My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1977 03 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1977 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1977 03 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:30:37 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 10:14:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
3/1/1977
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1977 03 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
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
410 . <br /> ammo" . port <br /> .4i <br /> COSTIBINTAI. clip The area will be developed to conform with the <br /> 'STA= CGWIE= subdivision regulations of Boulder County. ME,. <br /> sine of the development is approximately n• <br /> sores, 87 planned sites, approximately <br /> 1p,00f! . feet strait. <br /> Mt. Cassidy stated that the project will bawd <br /> city water and sewer services. <br /> Be stated that there is one problem with the <br /> streets; which is the property which is owned ' <br /> by B.S.C.8. oorporation; it is far enough <br /> out east to include the right-of-way as it has <br /> been platted, and ooees to Continental View <br /> *states side at the north end of Asure Way. <br /> Be stated that approximately 30 feet more is <br /> needed to complete the right-of-way, so what <br /> has been done is that the area has been de- <br /> dicated for future development. <br /> Planner Drums stated that the Planning Com- <br /> mission mentioned several items. <br /> 1. The County development standard is that <br /> water and sewer lines go on private property, <br /> where under the City regulation the lines are <br /> put in the right-of-way. There are also some <br /> questions on the extension, because the City <br /> does not allow any dedications or <br /> construction of half streets. This would have <br /> to be resolved. <br /> Kr. Drumm pointed out open space and city owned <br /> property on the map. <br /> On drainage, Kr. Drumm stated that Lord & <br /> Assoc. , have not completed their report; <br /> however, the city is concerned about the <br /> drainage and also there is awkward lotting that <br /> may be used for detention ponds that would <br /> fit into the drainage plans. <br /> Kr. Drumm stated that the street standards <br /> shown on the plan is rural type standards <br /> that ha:c paved way, rock shoulder and ditches <br /> running along side. Kr. Drumm stated that <br /> these standards do not correspond with the <br /> present city street standards; however, <br /> Planning Commission has reviewed some alter- <br /> natives on this. Be stated that since the <br /> area will be developed in the County the <br /> streets will be under county regulations. <br /> Kr. Drumm stated that there has - been dis- <br /> cussion with the County regarding Open Space. <br /> Be stated that the City would like to take <br /> the land uncle: dedication and using the cash <br /> in lieu of, for the remaining percentage to <br /> build a path through .that area. <br /> Kr. Cassidy stated that the program is still <br /> under review with the County. There was <br /> no further discussion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.