[5:33] Open your document. There.

[5:49] All right. So.

[6:28] I don't know if

[6:49] we all have to walk down. Here.

[7:07] To turn off your house.

[8:01] Yeah,

[8:04] it's it's a county. So we had

[8:08] to restart the whole computer.

[8:10] But. But look, you don't need

[8:27] it. No.

[8:30] We've been waiting for

[8:49] you. I'm just. I'm joking.

[11:52] Okay?

[11:54] Yeah, well, let's not look at

[11:55] that right now. Let's start

[12:12] with what we need.

[12:41] Metro tv 30s.

[13:01] Good afternoon and welcome to

[13:02] the regularly scheduled

[13:03] planning and Zoning committee

[13:04] meeting. I am Scott Reed, the

[13:06] vice chair of the committee.

[13:08] Today is Tuesday, JUNE the 2nd.

[13:10] And joining me in the chambers,

[13:12] we have COUNCILWOMAN Parish

[13:14] rights. We have COUNCILWOMAN

[13:15] Raymond, we have COUNCILMAN

[13:18] Hudson. We have COUNCILWOMAN

[13:21] Rudy. We have COUNCILWOMAN

[13:22] Jennifer Chappell. And online

[13:24] we have Chair Owen. Just a

[13:27] little bit of housekeeping. We

[13:29] have item number five, which is

[13:30] being held at the request of

[13:34] the sponsor. And with that in

[13:37] mind, we have starting off

[13:38] ordinance pending legislation,

[13:42] ordinance 0-127-26, an

[13:43] ordinance relating to the

[13:45] zoning of property located at

[13:46] 3827 proper level road

[13:48] containing approximately 0.22

[13:49] acres and being in Louisville

[13:52] Metro. Case number 26. Zone

[13:57] 0025 do have a motion motion.

[14:01] Motion seconded. Julia. Oh I'm

[14:05] sorry. Disclaimer. This meeting

[14:08] is being held pursuant to carry

[14:09] 61.826 and Council of five a

[14:11] reading for. Thank you Cheryl.

[14:13] Now to you, Julia. Julia

[14:19] Williams Office of Planning. So

[14:29] this is 26 zone 0025. This is

[14:31] located at 3827 Poplar Level

[14:35] Road in Council District ten.

[14:37] The existing use is single

[14:39] family. The proposed use is

[14:42] multifamily. The existing

[14:44] zoning is r five in the

[14:45] neighborhood Forum district.

[14:47] The proposed zoning is r six in

[14:50] the neighborhood Forum district.

[14:51] The request is for a change in

[14:53] zoning from r five residential

[14:56] to r six residential. There was

[14:57] a waiver and a detailed

[14:58] district development plan with

[14:59] binding elements associated

[15:02] with the site. The site is

[15:04] approximately 0.22 acres. It's

[15:06] an existing single family

[15:07] structure to be converted to a

[15:09] duplex with a detached third

[15:11] dwelling unit in the rear.

[15:13] There's no new construction or

[15:15] expansion of the existing

[15:17] structures. This is the

[15:19] applicant's development plan,

[15:20] showing the existing home in

[15:24] the front and then the existing

[15:25] accessory dwelling unit in the

[15:28] rear. This is what the subject

[15:29] property looks like along

[15:32] Poplar Level Road. The rear of

[15:34] the property along Jackson

[15:40] Avenue. These are the existing

[15:43] dwellings across the front of.

[15:46] Along a level road. This is

[15:48] facing northwest toward Poplar

[15:51] Level Road and Trevilian Way

[15:53] and then facing southeast

[15:54] towards Pablo Level Road and

[15:58] Grenade Avenue. The neighbor.

[15:59] The applicant held their

[16:01] neighborhood meeting on

[16:03] FEBRUARY 25th, 2026. The

[16:04] Planning Commission held their

[16:06] public hearing on APRIL 23rd,

[16:08] 2026, where there was a motion

[16:09] to recommend approval of the

[16:11] change in zoning, passing by a

[16:14] vote of 7 to 1. Are there any

[16:17] questions? Whose council

[16:20] district is this? Oh, I'm sorry,

[16:21] would you like to speak to it,

[16:23] COUNCILMAN Raymond, please.

[16:24] Well, first I wanted to ask if

[16:26] if you understood why there was

[16:29] a no vote. That commissioner

[16:32] did not speak as to why they

[16:35] voted no. Yes, I'll speak to it,

[16:39] if I MAY. So this is a this is

[16:41] a property. It's a five bedroom

[16:42] house that was previously

[16:45] rented out and that there's not

[16:47] the market that there used to

[16:48] be for renting five bedroom

[16:49] houses. And so the owner of

[16:51] this property is converting it

[16:53] with only internal renovations.

[16:55] And so that each floor is

[16:56] rented. So it's essentially a

[16:57] duplex. I went to the

[16:58] neighborhood meeting. There was

[16:59] no objection actually at the

[17:00] neighborhood meeting was the

[17:02] couple who were the current

[17:03] tenants who were supportive of

[17:04] this change. So I was actually

[17:06] really disappointed by this one

[17:07] no vote because it's delayed

[17:10] the progress. And it's, it's we

[17:12] talk about how things move

[17:13] really slowly. This is a very

[17:16] simple change that enhances the

[17:17] neighborhood and is desired by

[17:19] the residents. And it has still

[17:21] taken months and months. So I

[17:25] ask for your support. Thank you,

[17:28] COUNCILMAN Owen. Thank you,

[17:31] Vice Chair. Quick, quick

[17:32] question. So is my

[17:33] understanding. My understanding

[17:37] is that this will go from a

[17:39] single family with a cup for an

[17:42] for an Adu, or was it a and

[17:45] then and now it will just be a

[17:47] multi-family. And so will this,

[17:49] the the Adu will go away and

[17:51] there will be three units of

[17:52] multifamily rental. Is that my

[17:55] is that a correct understanding?

[17:58] I don't believe the site had a

[18:00] cup for an accessory dwelling

[18:04] unit. So it was being rented,

[18:07] not as a as a short term rental,

[18:09] but as a long term rental.

[18:11] Previously the back of the, the

[18:16] back unit. It's the I know the

[18:18] young man who lives in the back.

