OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Louisville, Kentucky/Metro Council & Committees
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Louisville Metro Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting - September 15, 2026

Metro Council & Committees — Tuesday, September 15, 2026
BodyLouisville, Kentucky
SessionMetro Council & Committees
DateTuesday, September 15, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:23:28

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:22

Sometimes we say oh no more.

0:37

I know I want you to get a birthday.

1:14

Okay, we're gonna see this.

1:35

Okay, perfect.

1:42

Okay.

2:42

Yeah.

2:42

We're not here for more point.

3:26

Yeah.

3:34

Start with the rare.

3:52

Yeah.

4:10

Yeah.

4:12

That got a lot of short sorts of screens.

4:55

Metro TV will get started in 30 seconds.

5:48

All right.

5:48

So welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the planning and zoning committee for September 15th, 2026.

5:58

The time is 103 p.m.

6:01

We do have some people joining us online.

6:03

So this meeting is being held pursuant to KRS 61.826 and Council.

6:09

5A.

6:11

I'm the chair of the committee, Andrew Owen.

6:14

I'm joined by my vice chair Scott Reid virtually, joined virtually by Councilwoman Josie Raymond, by Councilwoman Shemika Parrish Wright, and I'm joined in chambers by Councilman Hudson, Councilman Benson, Councilman Batshan, Councilman Piagentini has joined us.

6:44

And Councilman Bradger.

6:47

Okay.

6:48

And we are also joined by Councilman Herndon.

6:50

Thank you very much for joining us.

6:52

Okay, so we are going to start off with uh item number one on the agenda, which is O-225-26, an ordinance relating to the detailed district development plan for property located at 8803, 8805, and 8807 Old Barstown Road, containing approximately 7.02 acres and being in Louisville Metro, case number 26 DDP 0005.

7:19

Can I get a motion?

7:21

Properly moved and seconded.

7:23

Uh Julia, is this on your plate?

7:25

No, this was uh held a couple times.

7:28

Uh-huh.

7:29

And been presented.

7:31

Right.

7:32

Um, so this is in Councilman Bratcher's district, so maybe we should start there.

7:38

Uh and you can kind of um tell us we we've held it in in committee a couple times and now we're back back around to it.

7:45

So if you can give us kind of an overview.

7:47

Yes, sir.

7:47

It passed through the system, and then uh uh the the developer wanted some changes, so it goes back to the it was substantial changes, so it goes back to the planning commission.

7:59

And when they come up, I think they made an error and they left out the the standard element and some other things, and we're just putting it back in.

8:08

And the the developer had no problem with putting it back in.

8:11

We think it was an error.

8:12

So there are binding elements that uh are in the form of an amendment on the ass on the system.

8:17

Yeah.

8:18

That's what I understand.

8:19

Yes.

8:19

Um Laura, do you is there are there things in those binding elements that you can kind of highlight for us?

8:24

Yeah, so the request by the developer as part of the revised plan was to increase the height requirement and binding element number nine from 25 feet to 27 feet and extend what happened is and it might have just been um as part of a cleanup that instead of just amending that one binding element, both height restriction binding elements that have been added by council were recommended for deletion by the planning commission.

8:47

So we confirmed with the developer that the developer was fine with those not being deleted and just having the one change on binding element number nine from 25 to 27 feet.

8:56

So there's an amendment in the system that would put those two back in, and then it just remembers the council review binding element because typically we like it to be the last one.

9:06

Okay, so council branch would be like that amendment for us before it's coming to the case.

9:11

I think someone on the committee needs to make that.

9:14

I think we got arranged with anyone.

9:17

I'll make the motion to amend the um the binding elements.

9:21

Uh all those in favor please say aye.

9:23

Aye.

9:37

I didn't have much to add, just that um I just was updated on this, and I I think your concerns are valid.

9:44

I always worry if if you know if it's about having different types of housing in the area, or it's really about the infrastructure, and I really appreciate your diligence on that.

9:53

Understanding that when our city was built, 18 feet, it was just like the second street bridge, right?

9:59

And I know how tight that is.

10:00

So wanting to take it to 20 feet makes sense.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Data Center Regulation███████████████████████████████31%
Zoning Regulation█████████████████17%
Procedural██████████10%
Public Engagement██████████10%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████9%
Transportation Safety███████7%
Data Analysis██████6%
Miscellaneous████4%
Community Engagement██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Louisville Metro Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting - September 15, 2026

The Planning and Zoning Committee met on September 15, 2026, at 1:03 PM in Council Chambers and via video teleconference, chaired by Andrew Owen (D-9). The committee considered five pending legislative items and adjourned at 2:21 PM.

Consent Calendar

  • O-258-26 (Alley Closure): The committee voted 8-0 to recommend approval of closing an unnamed, unimproved alley (approx. 32,383 sq. ft.) between N. Peterson Avenue and Frankfort Avenue. The alley serves 49 parcels; 30 of 42 property owners consented. Discussion clarified that 51% owner consent is required for improved alleys but for unimproved alleys, public works must conclude it is not needed. The recommendation was sent to the Consent Calendar for full Council.
  • R-124-26 (Data Gathering in District 22): The committee approved (voice vote) a resolution requesting the Office of Planning to conduct data gathering and analysis in Metro Council District 22 as a pilot project, with initial data gathering expected within six months. Council Member Kevin Bratcher (R-22) sponsored the resolution, citing traffic congestion on Old Bardstown Road. The resolution was sent to the Consent Calendar.

