Planning Commission Meeting   9/12/2023

Just gonna break the room.

All right.

Creasy, can I have a pen if I find myself able?

Not quite there, I jumped the gun.

I can go if you want me to go.

I would like you to.

It'll be in Penn Park and it will be developed by a foundation but will eventually be given to the city and we will own it and Parks and Rec will manage it.

Mr. Dorenzio.

The latter two are not really going to be considered until early next year by the CDBG task force.

Mr. Habbab.

So we are trying to level that playing field a bit with some seminars and colloquia and learning sessions for that.

Thank you.

Mr. Buck.

if they have to accept or are they forced to?

We can consider that issue after Commissioner reports are done.

That's it for me.

Mr. Schwartz.

So hopefully there'll be some progress on that coming up shortly.

Thank you.

We're meeting jointly with them in order to work on issues that affect both of our areas.

Mr. Palmer.

Yeah, so that's my report.

Hello.

I think that's all I have.

What happens now?

But if we just have our slate of officers that have been proposed by the nominating committee, then another member of the board can go ahead and vote to accept the nominating committee's recommendation.

Creasy, would you please, I guess we need a motion?

Sounds like Mr. D'Oronzio might be able to do that for us.

Gracie?

Mr. D'Oronzio.

Thank you.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Dronzio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

And Mr. Solla-Yates?

Thank you very much.

Or do you want to go ahead and do the ACRB and then?

But for efficiency sake, it would be okay if you all choose to hear all of the dialogue on the item as a whole and then move forward at that point in time.

I'll then gavels out and then I'll gavels back into the public hearing for the SUV and the critical slopes.

That is a wonderful way to do it as well.

Do you want to continue with the agenda or do you want to, because we're losing people

And so we'll work through this item and then after that perhaps take up matters from the public because other items on the agenda folks might want to speak to.

Sure.

Yes.

So should we have a public comment for that first?

We're just clarifying that this would be in accordance on the front end so that we don't start in a bad place.

So I think Mr. Warner.

the prior chair and co-chair I don't know and you'd certainly advise if you think necessary to elect a chair and vice chair for the entrance corridor before we proceed.

And if we're able to have an expedited report, I think that would be helpful.

And with that, any questions for me?

The applicant, is there anything the applicant would like to offer?

I think we'll wait until we present it.

Mr. Palmer, any thoughts?

on this matter.

I guess since we're so early on, I don't really have a whole lot of thoughts about it.

Mr. Sumlitz.

I see tremendous potential for aesthetic enhancement, which is exciting.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

My one concern is on the garage entrance, which is not necessarily impacted by the SUP for hydrodensity.

Mr. Schwartz?

I'm inclined to go with staff's recommendation on this.

Is there a motion?

I move to find the visual and aesthetic impacts of the requested SUP can be addressed during the required design review and therefore will not adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue, Jefferson Park Avenue entrance corridor.

Seeking voice acclimation, all in favor?

Aye.

We want to do the two, the two 1709, I understand, right?

And if you would ask the mayor if he could call council to order, that'd be wonderful.

We are supposed to officially declare council meeting that we are in order and all five of us are here and we're listening to the public hearing.

So, Mr. Helpley.

Both staff and the applicant are available for questions.

Mr. Poplar, any questions?

No questions.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

No, sir.

Mr. Poplar?

They haven't chosen yet.

Okay.

My only question is about the LID issue, which is fine later or now.

I guess I'm confused how 1,600 square feet is three units when it's about 1,700 gross square feet per unit in building size.

Yeah, I mean, all I can do is reference to what was the Office of Community Solutions analysis.

Do we feel like the condition, because it says landscaping, I think, precludes that, or do we think that's an acceptable option, or?

If there is something that would work as an opaque wall, that option is not available in the S1 or S2 screening.

Thanks.

Is that going to reduce the number of units that they can get or that they can achieve?

So that makes a weird one, makes a weird parking, and staff would just like to see a better transition to the lower density neighborhood.

I'd welcome questions and comments.

Mr. Palmer.

Currently, do you know, and maybe this is more of a city question, can residents of that building get a Montebello Circle parking decal?

On street parking.

But you would be adding your section of the sidewalk for that.

We're not able to have a sidewalk run continuously from side to side but we do introduce one where there is not a curb cut for parking.

It's only through the building.

Yeah.

We're seeing more and more of it there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Perfect, yeah.

Let me preserve and come back to me.

