Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 1, 1996 <br />or she can. <br />Fahey again indicated he preferred Alternative #2, with <br />Alternative #1 being an option if #2 doesn't work. <br />LaValle agreed. <br />Pedersen suggested that Alternatives #Z and #4 may be <br />preferable, pointing out that over the long term 93 W. <br />Little Canada Road does not fit the area. <br />Fahey did not feel a lot of value would be added to the <br />redevelopment project in taking out 93 W. Little Canada <br />Road. Fahey stated that Alternative #4 is a <br />possibility, however, if the right developer comes <br />along. <br />LaValle felt Alternatives #1 or #2 were preferable <br />until a developer steps forward looking for a large <br />parcel. In that case, Alternative #4 is a possibility. <br />Fahey suggested that until a developer steps forward, <br />Middle Street should not be moved. Fahey suggested <br />that Alternative #2 was the first option, with <br />Alternatives #1 and #4 being possibilities when a <br />developer steps forward. <br />LaValle stated that he did not favor the traffic <br />circle, and was concerned about truck traffic <br />navigat;ing it. LaValle asked about the cost. <br />Schroeder suggested his firm analyze the cost. If the <br />intersection is reconstructed along with the Little <br />Canada Road reconstruction, the costs would be reduced <br />signif~.cantly. <br />Schroeder suggested he continue to explore the <br />possibility of the traffic circle with the County's <br />engineer, as well as do some cost analysis. <br />There being no further business, the workshop was <br />adjourned at 7:35 P.M. <br />Mic ael I. ahey, May <br />_...~ <br />Attest: l~. ~ - ~ <br />oel . Hanson, City Administrator <br />9 <br />