Mar 04, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee (trimmed)

[Call to Order]

[00:00:05]

GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2025. IT'S 1:01 P.M. THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO CRZ 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE

[Roll Call]

[1. O-051-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11100 GARDEN TRACE DRIVE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 36.68 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0071). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

SO THE LETTER FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THE CORPS OF ENGINEER LETTER. STATED THAT THERE'S A PROBABILITY THAT THERE'S WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY. OH, IS IT ON? I JUST NEED TO SPEAK LOUDER. NO WORRIES. SO THE LETTER FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS STATED THAT THERE'S A PROBABILITY THAT THERE'S WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY. AND GAVE A MAP OF THOSE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS. AND THEN THE APPLICANT HIRED AN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE, RED WING.

AND THEY IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY WHERE THOSE WETLANDS WERE. TWO OF THEM ENDED UP BEING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A CORPS OF ENGINEER PERMIT. AND THEN THERE WAS ONE NON JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY. SO THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY. THEY'VE BEEN IDENTIFIED. AND IF THEY DECIDE TO FILL THOSE THEY WOULD SEEK A PERMIT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS. IT DOES. THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER I APPRECIATE THAT. AS PART OF MISTER CHAIR, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? YES, PLEASE. THIS IS IN COUNCILMAN HUDSON'S DISTRICT, SO HE HE HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YEAH. MY I GUESS MY QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE WETLANDS THERE IS IF THEY'RE GOING TO AFFECT THOSE WETLANDS, IS THAT PART OF THIS PROJECT? DO WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, OR ARE WE JUST HOPING THAT THEY DON'T OR. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE PROCEEDING. SURE. SO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES SHOW SOME DISTURBANCE TO THOSE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS. SO THEY WOULD NEED TO SEEK OUT A CORPS OF ENGINEER PERMIT TO DISTURB THE OR FILL IN THOSE WETLANDS. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON ON THIS THIS ITEM AS A WHOLE. I HAD ALSO ASKED THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER ANOTHER TRAFFIC STUDY OR A TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE ONE WASN'T DONE. IT WAS THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS REFERENCED WAS A PRIOR STUDY THAT WASN'T REALLY APPLICABLE IN MY OPINION. AND THEN SECONDLY, I HAD ASKED IF SOME REARRANGEMENT OF THE BUILDINGS COULD BE ACCOMMODATED TO LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS. AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT DISAPPOINTING. THE RESPONSE THAT I GOT FROM THE APPLICANT. WE'VE WE'VE GOT A LONG HISTORY WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DOCUMENTED CASES WHERE THIS APPLICANT HAS DEVIATED FROM THE PLAN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED,

[00:05:08]

SO I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE HOLD THIS FOR A FEW MORE WEEKS SO THAT I CAN CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF DISCOVERING OPTIONS FOR FINDING OF ALTERNATIVE FACT. AND YOU'RE MAKING THAT IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT. I'LL MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT. OKAY. BEFORE WE HAVE A VOICE VOTE ON THAT, OR WHERE DO WE STAND IN TERMS OF THE TIMING FOR THIS PIECE OF WE HAVE TILL APRIL 16TH. I'D HAVE TO CROSS-CHECK THE CALENDARS, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE AT LEAST ONE MORE MEETING. OKAY. YEAH. JUST HOLD IT FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SO SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S AMENDMENT. I THINK IT'S A MOTION TO TABLE. SO I'M SORRY. SORRY.

YOU HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ON THE FLOOR. SECOND, THAT'S BEEN SECONDED. AND THAT REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I, I. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT. THIS HAS BEEN TABLED TO OUR NEXT. NEXT MEETING. OKAY, SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE. 0-02325. AND ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11 .4.7 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISED

[5. O-023-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.4.7 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS (CASE NO. 24-LDC-0009). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled 2/4/25  Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled 1/21/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By June 9, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]

THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF ON OUR PLATE HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE. JULIA, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO IT BEFORE WE KIND OF GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE DISCUSSION? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. OKAY. SO. FIRST WORD, COUNCILWOMAN RUBIO, I THINK SHE GOT A PHONE CALL. SHE GOT A PHONE CALL. OKAY. SO COUNCILWOMAN RUBY WAS GOING TO MAKE A MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND.