[18:21] It's the owner's son. And so do

[18:23] we know again, I'm I'm I'm, I'm

[18:25] a I'm for this. I was just

[18:26] trying to get some

[18:27] clarification. So so the

[18:28] current tenants who now occupy

[18:29] the entire house will now

[18:31] occupy one floor. The young man

[18:33] who lives in the Adu in the

[18:35] back will stay there. And then

[18:36] a new tenant will move on to

[18:38] the second floor. Great. And I

[18:40] just wanted to mention that,

[18:43] you know, when we do break up a,

[18:45] a five bedroom house, for

[18:48] example, we do into two units,

[18:50] we have created smaller units

[18:52] that will be more affordable to,

[18:55] to people. And I think that is

[18:57] a net positive here. So just

[18:58] wanted to highlight that. Thank

[19:01] you very much. Thank you. Chair.

[19:02] Any other comments? We have

[19:04] been joined by COUNCILMAN

[19:11] Vachon. Stewart. COUNCILMAN

[19:15] Benson, you. Oh, I thought I

[19:16] acknowledged you. COUNCILMAN

[19:18] Benson is in the chambers as

[19:23] well. With that, I think we're

[19:38] ready to vote. On. Yes. Thank

[19:46] you. Voting's closing. Vice

[19:47] Chair Reed, you have eight yes

[19:49] votes. Thank you very much.

[19:51] This passes and we'll go to new

[19:52] business at the next council

[19:58] meeting. Next is item number

[19:59] 0-137-26. An ordinance relating

[20:01] to the area wide zoning of

[20:04] property located at 1901 r

[20:05] Payne Street, containing

[20:08] approximately 3.09 acres and

[20:09] being in Louisville Metro. Case

[20:12] number 26, zone 0030. Do I have

[20:17] a motion? Motion and seconded

[20:18] chair Owen would like to speak

[20:21] to this, I'm sure. Thank you,

[20:23] Vice Chair Reed, this is a long

[20:25] time coming. I'm excited about

[20:27] this. So a couple of things I,

[20:29] I want to highlight again here.

[20:30] We've talked about this

[20:33] previously, but I wanted to say

[20:36] that, you know, this I don't

[20:38] expect to be precedent. I do

[20:40] not think that we as Metro

[20:42] government should proactively

[20:45] go after properties that are

[20:46] historically that are

[20:48] grandfathered in as industrial

[20:50] zoning and pull the industrial

[20:52] zoning designation out from

[20:53] under companies who are

[20:55] operating in in those locations.

[20:57] I think that is bad practice,

[20:59] bad business. And I do not

[21:01] think that this should set that

[21:02] precedent precedent. So I

[21:04] wanted to say that, first and

[21:07] foremost, in the case of this

[21:09] property, the property has had

[21:11] multiple explosions over the

[21:14] years. At least two of those

[21:17] explosions were deadly. And

[21:19] frankly, the most recent

[21:22] explosion. Is it's a small

[21:24] miracle that it wasn't more

[21:26] that it didn't take more lives

[21:28] than it actually did. When you

[21:30] you saw the the huge chunks of

[21:31] metal that went flying

[21:32] throughout the Clifton

[21:34] neighborhood. And so once that

[21:36] happened, the mayor came

[21:38] forward and, and I was in full

[21:39] agreement that this should

[21:41] never operate as heavy

[21:42] industrial again. And we

[21:43] requested that the Planning

[21:44] Commission take a look at what

[21:46] this might look like to down

[21:48] zone it. The recommendation was

[21:50] to, to change from m-2, which

[21:53] is a heavy industrial zoning

[21:56] zoning designation to cm, which

[21:58] does allow for some light

[22:00] industrial zone, but also

[22:02] allows for some housing,

[22:03] multifamily housing and some

[22:05] other things. So it, it adds

[22:07] more flexibility to what the

[22:09] property can be used for going

[22:10] forward, which I think is a

[22:13] good thing and does will make

[22:15] it easier for the for the

[22:17] company to sell going forward,

[22:18] because they'll be more users

[22:20] that that could potentially use

[22:23] the property as opposed to a, a,

[22:25] only a heavy industrial user

[22:27] using the property. I wanted to

[22:30] acknowledge that Commissioner

[22:32] Lannert voted against this at

[22:33] the Planning Commission. He was

[22:35] the sole no vote at the

[22:38] Planning Commission. And I do

[22:40] respect Commissioner Lambert's

[22:42] expertise as it relates to

[22:43] industrial properties. He's. He

[22:45] has brokered industrial

[22:46] properties in Louisville for

[22:48] the past four decades, and he

[22:51] suggested that we were reducing

[22:54] the value of the property by by,

[22:55] by lowering the zoning, lower

[22:58] the intensity of zoning from m2

[23:01] industrial to cm. Again

[23:03] acknowledging his expertise. I

[23:05] do have to disagree. In this

[23:08] particular case, I think that

[23:12] we have at. I think we've, like

[23:14] I said previously, we've added

[23:16] some value to the property in

[23:18] the sense that we have added

[23:19] the number of different uses

[23:22] that can be used, that can be

[23:23] taken advantage of at this site

[23:25] going forward, which I think

[23:28] adds some value. We have

[23:29] allowed some light industrial

[23:31] to continue here, which, you

[23:33] know, could could obviously

[23:35] turn into to future cash flow

[23:37] at this site going forward. So

[23:40] at the very most, I think we

[23:41] have I don't think we have

[23:43] reduced the value of this

[23:45] property in making this zoning

[23:46] change. One other thing and

[23:49] then I'll, I'll I'll step back

[23:52] here with the Planning

[23:54] Commission, sorry, the planning

[23:57] staff at Metro Government,

[23:58] under the leadership of Brian

[24:01] Davis, has reached out to

[24:04] Geveden on a handful of

[24:07] occasions since this process

[24:10] has been in place. What what I

[24:12] had requested from the company

[24:15] is that they come out and

[24:16] explicitly say that they they

[24:18] were not against the change in

[24:21] the zoning. They did not agree

[24:22] to say that explicitly, but at

[24:25] the same time, we have given

[24:27] them multiple opportunities 4

[24:29] or 5 on 4 or 5 different

[24:31] occasions to come out and say,

[24:33] please don't do this. You are

[24:35] really, you know, taking away

[24:36] the value of the property by

[24:38] doing this. And they have not

[24:40] done that either. And I think

[24:43] that their silence on that

[24:45] should be there's something to

[24:47] be said for the fact that they

[24:48] did not take the 4 or 5

[24:50] opportunities to, to state

[24:51] their opposition to this. And

[24:53] so I think that's that's

[24:55] important. So with all of that

[24:57] said, I would really ask for

[24:59] your support and hopefully we

[25:01] can. The this change in zoning

[25:03] will bring closure to the

[25:04] neighborhood in a way that I

[25:05] think will be incredibly

[25:07] healing. So I ask for your

[25:08] support and hope to move it

[25:10] forward. Thank you. Thank you.