Okay.

I'm not sure if this falls to other staff or you, but would it be better to mirror them or is that a possibility so they're not backing in but you're nosing into the spots?

I'm sorry, say that again.

so that you're nosing into the spots instead of having to back into them?

So that was the reason we angled them the way we did.

But if you substituted a loading zone for parking spaces, if loading was the main driver for having something back there?

I don't know if John, do you have any position there?

That's all my questions for now.

No questions, thank you.

On your, I think it was your second or third to last slide, shown in the front, is that a level sidewalk that I see on your curb cut?

It imposes a kind of slowdown on anybody who's driving a car and just makes that crossing point stand out more.

What's your worry that it wouldn't stick around?

And at that time, I think we could then kind of zero in more specifically on some of the details in the design, including that one.

Do you have a problem with it being conditioned?

that where you enter the under-building parking on the JPA, that that curve cut that would be sort of elevated to sidewalk height.

You don't want to be throttled, do you?

So I guess if you're willing to put the loading zone in, I guess that means that those three parking spaces are not vital to your unit counts?

I mean, the project could, you know, certainly conceivably go forward, but it just might make it a little tougher, you know, where the marketing is concerned, you know, because there's just fewer spaces available.

Did you mention that in your presentation?

I don't know if Campbell and you would like to just feel in conversation.

Because it sounds like we need to change one of the conditions.

Yeah, yeah, and I guess in addition to that condition obviously if we're talking about the parking spaces versus a loading zone and the extent of the planting buffer there would be a few other conditions that would potentially need revision as well to account for those things depending on where the conversation goes here I think.

Sorry.

What's different?

What are you asking?

we want the opportunity to get 10 points on the spreadsheet with potentially some combination of them all and not shared shared parking being a requirement of one of them because we haven't worked that agreement out with city staff and aren't sure we can get that approved so we don't want the approval of that shared parking to be you know hold the project up so our revised condition said we will get 10 points with some combination of these but not necessarily specifically shared parking

So, Mr. Halfley, what do I think?

All right, we'll get back to that then.

Is there anything else that you'd like to highlight on that beyond what's in the report?

Staff felt these critical slopes were not necessarily man-made, but they weren't really that important as far as the existing conditions that the slopes are in related to not a lot of tree plantings and that there's already a building kind of in the smack middle of the critical slopes.

Mr. Pinkston, any questions for the applicant?

the residents could just scoot up their bikes or scooters and things like that.

With scooters, we don't have any part of the site set aside devoted to their parking right now.

Well, we're working on, you know, getting docking stations and things like that, but, you know, with this many residents, I know a lot of them are going to take the VOs or whatever there and leave them on the sidewalk and, you know, people won't be able to get around in their wheelchairs.

There probably is room to the left of that entry drive for us to slightly revise the planting bed for the coffee tree and that access area that would lead to the enclosed trash area to provide at least some room for scooters to be parked out of the way off the sidewalk.

Mr. Mayor, how many human beings live there right now?

I believe the eight apartments are two bedrooms and so 16.

But to that point, is it known whether for the new units, would those be one, two, three, four bedrooms?

There's a number of two-bedroom and one-bedroom apartments as well.

I know the applicant made reference to seven stories, but staff's calculations from JPA, this would be an eight-story building, correct?

I believe that is correct.

Yeah, that's correct.

We understand that, you know, for some people it looks pretty tall from JPA, but we think that the housing it will provide is a consideration that compensates for that.

But that's it for questions for me.

Would you be good enough to moderate that?

Oh, no, she's gone.

Never mind.

If you could come up to the microphone so that we can record it properly, that would be wonderful.

the suggestion from the city staff report to restrict the height to five stories rather than eight.

Yes, ma'am.

she has worked for many years for the university she speaks with a lot of reason and balance she has done a lot of research and I encourage every member of the Planning Commission and the City Council to please weigh and consider her words carefully thank you

Pam?

Thank you.

No other participants in our virtual audience, so lady in the black shirt.

Thanks.

Still don't see anyone in our virtual audience, in-person audience, gentlemen.

Thank you very much.

All right, yes ma'am.

Thanks.

Do we have any other speakers in our in-person audience?

Mr. Palmer, any thoughts, comments, other deliberations?

Leave that there, and I look forward to hearing your all's thoughts on the affordability conundrum, you know, given what we know about what's coming versus what exists and how an SUP fits into that conversation.

