably easily find it just by searching data center on Louisvilleky.gov as well. But we published these a few days ago. These are the initial regulations. They will very likely change as it goes through the process, and this is the very first step in the process. So I'll first highlight what they say, and then I'll go over some of the process, because there's still a lot of opportunity for public comment as we go through these. So the big thing that we like to note in this is currently data centers are permitted as telecommunication hotels. And I think we all understand that that is probably an old way of addressing this newer type of development. But they're allowed generally in any industrial district and in C3 without any caps, any standards. So that's where we're starting from. One of the main standards that we are proposing is a 500,000 square foot hard cap for the data center. So regardless of their zoning, they would have to meet this cap. They couldn't go past it. There's no waiver to it, no relief to it. So that's probably the most important element of what we're proposing. And most people would consider why definitions of hyperscale vary. I don't think anybody would argue that anything greater than 500,000 is anything but a hyperscale data center. So that is the key recommendation. However, there's also a cap of 250,000 square feet. And that, so anytime you go over 250 to 500, you need a conditional use permit and M3 zoning. So that's the most intense industrial zoning we have. and that is a public review a discretionary public review through the conditional use process if you're under the 250 000 square feet down to 50 you may be able to be permitted with special standards but you're going to be limited to medium and heavy industrial zoning districts and you have to meet all those standards if you fail to meet one of those standards the way to get relief to that other than the square footage would be to go through the conditional use process. So a facility of 500 to 250 as this is written may or may not need a conditional use process, but there are several standards that they have to meet. And then under 50,000 square feet, we will continue to allow those because those are allowed now in all of these districts with the exception of C3 so that broadens a little bit to include M1 and commercial manufacturing which are light industrial zoning districts. So the takeaway of this is if you are exclusively a data center you're only going to be permitted in an industrial district and based on your size the zoning becomes more restrictive based on the intensity of that industrial district.

We will be

Under this regulation, regulating them in three different ways. As a data center, that's a standalone use. As an accessory data center, which we have throughout the community, which is just a building on a campus of a business or a hospital that has their data center on site, but they have other things going on, and that's really just there as a subordinate use to that greater use. And then we're proposing telecommunication data center, which will be limited to entities that are regulated by the FCC, which is similar we believe and thought to the existing type, even though that's not defined. And those would be allowed up to 50,000 square feet in C3, which is where they would currently be allowed. So that's really where that one comes into play. So just to highlight some of the things that are in there, this would protect utility customers by requiring evidence that the new facilities will not shift any cost to existing rate payers. It would require the developer presenting the proposal to bear the cost of improvements to the infrastructure if upgrades are required, which they typically are for the larger facilities. It would, as I mentioned before, limit the data centers to designated industrial areas designated by their zoning. It would require environmentally low impact construction and site design practices. It would require substantial separation from homes, schools, and daycare facilities more than what the setback requirements would typically require. We put some additional separation requirements in. We would require a public hearing and conditional use permit for data centers that do not meet those exceptions, as I mentioned before. There would be noise standards. This is a big concern. We've heard from the community that these are noise generators, particularly from the diesel generators, which are used for emergency purposes and those need to be tested. So there's noise standards that go above and beyond the Metro noise ordinance. We would require the entity making the proposal to be transparent and disclose the company that would own and be using the proposed project. And then finally we would require that for the construction work occurring on the data center that the developer pay prevailing wages. So as far as the process, we are doing, we released this draft online and we put it paired with a comment card because that's the best way to collect comments because if we get them through that card we can easily give them to the Planning Commission, Metro Council and the other cities that we're gonna make these recommendations to. We're taking those comment cards through July 10th. That is not the last day that anybody has to comment. But if you can get your comment in by that date, we're going to sit down. We've been reading the comments. We've already received nearly 600 comment cards, which for a zoning, that's a lot. So we're going to review all those, and we might make changes for the planning commission draft that will there'll be a whole nother round of opportunity for comments at the planning commission. We'll continue to take comments probably through that comment card, but if they come in after that, we can't promise that we're gonna take those into account in our second draft. So there'll be a planning commission planning committee meeting, which they just decide if it's technically ready. That's more of a procedural step, but there will be a public hearing by the planning commission. We're still working through the logistics of how we wanna do that. We're trying to think about the number of people that might wanna speak and make sure that everybody have the opportunity to provide their verbal comments to the Planning Commission. But we're still working through all that, so we don't have a date yet. And we don't have an exact location. We may or may not use the old jail. We're trying to work through that to make sure that everybody can be heard. And when the planning commission's done, it will come before Metro Council, just like any other text amendment for your consideration. We'll also be making these recommendations to the 12 suburban cities, because they all have similar regulations in place now, which is the telecommunication hotel. That's it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Joe.

