[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.