Do you want to come back or do you get a threat?

So that's sort of my initial thought on that piece.

I'm not sure I will say no to it.

Oh, you are comfortable with that being there on Montpellier, is that what you're saying?

And I'm still not sure how I feel about the portal housing piece.

Given the zoning we have and the proposal we have, I see a lot of good.

and you know I don't think that's an appropriate way to address the street I think this this proposal addresses it as a front door with a small driveway you know I think if it could be shrunk up to two spaces and that would still work for a loading zone in front of them I think that would be great but I'm not given you know the needs of the people inside the building that some people do want parking still I'm not inclined to force them to remove them at this time

And I'm fine with the applicant's request to change condition 11 concerning the LID worksheet.

Mr. Alpley, can you walk us through number 11, recommendation number 11 and what the applicant would like to do and tell us what we think.

I do think they should meet the green roofer biofilter as it's also being called out in the critical slope waiver.

So what would we like to do with this?

But I would like to give an affirmative recommendation, including on some recommendation on those three things.

Would you like to structure a motion so that we can deliberate around your motion?

I was going to propose maybe straw polls on how we felt about each of those.

Give us a push and we'll work on it.

However, other measures from the checklist may be substituted with approval from city engineering if the measures indicated become impractical as the project develops.

Just want to make sure you guys are aware of that, which I'm comfortable with.

And now we can argue over it.

I want to make sure you guys are aware of what you just suggested.

Is there a second?

Mr. Lobb.

All right, so I guess to structure the conversation, I would propose an amendment to the motion to remove condition nine.

Because I think we have consensus that parking's not a good idea back there, but we don't have consensus at loading.

Wait.

I'm okay with the parking.

I'm okay with the parking.

There are some parking, some parking and loading.

Was it just us, too?

I'm down with the parking.

I'm not sure what the logistics of that will look like and who gets what parking spots but, you know, that's not our problem.

Is the count, is the commission willing to accept the amendment?

Well, I think, so what, we have three, do we have any more?

I was in parking, L.A.D., or no, screening?

No, Mr. Helfe.

Just as you're looking at this and you're taking recommendations on conditions, I also would just consider looking then, too, at condition six because if you don't alter that, that could impact parking ability if you want parking on Montebello.

And condition A, too, is effective because that states reducing it to 19 spaces.

Correct, yeah, and condition A might need to be modified.

Well, it wouldn't need to because I could always do more than that.

And if you would like to modify them, how would you like to modify them?

So to permit loading on the Montebello side.

Move on.

So eight can stay how it is in that case.

Why would it?

Okay, so, and then to modify nine to allow parking, which I guess would be eliminating nine, we don't, we've got three opposed to that, three who want to ban parking.

Two.

Removing parking.

Removing parking.

So we got three to three.

All right.

Take it out.

I'm not super strongly on.

Yeah.

And honestly, I kind of feel like the S3 buffer is a little strong.

All right, you're meandering here.

Give Ms.

Casey the verbiage if you'd like to have it in the nine, please.

Mr. Alpley, do you have a recommendation for how that might be modified to accommodate a loading zone and scooter parking?

50% or 60% would probably be adequate to allow for things like scooter parking, your loading zone, but still allow then that percentage to take up screening for the rest of not being used.

Sure.

But the S3 screening, although the actual physical wall, it's not vegetative, but a built wall is an option, the screening is still meant to be opaque in a sense, like it's still edges and whatnot.

There isn't an option for a wall under the S1 or S2.

I don't know why we'd want to have a wall between the road and the.

I mean, I would be for just having street trees.

And not, well, and those requirements for trees

I don't know if they are required in that same way.

75 feet from facade to Louisville City Residential.

S1 or S2?

Looks like a lot of folks are saying two.

But I don't know if that's...

But if you're reducing that requirement per this code section, I would spell it out that screening is not required so you don't fall.

And the consequences of doing that would be what?

If you're reducing the separation, I also would address the screening, I think, by saying no screenings requirement is appropriate if that's what this body wants to do, but you just need to call it out.

the front yard which to be fair you know as mentioned a lot of the homes on the on the street do have a fair amount of screening as their front yard landscaping and so with that well how much of the if we were to remove the screening requirement how much of the landscaping are we allowed to pick at as far as part of the entrance corridor review

I think Mr. Warner would suggest that most of this is going to be a part of the interest.

Well, the tricky part is it's not visible at all from JPA.