[25:12] Chairman. Does anybody have any

[25:20] questions? COUNCILMAN Bacon?

[25:23] Thank you, Vice Chair Reed. And

[25:25] thank you, Chair Owen, for your

[25:26] explanation. And and just you

[25:28] know, for the record, I want to

[25:29] I've I've stated these issues

[25:31] before, but I want to state

[25:33] them again. And I think I think

[25:34] we're opening up a can of worms.

[25:36] Ladies and gentlemen, I think I

[25:37] think we should allow the

[25:39] market to play its role and do

[25:42] what it needs to do, and not

[25:45] rezone a property outside of

[25:48] the scope of allowing the owner

[25:50] to go through that zoning

[25:52] process like they should. This

[25:53] is going to increase the value

[25:55] of the property. I can agree

[25:56] with you on that. COUNCILMAN

[26:00] Owen, and create a new market

[26:01] value for this property to be

[26:05] sold or redeveloped. I strongly

[26:06] believe that we should not be

[26:09] doing this for the purpose of

[26:10] that. Owner needs to go through

[26:11] this process like everybody

[26:16] else does. Thank you.

[26:17] COUNCILMAN. Any other questions?

[26:18] Would you like to respond to

[26:21] COUNCILMAN Owen? Okay. Any

[26:26] questions? That said, I think

[26:33] we're ready to vote. Chair Owen.

[26:37] Yes. Thank you. Ordinance

[26:42] closing. Vice chair Reed, you

[26:44] have five yes votes and three

[26:47] no's. Thank you. With that,

[26:49] we'll go to new business. I'm

[26:50] sorry, old business. In the

[26:57] next council meeting. Next is

[26:59] item number three, an ordinance

[27:00] imposing a temporary moratorium

[27:02] on rezoning conditional. And

[27:06] this is item number 0-135-26.

[27:07] An ordinance imposing a

[27:09] temporary moratorium on

[27:11] rezoning conditional use

[27:12] permits and plan certain

[27:13] category two b and three

[27:15] development plan applications

[27:17] relating to telecommunication

[27:19] hotels and data centers pending

[27:20] a review and recommended

[27:21] changes by the Planning

[27:23] Commission. Do I have a motion,

[27:26] motion, motion and seconded? I

[27:28] think we have COUNCILWOMAN

[27:29] Chapel that would like to speak

[27:36] to this. Sure. Thank. I used to

[27:38] be on planning and zoning, and

[27:43] our meetings were much longer.

[27:47] Preface. No ai has been used to

[27:48] write this plea and all the

[27:52] words are my own, as is all of

[27:53] my words I've said in this

[27:56] chamber thus far. Colleagues,

[27:58] we have kicked. This can far

[28:00] enough down the road. On

[28:01] JANUARY 23rd, the Planning

[28:02] Commission was supposed to

[28:03] release the recommendations for

[28:05] the changes to the Land

[28:08] Development Code regarding data

[28:10] centers. 130 days have passed

[28:12] since that deadline and we are

[28:15] without recommendations. Still,

[28:16] what's even more puzzling to me

[28:18] is that recommendations were

[28:21] published online on JANUARY 2nd,

[28:23] and they were taken down just

[28:25] hours later. It seemed like the

[28:27] work was completed. So where

[28:30] did it go? And to be clear,

[28:32] these are recommendations that

[28:33] we're waiting on. It's not

[28:36] legislation and its final form.

[28:37] They aren't automatic updates

[28:39] to our land development code.

[28:41] They're recommendations that

[28:42] have the opportunity to be

[28:44] molded, which will be subject

[28:46] to public comment and will be

[28:47] under review by this

[28:49] legislative body. There's a lot

[28:51] of work ahead of us, but we

[28:52] can't move forward without the

[28:55] foundation of these documents.

[28:56] Data centers are a hot button

[28:58] issue worldwide, and they're

[28:59] certainly one that folks care

[29:02] about here since they're in

[29:03] their infancy. We don't

[29:05] understand a lot of the

[29:07] implications of a data center.

[29:09] How big of a population does

[29:12] one data center serve? How many

[29:13] data centers does Louisville

[29:17] need to power its population?

[29:18] What communities outside of

[29:20] Louisville benefit from data

[29:23] centers located here? Do those

[29:26] communities have buy in?

[29:28] Louisville has more water than

[29:29] anyone could than we could ever

[29:31] need or use is something I've

[29:34] heard before. But how much has

[29:36] to be used in order for that

[29:39] precious finite source to be

[29:42] tapped and threatened? Solar

[29:44] panel energy advances as

[29:45] quickly as televisions do, and

[29:46] computers are no longer the

[29:50] size, as buildings. Look how

[29:55] tiny this one is here. Does

[29:57] technology in a data center

[29:59] advance as quickly? And are the

[30:00] monstrosities that we're

[30:04] building now appropriate in 510

[30:08] years? I don't know the answers

[30:09] to these questions, and I have

[30:11] a slew of others that are going

[30:13] around in my head, and I doubt

[30:14] that anybody else in this room

[30:16] has answers to these questions,

[30:17] but I'm sure that you have a

[30:20] whole lot more. I know that I

[30:21] am not willing to let

[30:23] Louisville be a guinea pig for

[30:25] these data centers. It's

[30:27] convenient to rally against a

[30:28] moratorium when it's not your

[30:30] backyard being threatened. And

[30:31] let's be clear I live in a very

[30:33] dense urban area, and I doubt

[30:34] that a data center would ever

[30:36] be coming to my backyard.

[30:37] However, that doesn't mean that

[30:40] I can't prevent myself from

[30:42] fighting for someone that might

[30:45] have one in their backyard.

[30:46] Beyond that, we all pay a

[30:48] monthly L.G.A bill and a bill

[30:50] to Louisville Water. We're all

[30:51] subjected to the same price

[30:53] hikes, including the one that

[30:55] msd is proposing right now. So

[30:59] if you don't care about the

[31:00] deforestation of data centers,

[31:02] their light pollution, their

[31:04] noise pollution, the creation

[31:06] of a brown field, etc. Then

[31:08] maybe you will care when your

[31:09] water turns brown and your

[31:11] electricity bills rival your

[31:14] mortgage payment. Maybe these

[31:17] are all fears, but they're not

[31:19] ones that I want to test. Now

[31:21] let me bring address some

[31:23] concerns about the moratorium

[31:24] that my colleagues have brought

[31:27] up. First, there are no data

[31:28] centers in the pipeline, so

[31:31] this legislation would be moot.

