My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 12 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 12 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 8:56:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/19/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 12 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />December 19, 2000 <br />Page 8. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> <br />Keany asked if the Applicant had any concerns relative to the conditions set forth in the <br />Resolution. Doody stated that the Applicant had no concerns relative to the conditions <br />set forth. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that he understood the motivation for a sign to identify the bank, the drive-up <br />and to assist motorist in finding the banking facility. He stated that he thought the Bank <br />of Louisville's sign was one of the best signs in Louisville and was disappointed to see it <br />go. Sisk asked if the bank is connected to the First National Bank of Longmont. Doody <br />replied yes. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that it was his understanding that there would be no further requests made in <br />terms of square footage and asked that it be reflected on the new PUD. Wood stated that <br />a specific note was not made. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that his concern was that if another holding company bought the First <br />National Bank of Longmont, the sign process would begin again and a request for more <br />square footage would be requested. Sisk asked that the square footage be a condition of <br />the amended PUD so that questions would not be raised again. <br /> <br />Wood asked for clarification on whether the intent to restrict the square footage is for the <br />two tower signs and the additional wall signs, or to restrict the square footage to its <br />current approved location. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that the intent is to restrict the square footage to its current approved location. <br /> <br />MOTION: Keany moved that Council approve Resolution No. 73, Series 2000, with an <br />additional condition that the PUD will be amended to insure that this is the maximum <br />amount of square footage of signage and the only allowable sign locations in the future, <br />seconded by Brown. All in flavor. Absent: Davidson - excused. <br /> <br />APPROVAL OF US 36 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY (MIS) - LOCALLY <br /> PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Sisk called for Staff presentation <br /> <br />Assistant to the City Administrator, Heather Balser reported on the Major Investment <br />Study, which is a process to identify transportation problems and needs in a major <br />transportation corridor, and to identify and evaluate potential alternative solutions to <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.