AND I THINK YOU HAVE THAT AMENDMENT ON THE THAT YOU ADDED THAT AMENDMENT TO THE SYSTEM RIGHT BEFORE WE CAME IN. CORRECT. YES. SO THE AMENDED LANGUAGE IS ON THE SYSTEM.

THERE'S A BIT OF ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE FINAL WHEREAS CLAUSE. AND THEN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGE THE 10% DENSITY CALCULATION BACK TO THE 25 THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ORIGINALLY, WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAD ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED.

PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THEN AMENDED THAT DOWN TO 10%. AFTER SOME SOME COMMENTS BY SOME INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THEN THE AMENDMENT WOULD RETURN IT TO THAT ORIGINAL 25. RIGHT. SO WE'RE DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENT, COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. THE AMENDMENT TO NUMBER FIVE. SO. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR THAT WE NEED A SECOND. IS THAT SECOND? OKAY. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT? WHAT? COUNCILMAN VACHON? I DON'T MEAN TO INTERJECT, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S OFFICIALLY MADE THE MOTION TO ADD AN AMENDMENT.

AND THEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED. I DON'T KNOW IF WE TOOK OWNS OR SOMEBODY. OKAY, SO LET'S LET'S HAVE COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, CAN YOU MAKE AN THAT MOTION TO AMEND? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO A MOTION TO AMEND YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE.

SECOND. OKAY. PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? MISTER CHAIR? I WANTED TO WEIGH IN. YEAH. COUNCIL VICE CHAIR. REID. THANK YOU. I SEE THIS AS A REASONABLE AMENDMENT AND A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. YOU KNOW, I THINK MY OPINION FROM DAY ONE WAS THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON ANY SORT OF SIGNIFICANT DENSITY CHANGE. YOU KNOW, AND I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED AS A BODY TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS AS TO HOW TO REDUCE PERMITTING TIME OR REDUCE DEVELOPMENT TIME. AND I GET THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK IT'S REASONABLE. AND I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS AMENDMENT? NO

[00:10:04]

ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US NOW THAT WE'VE APPROVED THE AMENDMENT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? OKAY. SO THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES, SORRY, A VOICE, A ROLL CALL VOTE. CAN YOU OPEN THE ROLL? OKAY. AND. OH, SORRY. SORRY. YES. OKAY. SO. COUNCIL MEMBER RUBY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. YES. VOTING IS CLOSING. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SEVEN YES VOTES. WITH SEVEN YES VOTES, THIS WILL BE MOVED TO OLD BUSINESS AT THE METRO. NEXT METRO COUNCIL MEETING. AND SHOCKINGLY, FOLKS, WE HAVE NO MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. SO WE DO HAVE COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, CAN I ASK THE QUESTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING REPRESENTATIVE IF I WANTED TO FIND OUT HOW MANY OR IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR HAVE BEEN DENIED DUE TO TRAFFIC SINCE THE BEGINNING OF METRO COUNCIL, HOW WOULD I FIND THAT AND COULD YOU HELP ME WITH THAT? SO. SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE TRAFFIC. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT? OR HAS THERE ACTUALLY HAS THERE EVER BEEN ONE DENIED BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC? TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS. SO IF I CAN WAIT, I THINK THERE MIGHT BE TWO PIECES TO THIS. SO A PROJECT IS REQUIRED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO GET A TRAFFIC STUDY. AND THEN BASED ON THAT TRAFFIC STUDY, ONE QUESTION IS HAVE HAS A HAVE A PROJECT BEEN A DESIGN ELEMENT OR A DENSITY ELEMENT OF A PROJECT BEEN CHANGED BECAUSE OF A TRAFFIC STUDY EXCLUSIVELY? RIGHT. EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE OF A TRAFFIC STUDY. AND I GUESS MAYBE THE SECOND PIECE OF THAT WOULD BE HAS THERE EVER BEEN ONE DENIED BECAUSE OF THAT? RIGHT? YES. YES. BECAUSE OF THAT BEING THE PRIMARY REASON FOR TRAFFIC. SO MAYBE IT'S KIND OF TWO PIECES A LITTLE BIT. AND IF THERE'S MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SEVERAL, JUST WHAT'S THE LAST ONE IF, YOU KNOW, JUST. SO WE. RIGHT COUNCILMEMBER BRADSHAW? YEAH. I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER PART TO THAT QUESTION PROBABLY AS WELL. ARE YOU TALKING SPECIFICALLY TO CHAIR? I'M SORRY, I'M A, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGE. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, ARE YOU TALKING SPECIFICALLY TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT? HAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE, JUST GIVE ME THE LAST ONE.

