Louisville Metro Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting – August 18, 2026
Louisville Metro Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting — August 18, 2026
The Planning and Zoning Committee met at 1:03 p.m. on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, in Council Chambers/virtually, with seven members present and one excused. The meeting adjourned at 1:42 p.m. The committee considered two pending ordinances: a detailed district development plan for Old Bardstown Road and a Land Development Code amendment on package liquor stores. The first item was postponed; the second was amended and recommended for approval on a 7-0 vote. Both ordinances have a required action date of February 13, 2027.
Discussion Items
-
O-225-26 — Detailed District Development Plan, 8803/8805/8807 Old Bardstown Road (Case 26DDP0005): Julia Williams of the Office of Planning said the 7.02-acre site is partially vacant and partially residential and would be developed for commercial and office uses under a revised detailed district development plan; it is zoned OR-1 and C-1. She reported the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 10-0 vote on July 16, 2026. Chair Andrew Owen said the district council member requested postponement while working through binding elements with the developer. Committee Member Stuart Benson raised concerns about turn lanes and future traffic; no direct response was provided. A motion to postpone, made by Committee Member Jeff Hudson and seconded by Committee Member Khalil Batshon, carried by voice vote.
-
O-227-26 — Land Development Code Amendment Regarding Package Liquor Stores (Case 26-LDC-0003): Joe Haberman of the Office of Planning presented a staff proposal responding to Council Resolution R-134-25. He explained that package liquor stores are currently permitted by right in most commercial zones with no separation requirement or operating standards. The proposal defines a package liquor store, adds a 1,000-foot parcel-to-parcel separation from certain sensitive uses, provides conditional-use relief through the Board of Zoning Adjustment for sites that do not meet the standards, exempts accessory sales at distilleries and wineries, and includes an exception for package liquor stores located with grocery stores. Staff modeled the change on the retail tobacco ordinance and reviewed practices in Des Moines and Indianapolis. The Planning Commission recommended approval on July 16, 2026, by a 6-3 vote.
During discussion, Chair Owen asked staff to confirm that the new use-based separation requirement avoids the constitutional problems of an earlier license-based separation rule; Laura Ferguson of the Jefferson County Attorney's Office explained the prior ABC licensing case and why a uniform, metro-wide land-use standard is on firmer footing. Committee Member Khalil Batshon argued that the grocery-store exception protects food-desert neighborhoods and prevents large grocery stores with attached spirit shops from being blocked by the new standards. Committee Member Josie Raymond asked whether mapping had been done to show how many sites would be affected; Haberman said that analysis was not done for this ordinance but had been done for the retail tobacco ordinance. Committee Member Betsy Ruhe questioned the 40,000-square-foot threshold and how small grocers would seek relief. Committee Member Jeff Hudson supported the code change and recounted a liquor store denial in his district that was overturned on appeal to the state.
Key Outcomes
-
O-225-26: Postponed by voice vote to the next Planning and Zoning Committee meeting; no recommendation was made.
-
O-227-26: The committee adopted two amendments by voice vote. First, it adopted a second-tier amendment adding "8. Religious Building" back to the list of protected uses. Second, it adopted the amended grocery exception to read: "A new Package Liquor Store is exempt from the above separation requirement if located on the same lot or development site as a Grocery Store exceeding 40,000 square feet." The committee then voted 7-0 (Owen, Parrish-Wright, Raymond, Benson, Ruhe, Hudson, and Batshon) to recommend approval of O-227-26 as amended and sent it to Old Business for the August 27, 2026 Metro Council meeting.
Meeting Transcript
Metro TV, we can start in thirty seconds. Welcome to the regularly scheduled uh planning and zoning committee meeting. It's Tuesday, August eighteenth, twenty twenty-six. It's one oh two PM. I'm the chair of this committee, Andrew Owen. May come online later, but currently he has an excused absence. Councilman Hudson is here. And uh I assume Councilwoman Parish right will join us shortly. Uh we don't have anybody online, so we don't need to read the virtual statement. All right. An ordinance relating to the detailed district development plan for property located at eighty-eight oh three, eighty-eight oh five, and eighty eight oh seven old Barts Town Road, containing approximately seven point zero two acres and being in Louisville Metro, case number twenty six DDP zero zero zero five. Can I get a motion? Properly moved in second. Julia, are you here to discuss this with us? Yes. This is located in Council District 22 on the properties 8803 through 8807, Old Bardstown Road. The existing use is a portion of it's vacant, and then a portion of it is residential. The proposed use is commercial and office. This is the zoning map for the site, as you can see. Uh part is zoned OR1 and part is zone C1. The request was for a revised detailed district development plan with binding elements. This is the applicant's development plan showing those three structures. Adjacent property, uh senior apartments across Old Bardstown Road. This is north of the subject property. The planning commission held their public hearing on July 16, 2026, where there was a motion to recommend approval of the development plan passing by vote of 10 to 0. Are there any questions? Thank you, Julia. Um we will uh shortly I've been told that uh the uh this is in Councilman Bat Bratch's district, and I've been told that he would like to table this as they're trying to work through a couple of mining elements with the developer. But before we do that, does anybody have any questions? Kind of general questions about this before we might go ahead and uh councilman Hudson. Wasn't this parcel before this committee like six months ago? So so this is a detailed development plan that has changed, correct? Yes, that's correct. So and it was unanimous at the planning commission, but because it was a binding elements, it had to come back in front of us. It was uh the uh standard binding element, I guess, and had to come back in front of us. Is that correct? That's right. So you are exactly right. All right, thank you. Um it's just a change to that detailed development plan, which is what brought it back in front of us. Okay, uh Councilman Benson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, one of the things I've uh in in uh my years that a lot of times we rezone something, and uh uh they'll say, Well, what's the traffic like? Well, right now it's okay. Uh and that's what we do. We always think about how it is this moment, but it'll never ever get worse because we don't think about that being possibility. And to me, uh when I see something like this and uh building, I mean, is there a turn lane or anything that uh uh to make sure that as time goes on there's traffic and stuff that people can still flow? I mean, this is a time when you build something that you'd put a turn lane. Um I've been voted down a lot of times on turn lanes uh because people say oh no, we don't need them, but I've just wondered if they thought about it.
openpublica.com