[31:32] GOD forbid that Louisville

[31:34] metro government takes a

[31:36] proactive approach to something.

[31:37] Instead of laying in the weeds

[31:40] and being reactive to something,

[31:42] why are we too afraid to put

[31:45] our residents over private

[31:48] predatory development? Besides,

[31:49] if plans for a new data center

[31:51] were to be submitted tomorrow,

[31:53] any action by Metro Council

[31:55] would take little too late. Let

[31:56] me remind you, we're about to

[31:58] go on break for about three

[32:03] weeks. It might be too late. A

[32:03] moratorium will signal that

[32:05] Louisville is closed for

[32:07] business. How could we

[32:08] insinuate that Louisville is

[32:09] closed for business? When one

[32:10] Louisville distributed these

[32:12] talking points before Derby,

[32:13] over 2 million packages moved

[32:16] through ups every day, and we

[32:18] just passed Memphis as the

[32:20] largest air cargo hub in North

[32:23] America. Louisville saw over $3

[32:24] billion in new capital

[32:26] investment last year, an amount

[32:28] that's on par with Austin,

[32:31] Nashville and Raleigh. Ford is

[32:33] reinventing the assembly line

[32:34] in Louisville and how cars are

[32:36] put together. Ge is building a

[32:39] new 800 job, half a billion

[32:40] factory, half $1 billion

[32:42] factory that will manufacture a

[32:44] washer and dryer units across

[32:46] this, an area the size of 33

[32:48] football fields, slate auto and

[32:50] new Jeff Bezos backed startup

[32:53] is building an affordable ev in

[32:55] their global customization hub

[32:57] is right here in Louisville.

[32:58] Taiwan based Foxconn is

[33:01] investing $173 million into a

[33:02] new facility that, for the

[33:04] first time since the 1980s,

[33:06] manufactured consumer

[33:08] electronics at scale in America

[33:12] in downtown, has over two $2.5

[33:13] billion in development underway.

[33:15] That includes a 1000 room

[33:16] convention hotel in Humana's

[33:20] old hq and a new J.W. Marriott

[33:22] hotel. And our airport is in

[33:25] the middle of $1 billion

[33:28] modernization, improving the

[33:30] experience and the number of

[33:33] flights. I've also heard the

[33:34] administration has promised

[33:36] these recommendations in JUNE,

[33:38] and they're actively working on

[33:39] tightening them up for

[33:42] distribution. These

[33:42] recommendations are coming to

[33:44] us from the planning department

[33:45] via the Planning Commission.

[33:47] The administration will have

[33:48] the same opportunity to offer

[33:51] their feedback, as does Metro

[33:52] Council and the public. When we

[33:56] get these distributed. Besides,

[33:57] why should we trust that we're

[33:58] getting these recommendations

[33:59] when we were told we were

[34:01] getting them in JANUARY and

[34:05] then in MAY, and now in JUNE.

[34:07] And I also hear from my

[34:10] colleagues, I never support

[34:14] moratoriums, a moratorium on

[34:15] moratoriums is a weird flex,

[34:19] but okay, I'm sure that there's

[34:20] other, more nefarious reasons

[34:21] that would prevent a council

[34:24] person from voting in support

[34:26] of this moratorium, since there

[34:27] are only assumptions, I'm not

[34:29] going to address them, although

[34:30] I can assure you that your

[34:32] voters want this moratorium,

[34:34] and I promise you that there is

[34:36] no price worth the sale of your

[34:43] dignity. I'm wrapping up. So.

[34:46] You know you're coming, but I'd

[34:49] love to read an email from my

[34:53] friend David Kaplan. Who or

[34:55] sorry, David Kaplan, who had

[34:56] emailed all of the members of

[34:57] the Planning and Zoning

[34:59] committee this morning. And I

[35:00] just want to read this email.

[35:04] It's fairly short. My friend

[35:06] Jennifer Chappell asked me to

[35:07] reach out to seek your yes vote

[35:09] on a moratorium for data

[35:10] centers today. These centers

[35:12] really intrigued me as I own a

[35:14] parcel where one could be built.

[35:16] If I were to build one, I would

[35:18] wait until best management

[35:19] practices are adopted regarding

[35:21] them. As my friend Stuart

[35:23] Benson will tell you, a

[35:25] machinist or a builder, one

[35:27] needs a blueprint or a diagram

[35:28] to get the project done

[35:30] correctly. This is what a

[35:31] moratorium would provide, and

[35:32] I'm puzzled at how the Office

[35:34] of Planning started on this.

[35:36] Then it suddenly disappeared.

[35:38] But the Office of Planning has

[35:41] made this common practice. They

[35:42] have studied the Floyds Fork

[35:44] watershed for decades without a

[35:46] plan being adopted, not only a

[35:48] major issue of our tax dollars,

[35:49] but it's worth showing the rest

[35:51] of the nation that we're not a

[35:53] smart growth city building

[35:55] without future generations in

[35:57] mind. So let's pass this. These

[35:59] are my own words. Now it's the

[36:01] end of his email, but I just

[36:03] want to encourage my colleagues

[36:05] to vote yes on this so we can

[36:07] pass this moratorium, get the

[36:09] recommendations, have the tough

[36:10] conversations that we need to

[36:14] have, and update the ldc

[36:15] responsibly so we don't sell

[36:18] out any more of our communities.

[36:22] Thank you. Thank you,

[36:26] COUNCILMAN Chappell, what is

[36:28] the length of the moratorium?

[36:30] How long are we or is there a

[36:33] length 180 days, which would be

[36:36] six months? Okay. COUNCILMAN

[36:38] Parrish. Right. Thank you, MR.

[36:42] Chair. I don't I think

[36:44] COUNCILWOMAN Chappell gave a

[36:46] great explanation of all of

[36:49] this. I've. And I've thought

[36:50] about what I would say because

[36:53] I have pre-typed message that I

[36:54] wanted to use. But I just want

[36:56] to say this makes sense. It

[36:58] gives us an opportunity to be

[37:01] proactive. This is what our

[37:03] constituents are asking for. It

[37:05] is in the backyard of my

[37:06] district, even though the one

[37:08] being built is in district one,

[37:09] I can you can throw a rock over

[37:12] into district three. I went to

[37:13] some neighborhood meetings, and

[37:16] I heard the concerns from

[37:17] people who are living in those

[37:18] communities who, who just found

[37:20] out about it, who are still

[37:22] trying to understand it. I then

[37:25] drove and walked the property

[37:28] with a constituent and it was

[37:30] huge. And we and I know that

[37:32] life thrives around water. I

[37:34] know that we have a good source

[37:35] of water, but we need to be

[37:37] able to make decisions that

[37:39] mean something to our community.

