My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2016 04 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2016 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2016 04 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:13:39 PM
Creation date
5/18/2016 10:15:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2016 04 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 19, 2016 <br />Page 8 of 17 <br />Council member Loo asked for input from staff about any agreements with CDOT on the <br />Kaylix signal The answer was there were none, it is a local road. She asked about the <br />signal at Cannon and CDOT assistance <br />Planner Robinson noted the adopted Hwy. 42 Gateway Plan CDOT has agreed to and <br />endorsed the signal at Cannon Circle <br />Council agreed to leave out of the plan the signal at Kaylix. <br />Council member Stolzmann didn't feel CDOT would allow the, signal at Hwy 42 and <br />Cannon even though they have agreed to the plan. She thought better placement was <br />at Griffith and not so close to the intersection. <br />Planner Robinson noted any signal on a State highway has to be considered warranted <br />by CDOT. He noted there is a property owner there going through potential <br />redevelopment with the assumption the signal at Cannon will be there. <br />Council member Stolzmann understands taking the signal would not prevent the <br />redevelopment as proposed to proceed <br />Planner Robinson noted the redevelopment is counting on the signal being there. <br />There still would be the possibility the signal would not be considered warranted by <br />CDOT and never be installed. <br />Council member Loo was reluctant to take out the signal on Hwy 42; if never warranted, <br />it won't go in, but should be left on the plan. <br />Mayor Muckle did not want to change the signal on this plan. <br />Council member Maloney thought unless it was needed, leave it off. <br />Council member Stolzmann felt what was envisioned is not what is being developed. <br />She wanted it to be at a safe location. Council member Loo reiterated if it was never <br />warranted, it would not be put in <br />Council member Maloney addressed the fiscal model. He realized it is directional not <br />exact. He wondered where the assumptions come from. Using the same number for <br />percent spent on taxable income across all income levels could skew the model as <br />much as 20 %. He was cautious about the numbers and thought they were too high <br />Finance committee should look at the fiscal model. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.