Laserfiche WebLink
Roll Call Vote on the Motion to Appoint Ms. Ferris <br />as the City Clerk: Meier, yes; Morris, yes; <br />Fauson, yes; Johnson, yes; Leary, no; Cussen, no. <br />By a vote of 4-2, Ferris was appointed to the <br />position of City Clerk. <br />BOARD OF APPEALS <br />APPOINTMENT Stephen Pendergrast briefly described his desires <br />to serve on the Board of Appeals which included <br />his opinion that it is a privilege to serve as a <br />member of the community. His background as a <br />structural engineer would enhance his ability to <br />make pertinent decisions. Ray Sears and Norm <br />Laurence asked to be reappointed. Cussen moved <br />that Pendergrast, Sears and Laurence be appointed <br />to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for a 3 <br />year term. Johnson seconded, and the motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />WINCHER ANNEXATION Ordinance #853, an ordinance annexing to the City <br />of Louisville, Colorado, a parcel of approximately <br />9.9 acres located adjacent to South 80th Street <br />which is owned by John and Mary Wincher, was read <br />by title only. Cussen moved that Ordinance #853 <br />be placed for publication and that a Public <br />Hearing be scheduled for February 19, 1985. Meier <br />seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously. <br />WINCHER ZONING Ordinance #854, an ordinance amending Title 17 of <br />the Louisville Municipal Code of the City of <br />Louisville, Colorado entitled "Zoning", by zoning <br />property of approximately 9.9 acres owned by John <br />and Mary Wincher annexed to the City by Ordinance <br />#853. The requested zoning in this case is the <br />new Business Office Zone. Fauson moved that <br />Ordinance #854 be put out for publication and that <br />the Public Hearing be set for February 19, 1985. <br />Johnson seconded, and the motion was carried <br />unanimously. <br />PETITIONS FOR <br />INITIATIVE On January 3, 1985, the Deputy City Clerk of the <br />City of Louisville received a petition dealing <br />with an amendment to the Municipal Code concerning <br />the cutting of weeds in the City. Another <br />petition received on the same date involved <br />annexation and zoning of property located east of <br />Highway 42. Both the petitions were reviewed by <br />the City Clerk's office with respect to signatures <br />and it was found that both petitions had enough <br />signatures to meet the criteria. <br />Rautenstraus related that the proposed weed <br />ordinance does not make a large distinction <br />between the current ordinance with respect to weed <br />3 <br />