[37:41] Louisville has never been

[37:42] closed for business. There's

[37:44] not a time I've seen Louisville

[37:46] close for business. So I think

[37:49] that if that is a concern, that

[37:51] doesn't make sense to me. I

[37:53] think the email from that

[37:55] Jennifer read is so important.

[37:57] This person is saying they have

[37:59] a parcel that could be

[38:01] considered for that, but they

[38:03] would not build without having

[38:05] these regulations in place. And

[38:07] I think that with us going on

[38:09] vacation with all the things

[38:10] that are going on and how this

[38:12] first one got in because of it

[38:13] was already zoned, and it's

[38:15] already ahead of the the laws

[38:17] we have. The moratorium makes

[38:19] sense. That's all we're asking.

[38:21] Let's do something to show the

[38:23] community we're listening.

[38:25] Let's do something proactive.

[38:26] Let's work together. This is

[38:28] not negative. This is not

[38:29] against business. This is not

[38:31] us trying to shut down every

[38:33] developer. This is saying to

[38:34] the community that we hear you,

[38:37] we heard you, and we're taking

[38:42] action. Thank you. COUNCILWOMAN

[38:45] Freeman. Yes. Is it appropriate

[38:47] to ask the planning team

[38:48] questions about the rollout of

[38:53] the recommendations? I'm sorry.

[38:55] MAY I ask the planning team

[38:56] questions about that? Yes, yes,

[38:57] yes. Could you all explain

[38:59] better to us and to people

[38:59] who've been watching but

[39:00] haven't quite been able to

[39:03] grasp it like me? Right. What

[39:04] has been the timeline for the

[39:06] recommendations? Why the delay

[39:08] and when can we expect them and

[39:09] what will they look like? Sure.

[39:11] Now, so Brian Davis, the Office

[39:14] of Planning in terms of when

[39:15] you can expect something, we

[39:16] are in the process of

[39:18] finalizing a draft. We hope to

[39:19] release it next week. So this

[39:22] has been an this has been an

[39:24] interesting and challenging

[39:26] task for us to complete for a

[39:27] number of reasons and. And

[39:30] COUNCILWOMAN Chappell, you know,

[39:31] addressed several of them just

[39:32] because there isn't a whole lot

[39:34] of information out there, a lot

[39:35] of communities are all kind of

[39:37] in the same spot and that, you

[39:39] know, you have this use that is

[39:40] a somewhat fairly new use,

[39:41] especially when you think about

[39:44] the hyperscale data centers and

[39:45] people are treating it all

[39:46] kinds of different ways

[39:47] depending on how the

[39:49] regulations are. We reached out

[39:50] to some of the peer cities that

[39:53] we speak with. And, you know,

[39:55] they were treating data centers

[39:56] anywhere from like an office,

[39:58] like any other office use to,

[39:59] you know, some sort of heavy

[40:01] industrial use. And so, you

[40:02] know, people are all over the

[40:04] place in terms of how they're

[40:06] dealing with those. And it's

[40:08] been a topic where really,

[40:09] every week there's new

[40:11] information out there about,

[40:13] you know, what goes on at the

[40:14] data centers, how they're

[40:15] operating, why they're

[40:16] operating the way they do, and

[40:17] how communities are dealing

[40:18] with them. So it's something

[40:19] that we, we've been watching

[40:22] and kind of following, you know,

[40:24] another challenge that that we

[40:25] were kind of dealing with while

[40:27] we were in the process of, of,

[40:28] of, you know, doing all this

[40:30] research was the state

[40:31] legislation. And in the session

[40:34] that we just concluded in APRIL,

[40:35] there were five different bills

[40:36] that were proposed that were

[40:38] called an act relating to data

[40:39] centers. And so, you know, kind

[40:41] of the thought was like, you

[40:42] know, before we put anything

[40:44] out there, before we we do

[40:45] anything with this draft, let's

[40:46] watch and see what the state's

[40:47] going to mandate, because we

[40:49] didn't want to produce a

[40:50] product that was going to be,

[40:52] you know, essentially null and

[40:53] void because of an action that

[40:54] the state was going to be

[40:56] taking. Now, none of those

[40:57] wound up passing. But, you know,

[40:59] they they were out there. And

[41:00] if you've watched the

[41:01] legislature in the last couple

[41:03] of years, you know, you have to

[41:04] wait until the last two days of

[41:05] the session for anything,

[41:07] because that's when everything

[41:08] gets done. So we were watching

[41:09] that. So as I stated, though,

[41:11] we are in the process of

[41:12] finalizing the draft, it'll be

[41:14] in a form that is, well, it'll,

[41:15] it'll look like a, like a

[41:17] strike through of the current

[41:18] ldc, because that's how we

[41:19] write the the proposed

[41:20] amendments when we do it, you

[41:22] know, basically it's saying,

[41:23] okay, this is going to be added,

[41:25] this is going to be subtracted.

[41:27] And so, you know, we we will be

[41:28] releasing that document again,

[41:30] hopefully next week. And, and

[41:32] then once, once we do release

[41:34] that, there will be a 30 day

[41:35] public comment period in which

[41:36] we take feedback on that. And

[41:38] then we take that, take the

[41:39] public feedback into

[41:40] consideration before we

[41:41] consider moving it for a public

[41:42] hearing before the Planning

[41:47] Commission. Thank you. A quick

[41:49] follow up. It

[41:51] coincidence that we're hearing

[41:52] this moratorium ordinance, and

[41:53] those are coming next week,

[41:56] right. Did this force your hand

[41:57] again? We've we've been working

[41:58] on this, you know, as you all

[42:00] know, for a while. And so, I

[42:01] mean, you know, we just for

[42:03] various reasons and obviously,

[42:04] I, I would not, you know, the

[42:06] moratorium probably did help to

[42:08] accelerate things. But, you

[42:10] know, I think in terms of

[42:11] having a product where, you

[42:13] know, we're addressing some of

[42:14] the concerns that were that

[42:15] were brought to us by the

[42:16] community whenever we were

[42:18] doing our round of public

[42:19] engagement and, and getting the

[42:21] feedback and getting all the

[42:22] information that we've been

[42:23] gathering. Now, it's taken a

[42:25] while to put this together.

[42:27] It's not been an easy thing.

[42:30] Okay. Thank you. Just one

[42:31] question for Brian before we

[42:33] get to COUNCILMAN Chappell.

