Planning Commission Minutes 2000 12 12

Home Browse Search

In regard to the remand the applicant did submit new information and that was stamped into the Planning Department on November 21, 2000. A copy of that information was attached to your meeting packets. A total of seven alternatives have been proposed. The proposed alignments are evaluated by the applicant using 15 criteria as applied to each alternative. It should be clarified that while the information has been presented, the applicant by their statement is not proposing an alternative right-of-way. With respect to the varies alternative, there is an attached map. Paul continued with a review of a few of the alternatives. As you evaluate the alternatives, the overall length of these alternatives vary between 5.5 to 6 th miles with the exception of the last alternative which runs east and down 95 Street which is approximately 7 miles. The amount of new right-of-way needed to acquire corresponds generally to the length of the alternative. The cost of each alternative therefore must add the cost of acquiring additional right-of-way as a second cost component to the cost of construction. The matrix does include the proposed rebuild within the existing right-of-way which reflects the construction cost of $2.4 million and no additional cost for right-of-way acquisition. Up to this point, the selection and evaluation of each alternative has been work conducted solely the applicant. It is important for the purpose of this public hearing to indicate that the alternative proposed are not necessarily those that would be selected or preferred by staff, the City Council or other affected interests. However, it is clear that those proposed alternatives which require the condemnation of homes would not be appropriate for further evaluation. All proposed alignments, with the exception of alternatives 3 & 4, do require condemnation of residential property. All alternatives, with the exception of alternative #4, are 100% above ground construction. Alternative #4 does propose that one of the segments (segment D, that is reflected as a dotted line on your map) would be buried along McCaslin Blvd. The alternative does not break out the length of the segment proposed for burial. As a result of the burial segment, the construction costs associated with this alternative increases to approximately $5.3 million. Subsequent to the Planning Commission taking a look at these I thought it would appropriate to highlight further involvements with respect to the applicant and the Public Utility Commission. The applicant has filed with the PUC a petition for a PUC order stating the applicant should proceed immediately with the proposed rebuild of the existing infrastructure on the grounds of need and that the project is a matter of state interest. A public comment meeting with the PUC is th scheduled in Louisville City Hall on January 17, with the formal public hearing scheduled at the offices of the PUC on January 18, 2001. The City has filed a motion to dismiss based upon jurisdictional grounds. Sam Light, the City Attorney, is here to answer your questions with respect to any segment of the application and the staff report. The filing of the petition by the 6