Oppose Murphy Express on McCaslin Boulevard
This Thursday (13 October) the Louisville Planning Commission will consider a development application proposing the construction of a gasoline station and convenience store along McCaslin Boulevard in southwest Louisville. The development would entail the demolition of the former RiteAid building and the construction of a Murphy Express franchise. I call on my fellow Louisville citizens to join me in opposing this development. Please voice your opposition by writing to the Planning Commission (planningcommission@louisvilleco.gov) or by speaking in-person or virtually at the Planning Commission meeting.
I have previously presented arguments against the development of new gasoline stations. Most but not all of these arguments pertain to the current proposal. Specifically, the development of a new gasoline station is still wholly incompatible with the critically urgent need to mitigate climate change; there is still no need for a new gasoline station (and convenience store), most especially, since there is already a gasoline station (and convenience store) directly across McCaslin Boulevard from the proposed development site; a new gasoline station would further compromise our air quality through its fugitive emissions; and the convenience store's offerings would be incongruous with the City’s commitments to and goals for local agriculture and food. Furthermore, this gasoline station would have little to no long-term economic viability: as I noted previously, a study from Boston Consulting Group predicts that eighty percent of gasoline stations are likely to be unprofitable by 2035. When the Murphy Express goes out of business, shall we just demolish it too?
Unfortunately, these arguments do not have direct legal bearing on the development application. As the proposal is technically a Planned Unit Development amendment, the development application is legally required to meet the Planned Unit Development criteria of Louisville’s municipal code. Fortunately, these criteria impart the above arguments with some legal bearing and make way for several additional arguments.
One PUD criterion (number 1 from section 17.28.120 (A) of Louisville’s municipal code) states that the development must have “an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area”. The existence of a gasoline station and convenience store directly across McCaslin Boulevard from the proposed development site renders this relationship inappropriate.
Another PUD criterion (number 1 from section 17.28.120 (B) of Louisville’s municipal code) states that the “development shall be in accordance with the adopted elements of the comprehensive development plan of the City”. The Planning Commission approved and City Council adopted the City’s (most recent) Comprehensive Plan in 2013 and the City’s McCaslin Boulevard Small Area Plan in 2017. The development application fails to conform to both plans in several respects.
First, the proposal conflicts with aspects of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision statement. The development of a gasoline station is most certainly not “forward-thinking”. The gasoline station would worsen climate change and degrade air quality, failing to “preserve and enhance [Louisville’s] high quality of life”. The gasoline station and convenience store would not contribute to a “livable, innovative, and economically diverse community”.
Second, the proposal conflicts with at least three of the Comprehensive Plan’s core community values (indicated with quotation marks in the following sentence). As I argued above, the gasoline station would not contribute to “A Healthy, Vibrant, and Sustainable Economy”, the gasoline station does not present “Sustainable Practices for the Economy, Community, and the Environment”, and the gasoline station would further jeopardize the “Ecological Diversity” of our City, region, and world.
Third, the proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision to “transform [the McCaslin Boulevard Urban Center] from an auto-oriented suburban retail center to a walkable mixed-use transit-supportive urban center” and the McCaslin Boulevard Small Area Plan’s vision to “enhanc[e] the small-town character of the corridor and transform[] it into a place in which residents enjoy spending time”. The gasoline station would reinforce the area’s auto-oriented character, an 8-pump gasoline station would diminish the area’s already limited small-town character, and no one enjoys spending time at a gasoline station.
Fourth, the proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s aim to “enable the development of more urban block patterns, building stock, and community-supported land uses” as such “patterns . . . have high resiliency and flexibility in accommodating development and redevelopment over time”. The gasoline station and convenience store would entrench the proposed development site’s suburban block pattern, an 8-pump gasoline station and convenience store has little resiliency and flexibility as building stock, and the community does not support this land use.
More pointedly, the proposal conflicts with at least four of the McCaslin Boulevard Small Area Plan’s development principles. Principle 2 calls for “creat[ing] public and private gathering spaces to meet the needs of residents, employees, and visitors”. The proposal utterly fails in this regard. Principle 4 calls for “utiliz[ing] policy and design to encourage desired uses to locate in the corridor and to facilitate the reuse or redevelopment of vacant buildings”. The gasoline station is not a desired use, as evidenced by public comments submitted to the Planning Commission, and the development would result in the demolition, not the reuse or the redevelopment, of the vacant RiteAid building. Principle 5 calls for “establish[ing] design regulations to ensure development closely reflects the community’s vision for the corridor while accommodating creativity in design”. The proposal does not reflect the community’s vision, as evidenced by its conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision statement and core community values. Principle 6 calls for “establish[ing] development regulations to meet the fiscal and economic goals of the City”. While the gasoline station might provide a positive fiscal benefit in the short-term, the gasoline station would present environmental obstacles to redevelopment upon its obsolescence in the near future.
For all of the above reasons (and a few more), I strenuously oppose the development of a new gasoline station and convenience store along McCaslin Boulevard. Tomorrow evening I will urge the Planning Commission to reject the Murphy Express development application.
All that said, I do not oppose redevelopment of the former RiteAid site; quite the contrary, I would be the first to welcome and support a sensible and sustainable redevelopment proposal.
