My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2013 04 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2013 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2013 04 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:33 PM
Creation date
5/15/2013 1:23:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2013 04 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 />April 16, 2013 <br />Page 6 of 23 <br />1. The proposed monument sign, located within the 54 -foot conservation easement, <br />shall be relocated outside of the conservation easement. <br />2. The proposed fence and entryway gate, located within the 54 -foot conservation <br />easement, shall be relocated outside of the conservation easement. <br />APPLICANT PRESENTATION <br />Kyle Callahan, Kyle Callahan & Associates, Architecture, addressed the conservation <br />easement and their request for Council approval of a monument sign and perimeter <br />fence within the Conservation Easement. He felt the sign and fencing were allowable <br />under the Grant of Easement to the City of Louisville and noted they are not proposing <br />any other type of uses within the conservation easement. <br />Fire Chief Parker stated at the Planning Commission meeting they did not provide <br />adequate information on their request for a fence and signage in the conservation <br />easement. He felt a precedent has already been set with a lift station within the <br />conservation easement. He stated the fencing and signage adds continuity of the <br />property. He noted there is also liability protection with the fencing. Although they <br />would like to have a full security fence, the fence they are.proposing meets the liability <br />insurance criteria. He thought a trail through the easement would not make sense. <br />Mr. Callahan agreed the sign outside the easement does not make sense. The <br />Planning Commission felt the signage was too large and . so the signage was scaled <br />down. He noted one minor change to the architectural plan provided that the exterior <br />will be light bronze metal and warm gray stucco. <br />COUNCI L COMMENTS <br />Council member Loo inquired whether there are any precedents on what can be in the <br />easement. City Attorney Light explained the Conservation Easement was required by <br />the City in conjunction with platting of the area. Sections 3.5 and 2.5 of the <br />Conservation Easement allow the City to permit the sign in the easement, if Council <br />wishes, but it does not obligate the City to do so. Although section 3.5 prohibits signage <br />in the easement, Council may review requests on a case -by -case basis. <br />Council member Loo asked if the City anticipates a need to get back into the easement. <br />City Manager Fleming stated Parks and Recreation Director Stevens did not anticipate <br />a need for a trail in that location. Planning Director Russ explained Boulder County and <br />the cities of Louisville and Lafayette are moving forward with a trail on the east side of <br />104th Street. Funding is in place contingent upon signals being placed at Dillon Road <br />and Highway 42. <br />Mayor Muckle inquired whether a similar fence could be placed around the City's lift <br />station, instead of the current razor wire fence. City Manager Fleming asked Public <br />Works Director Kowar to comment on the security needs for the City's fence at the lift <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.