My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2013 12 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2013 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2013 12 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:34 PM
Creation date
12/18/2013 8:53:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/3/2013
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2013 12 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 3, 2013 <br />Page 11 of 21 <br />Council member Lipton stated the ordinance proposal was brought before the Planning <br />Commission in the spirit of continuous improvement and to fill in some gaps in the <br />process. He recalled there were times when posting signage was curtailed because of <br />budget constraints. He stated this ordinance may not provide the perfect solution, but it <br />is an improvement and suggested approving the ordinance now and making <br />modifications at a later date. He addressed the consistency of the process and noted <br />the ability of the Planning Director or City Manager to use subjectivity in deciding what <br />the notice requirement should be, may prompt protest and possible litigation for <br />preferential treatment. He did not believe social media should replace the existing <br />notice process, but to enhance it. <br />Mayor Muckle agreed there should be consistency and that one size does not fit all, <br />especially when considering outdoor home projects. On very large projects, such as <br />ConocoPhillips, it is important to think of the notice process similar to marketing the <br />property. He supported closing the current gaps with the ordinance, and establishing a <br />communication process for large projects. <br />Council member Keany asked Planning Director Russ if a definition of the size of a <br />project could be by square footage or dollar value of the project. Planning Director <br />Russ stated his concern with a definition of square footage or acreage would require a <br />particular number or threshold. With respect to variances, the Louisville Municipal Code <br />does not provide any guidance as to what is a significant variance and what is not. He <br />explained the subject of notice was discussed at a study session and no public <br />comment was received. When it was reviewed by the Planning Commission only one <br />public member spoke. He explained this is not a technical issue; it is question of what is <br />the right notice for Louisville. He agreed a public meeting with public outreach would <br />assist the staff. <br />Council member Keany reported receiving notices for variances a number of years ago <br />which were totally non - descriptive. Planning Director Russ stated the current notices do <br />describe what the actual variance is for. <br />Council member Loo noted there was a study session on the matter and there are five <br />different areas where the public can receive public notice information. <br />MOTION: Council member Loo moved to approve Ordinance No. 1647, Series 2013, <br />seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dalton. <br />DISCUSSION: <br />Mayor Muckle noted if the ordinance is voted down, it must start over from the <br />beginning and suggested the Council move forward with the approval of the ordinance <br />and revisit this matter at a study session in the spring. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton agreed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.