My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 09 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:30:11 AM
Creation date
9/29/2010 1:36:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2010 09 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
Loo stated this is a great project for a storage facility. She stated she still has <br />conflicts with the signs because the city needs to encourage businesses. <br />Lipton stated the site was well designed. If the signs are to be seen from HWY 42 <br />they would be extremely large. <br />Pritchard stated his support of the project. He stated his concern with the north <br />sign but would be willing to continue a discussion regarding the north sign. <br />Brauneis stated he likes the project and he also has concerns regarding the north <br />sign. <br />Sheets stated her support of the project. A sign on the V would serve as a <br />type of advertisement and would be limited in size. <br />Russell asked what would be the largest size for <br />McMillan stated it would be 15 SF. A larger s® ould requir- .riance <br />request. <br />Pritchard asked what the distance from <br />McMillan stated it is 600'. <br />Russell stated adding a sign wil ®- obtrusiv- one within a set of <br />limitations. <br />Brauneis stated the sign becomes : ssue t ne- to be visible from HWY <br />42. <br />irrigatio <br />reed to aba <br />ented to th <br />ner shall <br />ent a <br />Pritchard stated h <br />Lipton moved a <br />revised by staff an <br />1. Pri suan <br />2. T <br />deve <br />improv <br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 19, 2010 <br />Page 8 of 17 <br />ber of signs. <br />n to approve Resolution No. 17 as <br />e conditions would be as follows: <br />e firs ermit, the applicant will provide <br />confirming t at the parties who have water rights in <br />south side of the property have abandoned or <br />the irrigation ditch, or otherwise have <br />D i 7rovements affecting the ditch. <br />cute a development agreement for this PUD. The <br />ent will stipulate that maintenance of all drainage <br />ted in City of Louisville right of way will be the <br />responsib the owner. <br />3. The develop ent agreement will stipulate that maintenance of the private <br />sewer line located on City of Louisville property will be the responsibility of <br />the owner. <br />4. Prior to completion of foundation inspection for any foundations for the <br />storage facility, the applicant will provide a FEMA elevation certificate <br />which will demonstrate that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor <br />for the structure will be elevated two feet above existing grade and will <br />otherwise comply with the floodplain development permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.