So I have a few people in the queue, but I don't want this to turn into a question, kind of an answer, since Brian Davis, who's the head of planning, isn't here. Are these process-related questions? Or if it's a process-related question, I think it's important to address that because the public probably would like to know the same thing. So, Councilman Reed?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just very quickly, one of the things that I want to make sure, as much as I can, is that this committee has a say in some of these zoning changes, if in fact there is a zoning change. So I want to make sure, and I admittedly have not had a chance to look at this yet. I've had some things going on personally. But I want to make sure that if a zoning change is being proposed, that it will come to this committee after the prerequisite number of public hearings and the Planning Commission recommendation as any other zoning case would.

Yeah, you'll have, this committee will, it's up to Metro Council to assign it to the committee, but LSM, they'll assign the text amendments to this committee, and we are making the zonings districts a little bit more restrictive, so any rezoning that would be required for a data center would come to Metro Council for your review. Okay.

I have a significant number of suburban cities, so you answered that question. You're going to be reaching out to them?

We already have. We've been in touch with all the suburban cities, particularly the ones with areas that might be more likely to have industrial development. Some of them are more residential, but yes, we've been reaching out to them and their attorneys. Okay, thank you.

Councilman Benson, is this a process-related question?

Well, I don't know about the process. It says 500,000 square feet. How big is that?

I can give you some context. Typically, we were trying to give examples of different-sized buildings. A Home Depot or a Walmart can be around 125,000 square feet, if that kind of gives you an idea. So it would be a couple of those.

Well, I worked at General Electric years ago, and I didn't know how that compared with General Electric. I mean, I guess it's M3. I imagine it's a... Thousand acres and I think I think that general electric plant is over a million square feet if I'm not mistaken Well, I I know You know, you could put a lot of stuff in a thousand eight and a thousand acres, but I you know, that's m3 and and they if they already have m3 and they wanted to Put the data centers in their area Can they do that?

so Or Ford Motor Company. Yeah, so that's what he was saying. There's a different designation for accessory data centers, like hospitals sometimes have a data center on their own campus. Those are treated a little bit differently under these new regulations. Same thing would go for Ford. If it's on their own campus, it's treated a little bit differently. GE, Ford, it's treated a little bit differently. Is there anything else? That kind of sums it up, right?

Yeah, and I would just also note to the size, the 500,000 would be limited only to M3, and there are other buildings of that scale that can be found in M3, big factories, warehouses, things like that can typically be around that size. And that's not necessarily one building. That's the cumulative size of all the buildings that When you look at how data centers are often built, it's a series of buildings, usually with the generators or other development in the interior. So that would be total square footage for the site, not necessarily total square footage per building. I mean, they could have one 500,000 square foot building under these regs, or they could have five 100.

Council Member Murray.

Okay, first of all, I really want to go much deeper than process. No, no, no. So let me stick with one question right now then, the availability of a review and conditional use permits for some of these. So what are the standards that would have to be met for anything to get a conditional use permit to allow it somewhere that otherwise it might not be permitted?

So conditional use is a use that is permitted in that zoning on a case-by-case review. What you would look at are really three things. First, you'd look at Plan 2040. You have to review all conditional uses with the comprehensive plan. Then there's standard conditional use review criteria that apply to any conditional use which relate to it. Does it effectively adversely impact adjacent properties and some other things similar to that? Then for each conditional use type, you can add additional standards that only apply to that conditional use type, which we proposed a series of standards that they would have to meet that are specific to data centers in the draft. So you would look at any of those three. If the Board of Zoning and Adjustment, or in some cases Planning Commission, decide they don't meet any of those criteria, they can deny the conditional use permit, because it's a discretionary review.

I mean, I think most importantly, the fact that you have to go through that process opens up the public review process. I mean, so that layer, whatever the standards are that they have to meet, it immediately triggers that extra layer of process that has a public review.

Yes, I just wanna make sure that the standards that they have to meet under that are very strict. Many times things are allowed through on a conditional use permit that people are disappointed in the decision. So I just wanna make sure that those standards that they have to meet are very strict and that they are held highly accountable.

Thank you. Thank you, Joe, appreciate it. I think that's everything on the agenda. We're over time, so thanks, everyone. Our next meeting is in two weeks. I don't know what the date is for that next meeting. No, it's not, is it in two weeks? No, it's not in two weeks. Our next meeting isn't until after summer break, so it'll be a minute before we see everyone, but thank you, everyone, and it's July the 21st is our next regularly scheduled meeting. All right, thanks, everyone. This meeting is adjourned.