Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 14, 2017 <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />Ritchie responded that typically those minutes would not be included but they could be included <br />for the next City Council meeting. <br />Ritchie asks for clarification about Hsu's private and public question. <br />Hsu responds that he was thinking about consistency throughout the code. <br />Zucccaro adds that the recent subdivisions have private street frontage and that he understands <br />the request is for consistency. <br />Motion made by Rice and seconded by Brauneis to approve the Subdivision Modifications <br />Ordinance, a request to amend Title 16 and Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code to amend <br />the modification process for subdivision applications, with the amendment that staff would edit <br />the code for consistency. Roll call vote. All in favor. Matter moves forward to Council. <br />DISCUSSION OF JUNE 22, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION AUDIT <br />O'Connell left before this discussion. <br />Dean explained that the impetus behind the audit was to evaluate how the Commission <br />implemented or did not implement the planning goals for the city. She added that the <br />commercial design guidelines were going to be updated and that sign regulations and industrial <br />design guidelines could also be included in the upcoming budget. <br />Zuccaro added that staff would like feedback on what information the Commission needs in <br />order to evaluate projects. He also asked the Commission what worked and didn't work in the <br />design guidelines. <br />Dean described the scoring criteria for the audit, stating that a score of 1 meant, "Does not meet <br />the standard and has a significant negative impact on the project;", 2 meant, "Does not meet the <br />standard;" 3 meant, "Meets the standard;" 4 meant, "Slightly exceeds;" and 5 meant, "Greatly <br />exceeds." She also asked for the Commission's comments on the results of the audit, their <br />thoughts on how the City implements design guidelines, what the City should change about the <br />guidelines, and what else they would like staff to include in the summary packets of projects. <br />Pritchard noted that the Planning Commission denied the DELO Plaza project, but their decision <br />was overturned by City Council. He also noted that DELO Plaza did not score well overall. <br />Moline asked if the City is required to take any action when a project doesn't meet the standard <br />in the scoring. <br />Zuccaro stated that staff was evaluating the development review process for how to assess if a <br />finished project meets the vision for what staff and the Commission wanted to achieve. If <br />projects are not meeting the standards, Zuccaro stated that staff and the Commission need to <br />evaluate how they review projects before approving them. <br />Moline asked what would happen if something already built was not meeting what was <br />portrayed in plans. <br />Zuccaro responded that not complying with approved plans was an enforcement issue. <br />Brauneis asked how many people participated in the review process. <br />Dean responded that there were seven, five commissioners and two staff. <br />