IF YOU COULD MAYBE JUST EMAIL IT TO ME. I JUST LIKE TO READ IT. HAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION EVER DENIED A DEVELOPMENT OR PROJECT OR A ZONING CHANGE? I GUESS I SHOULD SAY DUE TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY. HOW'S THAT? JUST EVERYTHING ELSE WAS IN LINE. JUST THE TRAFFIC. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL COUNCILMAN. HUDSON, MAYBE AN EXAMPLE MIGHT HELP TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER HERE. AND I'LL I'LL TEE THIS UP AND MAYBE SAVE YOU SOME WORK. NOT IN THE TOO FAR PAST. A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE. IN MY DISTRICT THAT I DISAGREED WITH THAT THE MEAT OF MY DISAGREEMENT WAS THE ROADS COULDN'T HANDLE THE TRAFFIC. AND THIS BODY OVERTURNED. THIS BODY FOUND A ALTERNATIVE FINDING OF FACT TO DENY THAT ZONING CHANGE. SO THERE'S A RECENT EXAMPLE.

WELL, I'M BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED IT THOUGH, RIGHT? THEY DID. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THEM. NOT US, NOT THE METRO COUNCIL JUST. HAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION EVER DONE THAT? I DON'T KNOW, LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMES WITH US WITH A VOTE. YES OR NO, LIKE

[00:15:09]

YEAH? YEAH, WE. COUNCILMAN, I MEAN, JULIA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS WAY IN DISTRICT 12. I'VE HEARD IT WAS A COMBINATION OF TRAFFIC STUDY, SOIL IN THE GROUND, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEMSELVES DENIED NOT THIS BODY. AND WE JUST SUPPORTED THE DENIAL. I THAT'S CORRECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE OF BIG CONCERN ON THAT IN ADDITION TO TRAFFIC. SO EXCLUSIVELY TRAFFIC. YEAH I THINK THE LOOK I'LL JUST BE STRAIGHT. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE'S NEVER BEEN SO I DON'T KNOW I HAVEN'T. NO I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION TO SEE IF THERE'S EVER BEEN ONE THAT THE PRIMARY OR EXCLUSIVE REASON FOR DENIAL WAS TRAFFIC. I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED. THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, NOT NOT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. JUST THEY IT CAME TO US FROM P AND Z DENIED.

