Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -..' . <br /> if the total size of this road is 400 feet, <br /> what is the probability of utilizing another <br /> route? <br /> Hornbostel: When we started the discussions on this we <br /> did try to go up Highway 7 and have it so <br /> that it would have still gone up 96th but it <br /> would have gone over Highway 7 and across and <br /> we got ganged up on by Lafayette and <br /> Broomfield. What we have been told is what <br /> they are going to do when they design it is <br /> to try to route the thing so that it misses a <br /> whole lot of those things. But there is no <br /> certainty to all of that and until they get <br /> to the design part of it, which is not going <br /> to be before the IGA's are done, they are <br /> going to try to do the best job that they <br /> can. There are some technical problems and <br /> we did ask for assurance that those things <br /> would be metigated and they said yes they <br /> would be metigated. I think there is going <br /> to be a lot of discussion about what this is <br /> going to look like, they are basically trying <br /> to keep it as small as possible. <br /> Davidson: The original routing that they proposed <br /> originally went down McCaslin and it's not <br /> like they didn't give us something. There <br /> was no support for this route. By slightly <br /> shifting the alignment, not using the certain <br /> Dillon Road as the center line but leaving <br /> that as an access road to the south you drop <br /> the number of houses you take from 11 to down <br /> to 2. There are a lot of things that need to <br /> be worked out. <br /> Hornbostel: Ron stewart's feeling was that they do not <br /> want to take a lot of houses. He said they <br /> are considering it a corridor. <br /> Howard: Page 4, Section 3, the last line. Does this <br /> mean we can effectively have different regu- <br /> lations if we change regulatory parties? I <br /> would have a problem with this. <br /> Griffiths: I think we can clarify the language there. I <br /> agree it is not clear what regulatory party <br /> means. I think the intent was to cover the <br /> situation where land is annexed. <br /> Howard: The real question is what does this section <br /> mean. <br /> Griffiths: I would want to go back and reread the <br /> language again, but my understanding is that <br /> 7 <br />