My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 12 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 12 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 10:18:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/21/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 12 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
<br />12/21/82 <br /> <br />Page -3- <br /> <br />Councilman Ferrera <br /> <br />in opposition to the plan for the following <br />reasons: The interchange at 36 did not show <br />the improvements. Secondly the plan did not <br />show any interchange at 96th Ave., nor the <br />extension of Colorado Hiway 42 connecting <br />from u.S. 36 to the north. These have been <br />a part of our comprehensive plan for many <br />years and are part of our Annual Highway <br />Request this year as in years past. Boulder <br />County Staff, Planning Commission, and County <br />Commissioners have supported this annual <br />request. <br />Director Rupp advised that the Superior <br />Interchange improvements have now been <br />recognized by D.R.C.O.G. <br />Administrator Wurl further advised the recom- <br />mendations had been made since 1974 and in <br />all up-dates of the plan. <br />Director Rupp stated a letter had been sent <br />to D.R.C.O.G. giving our reasons why the <br />96th interchange was supportable. Commented <br />as Administrator Wurl stated unless Louisville <br />goes on record now for the year 2000 plan <br />the need for the 96th Ave. interchange must <br />be stressed not only for Louisville but south- <br />eastern Boulder County as well. Rupp advised <br />that Broomfield was not in agreement with <br />the 96th interchange. They have a proposed a <br />large indudstrial development that lies <br />on the south side of u.S. 36 and wished the <br />interchange placed at this site, near Colton <br />Road. <br />Administrator Wurl advised our argument is <br />that if the interchange was at 96th it would <br />not only serve Broomfield's development but <br />would serve STC, CTC and the entire complex <br />as well. <br />Commented it was his understanding that DRCOG <br />wished a feasibility study done before either <br />interchange is done; after this is done would <br />it be approved? <br />Rupp advised that we would have to support <br />the rationale of the 96th Ave. interchange <br />before the feasibility study is done. <br />Wurl felt that this study should be done by <br />DRCOG and the State for Broomfield and Louis- <br />ville, not by the individual communities as <br />was suggested by Broomfield. This is what <br />staff is recommending. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.