[42:35] Many of our constituents, many

[42:36] of my constituents, are asking

[42:38] the question, how did they get

[42:40] this last one in under the wire?

[42:42] What happened? So there's a

[42:43] classification in the land

[42:45] Development code that talks

[42:47] about data hotels. Would you

[42:48] explain that a little bit,

[42:50] please? Sure. So under the the

[42:52] current regulations there's a

[42:53] use in there called

[42:55] telecommunication hotels, which

[42:57] it's kind of an antiquated term

[42:59] now given, you know, where

[43:01] we're at, but it is a type of

[43:02] data center. And so based on

[43:04] the information that that, that

[43:05] we have that's available out

[43:07] there, then the interpretation

[43:09] was made that data centers fall

[43:11] under that particular type of

[43:12] use under that category, you

[43:14] know, similar to that. And so

[43:17] that that is why the project

[43:19] that was previously, you know,

[43:21] proposed on Campground Road, it

[43:23] was allowed to progress through

[43:24] the system underneath that,

[43:26] that interpretation, how many

[43:27] if you had to guess how many

[43:29] small data centers do we have

[43:30] in the city? Depending on what

[43:32] you read, they say there's as

[43:34] many as three dozen or so of

[43:36] the smaller data centers. And I

[43:37] ink, you know, that they they

[43:38] operate in all different type

[43:40] of parts of the community. They

[43:41] look like normal office

[43:43] buildings or normal warehouse

[43:44] buildings. You don't really

[43:45] know what they are out there

[43:48] right now. The big change in,

[43:49] in, in the use has been just

[43:52] the, the expansion of this into

[43:53] these hyper hyperscale data

[43:54] centers that you're seeing

[43:55] developed in other communities

[43:57] right now. And so that's,

[43:58] that's what is really got the

[43:59] attention of people is that,

[44:01] you know, these larger

[44:02] facilities that are taking up

[44:03] massive pieces of land that you,

[44:06] that, you know, MAY use a lot

[44:07] of power and water and things

[44:08] like that for their operations.

[44:10] So that that's what got people

[44:13] has gotten people's attention.

[44:14] And so, you know, that that is

[44:16] kind of like the, you know, why

[44:18] you all created a request for

[44:19] us to research this and kind of

[44:21] re-explore that so that we can

[44:23] kind of move away from that

[44:24] interpretation that we had

[44:26] before and, and better classify

[44:28] this new use that's out there.

[44:29] Okay. Thank you, COUNCILMAN

[44:35] Chappell. I want to make clear

[44:37] that I don't have any ill will

[44:38] towards our planning department.

[44:40] And I think that you all have

[44:42] done a lot of work thus far.

[44:43] And I just feel like your hands

[44:47] have been tied behind your back.

[44:48] You didn't tie your own hands,

[44:51] right. But, you know, there

[44:53] were public meetings that were

[44:56] held and you all got

[44:57] information. And I'm looking

[44:59] forward to what you all put out.

[45:02] I think it will be thoughtful,

[45:04] but it leads me to my question.

[45:07] This five page document that

[45:10] was published and then taken

[45:14] down. Who wrote it? Where did

[45:16] the mistake happen? Was this,

[45:19] you know, another cities and we

[45:22] drafted our own, but it went to

[45:23] an intern and they accidentally

[45:25] published it on our website. Or

[45:26] like, how did this happen? No,

[45:28] we created that's kind of like

[45:30] a first draft, a first run at

[45:31] what, you know, we some of the

[45:33] things that we were working on

[45:34] based on the comments that we

[45:36] had received and we were

[45:37] planning on having a working

[45:38] meeting with our, with the

[45:39] planning committee to kind of

[45:41] go through that and get some of

[45:43] their feedback so that we could

[45:44] then go back, you know, the the

[45:46] agenda was published. Then we

[45:47] got word that we weren't going

[45:49] to be having the meeting

[45:50] anymore. So we took the agenda

[45:52] down. So because we lost, we,

[45:53] we, we weren't going to have a

[45:55] quorum at the meeting whenever

[45:56] we were conducting that. When

[45:57] was your next meeting? I don't

[45:59] know when their next meeting

[46:00] was. I mean, we, you know,

[46:02] after after it was taken down,

[46:03] then, you know, then, you know,

[46:05] we had spoke with COUNCILMAN

[46:06] Winkler and he's like, you know,

[46:07] if you all need additional time

[46:09] to research this, feel free to

[46:11] do that. And so we just, we,

[46:12] you know, we never got to a

[46:14] point where we wanted to have

[46:15] another working meeting with

[46:16] the planning committee to talk

[46:18] about this. Is Marcus your boss?

[46:19] No, but he was the sponsor.

[46:21] Anytime, anytime. There's a

[46:23] sponsor for some legislation

[46:25] that is proposed to us. And we

[46:26] we will reach out to them and

[46:28] give them updates on what's

[46:29] going on with that. And so we,

[46:31] you know, he, he knew that that

[46:33] we had been doing a lot of

[46:34] research and that, you know,

[46:36] there was still a lot of things

[46:38] coming in. And so we, we had

[46:39] reached out to him just to see

[46:41] what he, you know, what his

[46:42] opinion was on the matter. Sure,

[46:47] sure. Yeah. And I just want to

[46:48] say, I understand that there

[46:50] were things that were hpening

[46:51] at the state level regarding

[46:53] data centers, and that would

[47:00] naturally. Naturally give you

[47:02] pause. But I also want to say

[47:04] to my colleagues that wouldn't

[47:07] have had an impact on whether

[47:09] or not we passed a moratorium.

[47:11] So if anything, I'd like to

[47:12] apologize to the public that we

[47:18] have not addressed this sooner.

[47:20] COUNCILMAN Hudson, thank you.

[47:23] Chair, gen t testimony from

[47:26] staff, I'd like to me to

[47:30] table, please. Tre is

[47:33] motion o the floor. I sry

[47:35] Oh, son'm sry Tre

[47:37] mionn e floor table.

[47:38] This is aoice vote. Correct.

[47:40] All those in favor say I can, I

[47:42] can we can. I would like a roll

[47:50] call. Vote please. Skirt. Vice

[47:55] chair chair chair. Yeah.

[47:56] COUNCILMAN Hudson, could could

[47:58] I before before you make that

[48:00] proposal, can we can I ask a

[48:01] question, a follow up question

[48:04] of Brian Davis. I think it's an

[48:07] important clarification before

[48:09] we make any motion going

[48:10] forward. Is that something

[48:11] you're willing to allow me to

[48:12] do? I think the motion has

[48:14] already been made and seconded.

[48:19] I'll have to defer to the clerk.