AND THE REASON WAS SIMPLY TRAFFIC ISSUE. THE TRAFFIC STUDY I DO THINK JUST TO ADD A LITTLE MORE COLOR HERE, I DO THINK THAT AS ON THE SPONSOR SIDE, IF YOU GET A BAD TRAFFIC STUDY, IF YOU GET A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR PROJECT, I THINK WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS YOU CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU NEED TO REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THAT PROJECT IN ORDER TO GET A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THAT SUPPORTS. I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW HAPPENS HERE IS AND THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD WORK WHEN SPONSORS AND DEVELOPERS, THEY HAVE THEY HAVE PRETTY CLEAR GUIDEPOSTS SET BY US AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND, YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE. AND THEY TRY TO MEET THOSE GUIDELINES BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS ARE EXPENSIVE TO PUT TOGETHER AND, AND TO BRING FORWARD. AND SO IT'LL BE IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE ANSWER, BUT MY GUESS IS THAT, I MEAN, IF I WERE IN IN THEIR SHOES AND I GOT A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT DIDN'T SUPPORT THAT, THAT WOULD NOT SUPPORT MY DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD ALTER THE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL I GOT COULD GET A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WOULD SUPPORT IT. SO THE DEVELOPER USUALLY DOES THE TRAFFIC STUDY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THE APPLICANT HIRES SOMEBODY TO DO THE TRAFFIC STUDY BASED ON THE SCOPE OF THE, THE SCOPE THAT'S SET BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DOES. OKAY, OKAY. THE METRO DOES NOT DO ITS OWN TRAFFIC STUDY. IT FOLLOWS WHAT THE DEVELOPERS TRAFFIC STUDY. RIGHT NOW WE KNOW THE OFFICE OF PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TEAM. THEY SET THE SCOPE FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDY. SO THEY TELL THE APPLICANT WHAT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY. BUT WE GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. OKAY. THAT BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING QUESTION OF BIAS THEN, BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDY. SO DOES THE TRAFFIC STUDY EVER COME UP AND SAY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT FEASIBLE? IT'S VERY RARE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SPECIFICALLY COME UP WITH AN INSTANCE WHERE IT SAID THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT VIABLE. I DON'T NOT RIGHT OFF WITHOUT DOING SOME RESEARCH. MR. CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, AND I APOLOGIZE. DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT THE DISCUSSION, BUT THIS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR SORT OF A FUTURE SPECIAL DISCUSSION ITEM. MAYBE WE CAN BRING IN SOMEONE FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO SORT OF TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO TYPICALLY DEAL WITH THE SORT OF MECHANICS OF HOW THEY'RE CONDUCTED. I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S A NATIONAL MANUAL THAT WE FOLLOW, AND SO OUR ENGINEERS REVIEW THE STUDIES WE RECEIVE, AND IF THEY DISAGREE ON HOW THE MODEL WAS USED, THOSE SOMETIMES HAVE COME UP IN THE PAST. BUT IT'S NOT AS THOUGH SOMEONE JUST WALKS OUT THERE AND SAYS, AND MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THIS LOOKS FINE. THERE'S STANDARD FIGURES BASED ON THE USE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, ALL SORTS OF THINGS. SO THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF MATH, I GUESS, GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND. THAT'S ALL PRETTY STANDARDIZED NATIONALLY. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO FIND A CASE THAT'S PURELY TRAFFIC, BECAUSE OTHER THINGS GET LAYERED ON. RIGHT. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHERE LET'S IMAGINE IT'S SO MANY UNITS ON SUCH A TINY, SUBSTANDARD ROAD THAT EVERYTHING'S F'S ALL THE WAY AROUND, ALL THE INTERSECTIONS ARE FAILING. WELL, THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE TOO DENSE OF A DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT AREA, TOO. AND SO DENSITY IS GOING TO BE A FACTOR AND MAYBE BUILDING HEIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO FINDING A SOUL. TRUE. THE ONLY REASON IS BECAUSE YOUR TRAFFIC STUDY SAID ALL F'S AND YOU REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING, AND YOU STILL INSIST ON GOING TO PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE FEW TO NONE. WITHOUT SOME OTHER FACTORS LAYERED IN, THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK THANK YOU TRAVIS. AGAIN, WE'RE WE'VE REACHED THE END OF OUR AGENDA, WHICH FOR US IS MAN, IT'S VERY, VERY, VERY SHORT. ANYBODY ELSE

[00:20:03]