My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 05 02
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 05 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:38 PM
Creation date
5/17/2016 3:56:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2016 05 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Business Retention & Development Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 4, 2016 <br />Page 6 of 6 <br />Commissioner Staufer agrees with Menaker. Does not see why you could not have a <br />subcommittee to make those judgements. <br />Commissioner Pritchard said most businesses do not want to spend money to go <br />through the approval process. There are existing guidelines for signage. He is against <br />Council making individual decisions on signs. Council member Lipton said variances <br />have been given. Commissioner Pritchard said non - compliant signs should be removed <br />per code enforcement. Commissioner Lathrop said if signs are removed daily, that is <br />legal. <br />There is nothing on Council workplan for 2016 regarding signage. Can be added for <br />2017/18. Lipton would like map looking at signage and what needs to be done. <br />ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE <br />550 S. McCaslin Urban Renewal <br />One proposal received from the property owner for a King Sooper Marketplace. The <br />LRC was underwhelmed with the proposal's detail. Property owner would like to start <br />negotiations for a development agreement. Menaker said it is more than groceries. <br />Lathrop said focus is more on hard goods. <br />Staufer said this would most likely be detrimental to Albertson's. DeJong said currently <br />because of covenants, King Sooper Marketplace would not be allowed but yes, it would <br />put stress on Albertson's. <br />North End Marketplace Development to City Council <br />Coming to City Council in May. Has been to Planning Commission which <br />recommended by 6 -1 vote. <br />Coal Creek Station development submitted <br />Resubmitted for final PUD approval. <br />REPORT FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS: <br />None <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />None <br />ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING: MAY 2, 2016 <br />• Projects that did not move forward in BAP process <br />ADJOURN — The meeting adjourned at 10:06 am <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.