[48:23] How will withdraw my motion.

[48:24] Thank you, chair, Vice Chair

[48:25] Reed, can I ask Brian a

[48:27] question here? Absolutely.

[48:31] Thank you. Brian. So I think

[48:34] one of the I think it's

[48:38] important to to understand. So

[48:41] what would the process be if

[48:42] somebody wanted to, to reach

[48:44] out to the to metro government

[48:48] right now and say, we want to

[48:50] create a hyperscale data center

[48:54] or a data center of significant

[48:56] size, what are. And we're still

[48:58] kind of, you know, in this kind

[49:00] of cat and mouse game of, of,

[49:05] do we need to pass a moratorium

[49:07] proactively or can we

[49:09] effectively do an

[49:10] administrative moratorium to

[49:13] make sure that we do not have

[49:15] any more of these, you know,

[49:17] come down the pipeline before

[49:19] we're ready for it? Can we talk

[49:20] about that a little bit?

[49:22] Because, I mean, my, my, my

[49:25] preference right now, we have

[49:26] effectively done an

[49:28] administrative moratorium. We

[49:30] do not have any more of these

[49:31] proposed in front of us. And so

[49:34] since JANUARY, we have

[49:36] effectively enacted an

[49:38] effective administrative

[49:41] moratorium. So can you talk to

[49:42] us a little bit about what that

[49:44] process looks like and whether

[49:45] we run the risk of allowing

[49:47] another one of these to go

[49:51] through the pipeline without

[49:55] being more proactive about it?

[49:57] Yes. I I'm reading the language

[49:58] of the moratorium right now to

[50:01] see how it's worded. Yeah. So,

[50:05] so as well as wording the

[50:06] moratorium, you know, if that

[50:07] were passed, any applications

[50:09] would be would be frozen as is

[50:10] unless they have a public

[50:12] hearing scheduled, you know,

[50:13] administratively. I mean, I

[50:15] think you're correct. I mean, I

[50:16] think there's a lot of

[50:17] hesitation for anyone to come

[50:19] and submit an application for

[50:20] any kind of changes related to

[50:22] that. Middletown did pass a

[50:23] moratorium. So if someone were

[50:24] to come in and ask something

[50:26] about a property there, I mean,

[50:27] we we would obviously say, well,

[50:28] Middletown's past moratorium,

[50:29] we're not accepting the

[50:39] application. I mean. This

[50:41] moratorium sitting in committee,

[50:43] we table it and it's sitting in

[50:45] committee. Could we then pass

[50:47] the moratorium like we had

[50:49] talked about previously, when

[50:50] COUNCILMAN Winkler had had

[50:52] brought this to our committee

[50:53] previously. And that's what our

[50:55] plan was to let it sit in

[50:57] committee. And if somebody

[50:59] actually filed an application,

[51:01] we thought that we could then

[51:02] at the next committee meeting,

[51:03] planning and zoning committee

[51:05] meeting, we could then pass the

[51:07] moratorium to to halt any

[51:08] future development going

[51:10] forward. Would that be an

[51:12] effective approach here, or are

[51:13] we running the risk that that

[51:15] somebody would get in under the

[51:17] wire? I mean, I think someone

[51:18] could they could if they were

[51:19] to submit an application, there

[51:22] is no way that that we would

[51:25] schedule a public hearing

[51:26] planning and zoning committee

[51:28] here. So I think if you know,

[51:30] if if you know, if we this item

[51:32] were tabled today and then

[51:33] someone submitted a pre app

[51:34] tomorrow, they're, they're not

[51:36] going to have an opportunity to

[51:37] get to a public hearing prior

[51:39] to you all being able to take

[51:40] action in two weeks on this

[51:42] item. So I, I don't think we

[51:44] run the risk of, of, you know,

[51:46] something coming in and getting

[51:47] in under the wire in terms of,

[51:49] of scheduling a public hearing,

[51:52] as is worded in the proposed

[51:53] moratorium. Okay. I think

[51:55] that's important because, I

[51:57] mean, I do not want another

[51:59] data center to move quicker

[52:02] than we're able to respond. And

[52:04] I I'm not stupid. I understand

[52:06] that politically, the right

[52:08] thing to do here is to be

[52:10] proactive and pass a moratorium.

[52:11] But just because it's

[52:12] politically the right thing to

[52:15] do doesn't mean to me that

[52:16] we've been effective at

[52:17] administratively stopping these.

[52:19] And I think we can be

[52:20] continuously continue to be

[52:22] effectively effective at

[52:23] administrating, iteratively

[52:25] stopping this. And while it MAY

[52:28] not mean anything to some

[52:30] people, to me, a moratorium

[52:33] should be the absolute last

[52:34] resort. And we have another

[52:36] option here, and that is to

[52:38] basically sit, have this sit in

[52:40] in committee and use it if we

[52:42] need it. And to me, that's

[52:44] another option that we can use

[52:46] and a better option than

[52:48] actually the last resort, which

[52:50] is what is proposed here. So i

[52:53] will not because I want another

[52:55] data center to move quicker

[52:58] than we're able to. I am 100%

[52:59] confident that using this

[53:02] strategy, we will able to keep

[53:04] any data centers from moving

[53:06] forward. I will be supporting

[53:08] tabling this so we can leave it

[53:10] in our back pockets and use it

[53:12] when we need it, because I

[53:15] again, I believe a moratorium.

[53:16] Governments passing moratoriums

[53:19] should be used as a absolute

[53:22] last resort. Thank you, thank

[53:24] you, thank you. CHAIRMAN. I

[53:26] think I'd like to get a legal

[53:30] interpretation here. Legally.

[53:33] Can we stop something if

[53:35] somewhere someone were to, you

[53:37] know, apply make an application

[53:39] for data center and we've got

[53:43] this moratorium tabled. Can we

[53:46] as a as a body then take a vote

[53:47] at the next or an upcoming

[53:48] planning and zoning committee

[53:51] meeting and effectively impose

[53:53] the moratorium in time to stop

[53:55] it? Travis Feaster, assistant

[53:57] county attorney here. So very

[53:59] broadly, this is sort of a

[54:00] vested rights conversation.

[54:01] It's part of the reason why we

[54:03] draft the moratorium to deal

[54:05] with items that have been

[54:06] scheduled for a public hearing

[54:08] ady. Can can move forward

[54:09] somewhere along the process.

[54:10] You do have a sort of right,

[54:11] your application being heard

[54:12] and going through the process.

