My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2013 01 08
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2013 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2013 01 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:08:04 PM
Creation date
2/26/2013 8:54:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2013 01 08
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
219
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 />December 18, 2012 <br />Page 10of 17 <br />Mike Frontzak, 643Fairfield Lane, Louisville, CO commented there can be no retail <br />without people. He did not object to multi-family units or senior citizen housing. He <br />stated nothing was carvedin stoneandthe drawings donot mean this is exactly what <br />will happen. All of the development requestswill still have to go through the process. <br />He felt Options #1 and #2 are basically where the City is now. <br />Council member Loo stated she sensed a divided Council. She requested Council send <br />a clear message to staff on which option should go forward. She supportedOption#4 <br />or Option #5, but sensed others on Council were leaning towardOption #2. She asked <br />for compromise on both sidesand requested Council to agree on Option #3. <br />Mayor Muckle suggested approving Option #2 and then move forward on a small area <br />planfor theMcCaslin area.At that point the Comprehensive Plan couldbe amended. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton felt the framework shown in Option #4 was the controversy. He <br />supported coming together with Option #3 and consideringashorter time for reviewof <br />the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Mayor Muckle asked Planning Director Russ what would be the disadvantage of <br />approving Option #2 and then moving forward on a small area plan for the McCaslin <br />area. Planning Director Russ stated the Comprehensive Plan was intended to give the <br />scope for the area. <br />Council member Yarnell stated rooftops didn’t equate to successful retail, but rather <br />where those persons choose to shop. She suggested givingsome backbone to the <br />flexibility. Shewas willing to support Option #3 so future proposals have a skeleton to <br />rely upon. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton pointedoutthe Planning Commission’s marriage of Option #3 <br />andOption #4 to come up with Option #5. Council member Jasiak supported Option #3. <br />Mayor Muckle felt Council members could agreeon Option #3. <br />There was Council consensus on directingstaff to move forward withOption #3 as the <br />preferred Development Framework to complete the 2012 update of the City’s <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />Mayor Muckle called for a recess at 9:50 p.m. Regular business resumed at 10:00 p.m. <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION/ACTION – HIGHWAY 42 GATEWAY PROJECT <br />Mayor Muckle requested a staff presentation. <br />Planning Director Russexplainedthere are two components to the 42 Gateway Project; <br />the gateway preliminary design and the connection of the revitalization district area to <br />25 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.