My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2018 02 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2018 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2018 02 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:35 PM
Creation date
3/6/2018 10:33:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2018 02 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 />February 20, 2018 <br />Page 4 of 16 <br />Councilmember Maloney asked how the fair market value of the sign was determined, if <br />anything other than the cost of the new sign was reviewed Ritchie said no other costs <br />were reviewed Councilmember Maloney asked where this sign might fit in a City facility. <br />Ritchie stated at this time it is unknown where the sign might be located or where it <br />might fit. <br />Public Comments — None. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated the new sign is not iconic or designated and she <br />asked why it did not have to comply with the sign manual dimensions. Ritchie stated the <br />intent of a PUD amendment is to allow waivers and the purpose of this application is <br />that it was not going to meet the criteria. Councilmember Stolzmann asked if finding <br />those criteria not applicable was done out of convenience. Director Zuccaro, noted there <br />is a conflict in the code, there is a section of the ordinance and downtown sign program <br />stating there should be a process to allow for signs not meeting all the cntena but it then <br />goes on to reference a requirement that it must meet the criteria. There was no way to <br />reconcile that so it was found not applicable <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated she is struggling with that section as it says it needs <br />to meet the criteria and this sign does not and it is not iconic, it is just a new sign. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated it will likely cost $100,000 to buy, restore, and install the <br />sign. He asked if that was taken into consideration. Director Zuccaro stated the cost to <br />fabricate and install the new sign is $32,000 so we can assume installation will be only a <br />part of that cost. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated he doesn't support this He supports the <br />new sign but not using public funds to buy the old sign when we don't know where it will <br />be finally installed and what it will cost. <br />Councilmember Loo stated she views this sign as something like public art It is a <br />gorgeous sign. It will probably cost more in the end, but this is art we need to preserve. <br />She supports all three resolutions. <br />Mayor Muckle agreed with Councilmember Loo This is the most iconic thing in <br />Louisville Everyone over the age of 30 knows of the Blue Parrot It is worth saving; this <br />is the purpose of the historic preservation program <br />Mayor Muckle moved to approve Resolution No. 9, Series 2018. Councilmember Loo <br />seconded <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated she agrees the sign meets the landmark criteria for <br />social significance <br />Voice vote passed 6 -1; Mayor Pro Tem Lipton voting no. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.