Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Uofl Whittington Ddp26 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues University of Louisville Whittington Parkway plan after wide traffic‑binding debate
Summary
The Planning Commission continued DDP‑26 (University of Louisville, Whittington Parkway) to July 25 after lengthy debate about amending a general‑plan binding element that ties campus development to traffic and air‑quality triggers; the applicant proposed revised language to redefine Phase 1 and preserve traffic/air‑quality study requirements for subsequent development.
The commission on June 20 continued action on Case 24 DDP‑26 (University of Louisville — Whittington Parkway) to July 25 after an extended deliberation over a proposed amendment to a general‑plan binding element that limits development based on traffic triggers.
Staff described the request as a waiver from LDC §5.6.1 (to allow a straight roofline longer than 100 feet), an amendment to the general plan binding elements, and approval of a detailed district development plan for a proposed four‑story office building with a 30,750‑square‑foot footprint (about 120,000+ square feet gross floor area). Ethan Lett, Office of Planning staff, told commissioners that transportation planning and staff recommended the waiver and that the general‑plan binding‑element amendment was requested to reflect current traffic analysis.
Applicant representatives (Cliff Ashburner, Dinsmore & Shohl; Matt Ricketts, NTS Development) said recent counts and a QK4 memo demonstrate that the proposed building fits within previously contemplated phase‑1 thresholds and that many of the road improvements needed for earlier phases (including a right‑turn lane on Shelbyville Road) have been constructed. Cliff Ashburner offered draft replacement language for binding element 13 that would define Phase 1 to consist of the complete development of 430,000 square feet of office space (listing prior development plan case numbers and the present DDP‑26) and would retain a requirement that any subsequent phase submit updated trip‑generation, traffic‑impact and air‑quality analyses; the language allows denial of future plans that reveal an unacceptable level of service without feasible mitigation.
Commissioners expressed two core concerns: (1) whether deleting or broadly amending the general‑plan binding element would remove an important staff tool to require updated traffic studies and mitigation for later phases; and (2) how to define what triggers a campus‑wide study (a single parcel, a detailed plan, cumulative acreage or a specific trip‑generation threshold). Several members proposed narrower edits (for example, strike the outdated geographic description and preserve the traffic/air‑quality triggers), while others favored keeping the general plan text and adding the updated, traffic‑focused binding element to the detailed plan so the specific commitments would be clear.
After the public and internal discussion, the commission voted to continue DDP‑26 to July 25 so staff and the applicant can finalize consistent, precise language that clarifies which future submittals must include updated traffic and air‑quality analysis and whether triggers are parcel‑level, cumulative or phase‑based. Applicant and staff said they will meet to draft cleaner language and return with recommended text. The detailed district development plan and waiver remain before the commission; the binding‑element amendment will go to Metro Council if the commission ultimately votes to amend the general plan.