I'm looking at the top of that hill from a different view than maybe a design and saying what are the limitations of what you can put there.

How are we going to deal with that?

You certainly can.

I mean, you know, I'm willing to say something like at least an S1 screen.

Creasy an idea of what you'd like recommendation six to look like.

All right, and then any interest in mandating outdoor bicycle storage or scooter corral up there?

Didn't bother me a bit.

I'd like to hear from the applicant of what their thoughts are.

You guys think you can work that in?

I'm sorry.

Bikes and scooters up top.

Yeah, we agree.

That would only be downstairs?

A lot of people are coming and would be coming and going from that entrance.

There's one thing that Carl mentioned, the step backs.

Yes, I would like to add that the building should include these step backs at least as deep as are shown in the current application.

As crazy as that makes sense, or do we need to repeat it?

Is there a specific drawing you're looking at?

I think they gave us a section.

Chair would also like to ask the applicant if they have any concern with that being a requirement.

But yes, do you guys have any issues with that?

So I think we intend to put a step back in.

We would like a little bit of flexibility because once we get into the construction documents and the structural requirements,

Substantially?

Okay.

Street Basin Yard.

Like that?

Okay.

Greasy, are you in good shape?

and then a condition that notes that the building includes setbacks substantially in accord with the current proposal drawing on page 18.

Did you say setback or stepback?

I have step here, yes.

And plural?

I'm assuming.

That's what I, yeah, I didn't say that, but stepbacks is what I actually heard.

Okay, so let's formally have the amended motion

accepted and seconded again by Rory.

If Rory amended his own motion, Mr. Bob, you can second.

Second.

Hold up one second.

Micromobility, yes.

Thank you.

Second.

Kruse, I think we're ready for the vote, aren't we?

Do we need to vote to amend the motion and then to approve the motion?

We just did it.

If the amendment passes, that will be incorporated into the underlying motion.

Chrissy?

So this is specific to the amendment we're adding for 9, 6, and the step backs. 11.

11 was already built in.

11's already included in the main motion.

We're using the applicant's language as opposed to hourly.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

Mr. Habab?

Aye.

Mr. Solla-Yates?

Aye.

All right, so you all have an amendment that incorporates or you have a motion that incorporates multiple amendments including the update to 11, the new condition for the sidewalk JPA, number nine updates, number six updates, and then the step back in substantial

Creasy, I think you're ready to poll the board now.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

Mr. Habab?

Aye.

Mr. Solla-Yates?

Aye.

And Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

All right.

Any issues with the critical slope?

Wave away.

Same.

Makes sense.

Are we okay with keeping the same language Mr. Alpley?

Okay.

Yeah, it makes sense.

No concerns.

Mr. D'Oronzio.

Hold on, let me try and...

based on both findings number one and two, the public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope per 341120B6D1 and due to physical, unusual fiscal conditions or the existing development of the property, compliance with the city's critical slope regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property per section 34-1120B6D2 with the following conditions listed in the Staff Report.

Kreese.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

Mr. Habab?

Aye.

Mr. Solla-Yates?

Aye.

Aye.

Sure.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

I don't see any speakers in the audience, either virtual or in-person, Chair.

All right, that ends our public comment on that section.

Chair, we also have the matters, or not matters, but consent agenda to consider at some point this evening.

Is there a motion to?

Second.

Greasy.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

Mr. Solla-Yates?

Aye.

And Mr. Mitchell?

Zero high speed is the only thing we've got left?

Yes.

Rainey.

Therefore, a resolution has been provided in your packet for your consideration tonight, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions about the resolution?

I guess just a procedural question, just to refresh my memory, what would be the process in terms of after Planning Commission takes a vote, what happens after that?

That would be for staff.

What's that?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would anyone like to suggest a motion so that we can continue our deliberations?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

Mr. Soliates.

Seconded.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

It, in fact, is part of the important transportation connection that we found that the, I believe it's Lot A trail would be.

Creasy ready to hold the board?

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

No.

Mr. Hrabab?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

And Mr. Solla-Yates?

Next steps on the zoning ordinance.

Creasy already went over some great deal of detail on the process associated with that coming up and we look forward to hearing from the public and from all of you.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

I would just like to note that September 12th is the accepted anniversary of the Battle of Marathon, which is an appropriate thing to end on as we prepare for Thursday, and I suggest that we stay hydrated.

Is there a second?

A second.

Good night.

I saw that Sam's gained some speed.