Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears first reading to rezone 1017 Wat Trail; staff to add binding element restricting lots to single-family
Summary
Jeffersontown planning staff presented a first reading to rezone 1017 Wat Trail from R4 to R5 to allow subdivision into two single‑family lots; staff proposed adding a binding element restricting both lots to single‑family use and the item was continued to the next reading with a public hearing scheduled.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a first reading of Ordinance No. 1483, planning staff (Steve) outlined a request to rezone 1017 Wat Trail from R4 to R5 so the property owner could subdivide a 0.43‑acre parcel into two single‑family lots, one of which would front on Locust Avenue.
Steve told the council the proposal "meets the applicable land use and development policies and guidelines of the comprehensive plan" and that Metro planning and transportation comments had preliminary approval. He explained the difference in minimum lot sizes under current zoning, noting R4’s 9,000‑square‑foot standard and R5’s 6,000‑square‑foot minimum, and summarized proposed lot sizes for the subdivision.
To provide additional assurance to neighbors, staff proposed adding a binding element restricting both new parcels to single‑family residential uses. "By putting this in a binding element, it gives the neighbors some degree of protection," Steve said, and he agreed to add that element to the ordinance prior to the next reading; the applicant reportedly agreed to sign off.
Council members asked procedural questions about ingress/egress for the rear lot (answered as coming off Locust Avenue), about floor‑area ratio and green‑space limits, and whether the property could remain R4; staff explained the rezoning was requested to permit subdivision under smaller lot standards. No speakers testified at the planning commission hearing in person; staff said letters were in the case file but that testimonial evidence would require witnesses and a formal hearing.
Because this was a first reading, the council passed the ordinance to a subsequent meeting for additional review and public input. Staff promised to post the planning commission file on the city website and to include prior participants in hearing notices if a reopened hearing is scheduled.