[54:14] And the question is sort of

[54:15] where that occurs. There's not

[54:18] a hard and fast case or statute

[54:19] in Kentucky to determine where

[54:21] that is. But based on the case

[54:22] law, we think it's

[54:23] approximately at that sort of

[54:24] public hearing phase where all

[54:26] the agencies have commented,

[54:27] they've gotten all the proper

[54:28] stamps and approvals. The only

[54:29] thing left is for Metro

[54:31] government to hear it. And if

[54:32] at that point, Metro government

[54:33] says, actually, no, we're not

[54:35] going to, that's potentially an

[54:36] issue. So if it is earlier in

[54:37] that process, you know,

[54:38] pre-application or an

[54:39] application, but still an

[54:41] agency reviews those sorts of

[54:42] things, that's where we felt

[54:43] comfortable. Again, we don't

[54:45] have a hard and fast case to

[54:46] point to, but it sounds like if

[54:48] we could catch a case in that

[54:49] process, that'd be acceptable.

[54:51] On the other hand, if case got

[54:52] scheduled before council took

[54:53] action, then we would start

[54:55] having some tough conversations.

[54:56] Okay. Thank you, COUNCILMAN

[54:57] Parrish. Right. Thank you. MR.

[54:59] MR. Chair, point of order,

[55:00] COUNCILMAN Hudson. COUNCILMAN

[55:06] Hudson, sorry about that. So I

[55:08] guess I need to ask the clerk

[55:09] for clarification here. I

[55:30] withdrew my motion for. O q.

[55:32] I'm going to allow COUNCILMAN

[55:33] Hudson to make his motion to

[55:36] table. Move to table, please.

[55:39] Second, I have a motion and to

[55:41] in a second, I think the

[55:42] request was for voice, voice,

[55:44] vote. I'm sorry. Roll call.

[55:59] Vote. Chair. Owen. Yes.

[56:01] Voting's closing. Vice-Chair

[56:03] read. You have five yes votes

[56:06] and three no. Thank you. It has

[56:10] been tabled and. So we'll move

[56:12] on to the next item, which is

[56:17] item number 40-138-26. An

[56:18] ordinance relating to the

[56:19] detailed district development

[56:21] plan for properties located at

[56:25] 9718 Dixie highway and 5308

[56:26] Citation Road containing

[56:27] approximately 2.7 acres and

[56:29] being in Louisville Metro. Case

[56:32] number 25ddp0085. Do I have a

[56:37] motion? Motion. Motion seconded.

[56:39] Julia. Julia Williams, Office

[56:44] of Planning. This is 25ddp0085

[56:47] for chick fil a. This is

[56:49] located at 9718 Dixie highway

[56:56] in Council District 14. The

[56:58] existing use is institutional

[56:59] with a proposed use of

[57:03] commercial. The property is

[57:08] zoned c two. The request for

[57:09] revised detailed district

[57:11] development plan with binding

[57:14] elements. The property is zoned

[57:16] c two and the neighborhood

[57:17] forum district. They're

[57:18] proposing a restaurant, and

[57:20] they're also proposing Fiesta

[57:22] Way to be extended to connect

[57:26] to Citation Road. This is the

[57:27] applicant's development plan

[57:29] where you can see Fiesta Way

[57:31] connecting to citation, and

[57:32] then the location of the

[57:36] restaurant. So this is the

[57:37] subject property view from

[57:40] Dixie highway. Adjacent

[57:41] property. The residential

[57:46] located along Citation Road.

[57:47] Residential. View from Fiesta

[57:51] Way. Residential. View from

[57:55] Bella Vista. Commercial view

[57:59] across Dixie highway. So the

[58:01] Planning Commission held their

[58:03] public hearing on APRIL 2nd,

[58:04] 2026, where there was a motion

[58:05] to recommend approval of the

[58:07] development plan, passing by a

[58:09] vote of 8 to 0. Are there any

[58:14] questions? Councilmember Sean?

[58:18] Thank you, COUNCILMAN Read. I

[58:19] don't really have any questions.

[58:21] I would like to just make a few

[58:22] comments, I guess, on behalf of

[58:24] district 14 in support of this

[58:28] development, the the developer

[58:29] or the the restaurant that is

[58:33] coming in is a well, well

[58:36] established brand that the

[58:38] community is has written

[58:41] letters of support rather than

[58:43] letters of opposition with. I

[58:45] think 31 was the number to be

[58:47] exact. I look forward to our

[58:48] colleagues supporting this

[58:51] development on Dixie highway as

[58:52] it continues to grow and the

[58:53] momentum is moving forward in

[58:57] the right direction. Thank you.

[58:59] What was the commission vote on

[59:04] this 8 to 0. Travis, is this

[59:05] another one of those situations

[59:06] where this actually come to us

[59:08] for a vote since it passed

[59:09] unanimously? This is Laura

[59:10] Ferguson, assistant county

[59:11] attorney. This is a development

[59:13] plan that had the council

[59:15] review binding element, if I

[59:16] remember correctly. Understand?

[59:23] Cool. COUNCILWOMAN Marie. Thank

[59:25] you. I read comments that came

[59:27] in people very much in support

[59:28] of the chick fil a, but they

[59:32] were concerned about the exit

[59:34] removing the dead end on Fiesta

[59:37] Way. Is that still part of the

[59:43] plan? Yes. There there's a

[59:44] connection through Fiesta Way

[59:46] to citation, so it won't be a

[59:48] dead end anymore. It will go

[59:50] through to citation. Do we have

[59:52] any idea how much traffic

[59:53] that's going to generate on

[59:56] that road? I don't believe a

[59:57] traffic study was required for

[1:00:04] this development. Oh it was yes.

[1:00:05] Yeah. There was a traffic study,

[1:00:07] but I could see nothing in it

[1:00:08] within the estimates of what's

[1:00:22] going to happen to Fiesta. I

[1:00:23] I'm not able to answer that

[1:00:29] question. Okay. Thank you. Any

[1:00:32] other questions from the

[1:00:36] committee? Seeing none. This

[1:00:43] requires a roll call vote.

[1:00:49] Chair. Owen. Yes. Votes closing.

[1:00:51] Vice chair rehab eight yes.

[1:00:53] Votes. Thank you. And this will

[1:00:54] go to old business at the next

[1:00:56] council meeting. I am not

[1:00:58] seeing anything else on our

[1:00:59] agenda. Does anyone on the

[1:01:00] committee have any questions or

[1:01:04] anything they'd like to discuss?

[1:01:06] Seeing none, we are adjourned.

[1:01:23] Thank you.

Planning and Zoning Committee - THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD VIA VIDEO TELECONFERENCE

Agenda

Transcript