My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 11 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2015 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 11 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2022 10:48:27 AM
Creation date
11/9/2015 8:45:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
7A6
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2015 11 02
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.
/
401
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 />October 13, 2015 <br />Page 17 of 18 <br />Mayor Muckle noted to raise funding there has to be a project concept to describe. <br />Deputy City Manager Balser recollected two conversations; some initial work should be <br />done to show a concept and some significant design to show what is proposed to be <br />done and what real costs are likely to be incurred, whether for grant funding or a ballot <br />issue. <br />Council member Lipton couldn't see spending $227,000 dollars for a conceptual design <br />and renderings. <br />Mayor Muckle made a pitch for the Downtown Neighborhood Plan. He had heard from <br />many citizens in the past month. Council member Stolzmann asked what a <br />neighborhood plan meant to him. Mayor Muckle said a public process so the neighbors <br />could share their concerns for the neighborhood and then trying to address those <br />concerns. <br />Council member Stolzmann thought that could be done, but her impression of a <br />neighborhood plan was a process of one potential output being re- zoning of the area. <br />She was supportive of a process to address neighborhood concerns and adding those <br />to a capital project list but was not supportive of an in depth process where the <br />downtown area was re -zoned to allow for high density development <br />Mayor Muckle felt the public process would not end up there. Not wanting to predict <br />outcomes, he envisioned developing a pattern book to help to determine what happens <br />with scraped buildings, etc. <br />Council member Keany heard at the Ward One meeting the downtown was being <br />overbuilt. The neighborhood plan would allow citizens to plan what they would like to <br />see in the future. <br />Planning and Building Safety Director Russ noted the neighborhood plan was a public <br />outreach looking at infrastructure, housing issues, character issues, zoning, connection <br />to trails and recommendations would come out of those interactions. Sequencing of the <br />neighborhood plan was after the completion of the McCaslin small area plan. <br />Council member Loo noted Council member Lipton's memo suggested Council decide <br />what resources should be focused on. She supported finding that focus. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT <br />Debbie Fahey, 1118 W. Enclave Circle, Louisville, CO supported focusing on priorities. <br />She saw a lot of focus on downtown but would like some focus on Ward 2 and other <br />areas. <br />COUNCIL COMMENT <br />30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.