Discussion Items

1. O-225-26 – Detailed District Development Plan (8803-8807 Old Bardstown Road, 7.02 acres)

  • The developer sought to modify binding elements, increasing a height restriction from 25 to 27 feet (Binding Element #9). Two other height restriction binding elements had been inadvertently omitted. An amendment reinstated those two elements while keeping the 25-to-27-foot change. Council Member Bratcher and Chair Owen spoke in support. The committee voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the amended ordinance and sent it to Old Business.

2. O-240-26 – Road Width Amendment (LDC 25-LDC-0003)

  • Proposed to raise the minimum road width from 18 to 20 feet in the Land Development Code, driven by fire prevention code changes (LMCO 94.80) and a 2024 Council resolution. Joel Dock (Planning) presented the Planning Commission’s recommendation (approved 7-0). Committee Member Benson offered an amendment replacing specific width references with compliance to LMCO 94.80, allowing automatic updates if the fire code changes. The amendment passed by voice vote. Discussion included concerns about wider roads increasing speeds and the need to address existing substandard roads serving new dense developments. The committee voted 6 in favor, 2 present (Parrish-Wright and Ruhe) to recommend approval and sent to Old Business.

5. O-251-26 – Data Center Regulations (25-LDC-0014)

  • Brian Davis and Joe Haberman (Planning) presented the Planning Commission’s recommendation (approved 5-3) after extensive public engagement: five community forums, four public hearings, nearly 3,600 survey responses, and over 4,000 online comments. Key provisions include a hard cap of 500,000 sq. ft., quarter-mile separation from sensitive uses and other data centers, conditional use permits for centers 50,000–500,000 sq. ft., utility capacity letters from LG&E and Louisville Water, developer-funded infrastructure upgrades, noise standards, and ownership disclosure. Council Members Hawkins, Parrish-Wright, and Ruhe raised concerns about health impacts, utility cost shifts, non-retroactivity to existing data centers (e.g., a 1M sq. ft. facility on Camp Ground Road), and the legal feasibility of banning data centers. Laura Ferguson, County Attorney’s Office, noted that banning a use would require sufficient justification to survive legal challenge. Committee Member Batshon moved to postpone; the motion passed by voice vote. The item will be taken up at a future meeting.

Key Outcomes

  • O-225-26: Approved as amended (8-0), sent to Old Business.
  • O-240-26: Approved as amended (6 in favor, 2 present), sent to Old Business.
  • O-258-26: Approved (8-0), sent to Consent Calendar.
  • R-124-26: Approved (voice vote), sent to Consent Calendar.
  • O-251-26: Postponed (voice vote) for further consideration.

Meeting Transcript

Sometimes we say oh no more. I know I want you to get a birthday. Okay, we're gonna see this. Okay, perfect. Okay. Yeah. We're not here for more point. Yeah. Start with the rare. Yeah. Yeah. That got a lot of short sorts of screens. Metro TV will get started in 30 seconds. All right. So welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the planning and zoning committee for September 15th, 2026. The time is 103 p.m. We do have some people joining us online. So this meeting is being held pursuant to KRS 61.826 and Council. 5A. I'm the chair of the committee, Andrew Owen. I'm joined by my vice chair Scott Reid virtually, joined virtually by Councilwoman Josie Raymond, by Councilwoman Shemika Parrish Wright, and I'm joined in chambers by Councilman Hudson, Councilman Benson, Councilman Batshan, Councilman Piagentini has joined us. And Councilman Bradger. Okay. And we are also joined by Councilman Herndon. Thank you very much for joining us. Okay, so we are going to start off with uh item number one on the agenda, which is O-225-26, an ordinance relating to the detailed district development plan for property located at 8803, 8805, and 8807 Old Barstown Road, containing approximately 7.02 acres and being in Louisville Metro, case number 26 DDP 0005. Can I get a motion? Properly moved and seconded. Uh Julia, is this on your plate? No, this was uh held a couple times. Uh-huh. And been presented. Right. Um, so this is in Councilman Bratcher's district, so maybe we should start there. Uh and you can kind of um tell us we we've held it in in committee a couple times and now we're back back around to it. So if you can give us kind of an overview. Yes, sir. It passed through the system, and then uh uh the the developer wanted some changes, so it goes back to the it was substantial changes, so it goes back to the planning commission. And when they come up, I think they made an error and they left out the the standard element and some other things, and we're just putting it back in. And the the developer had no problem with putting it back in. We think it was an error. So there are binding elements that uh are in the form of an amendment on the ass on the system. Yeah. That's what I understand. Yes. Um Laura, do you is there are there things in those binding elements that you can kind of highlight for us? Yeah, so the request by the developer as part of the revised plan was to increase the height requirement and binding element number nine from 25 feet to 27 feet and extend what happened is and it might have just been um as part of a cleanup that instead of just amending that one binding element, both height restriction binding elements that have been added by council were recommended for deletion by the planning commission. So we confirmed with the developer that the developer was fine with those not being deleted and just having the one change on binding element number nine from 25 to 27 feet. So there's an amendment in the system that would put those two back in, and then it just remembers the council review binding element because typically we like it to be the last one. Okay, so council branch would be like that amendment for us before it's coming to the case.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com