Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />PLANNING & ZONING BOARD <br />FEBRUARY 14, 1996 <br />Mr. Mesich stated he hoped to have cooperation from the <br />Police Department and the County. He stated he felt it <br />would be more appropriate to place the signal light at <br />Elm Street where the children will be walking than at <br />Fourth Street. <br />City Engineer Ahrens stated this was not an option due to <br />future land use along Lake Drive. The Fourth Street <br />intersection is centrally located when ultimum build out <br />is considered. <br />Chair Schaps asked why the residents were not consulted <br />in the planning of these proposals. <br />Mr. Houle noted it was not standard procedure. <br />Chair Schaps noted there were significant problems with <br />closing off Elm Street and asked if it was still the <br />"preferred plan ". <br />Mr. Houle stated this alternative had been chosen after <br />numerous meetings with city staff, the School District, <br />MNDOT and Rehbein. He noted the Elm Street and 49 <br />intersection is not safe the way it is now. The other <br />issue involved is bus stacking. <br />Mr. Pieper asked how many buses would be entering the <br />school property. <br />Mr. McClellan stated there would be approximately 30 -32 <br />buses and probably more as the population increases. He <br />suggested the possibility of a left turn lane onto Elm <br />Street. He noted he felt the signal light was a <br />necessity. <br />Mr. Schones asked why this item was being rushed. <br />Planning Consultant Brixius reported Planning staff did <br />not have the opportunity to review the final plans until <br />last Monday. <br />Mr. Mesich asked why the Planning Commission was not <br />supplied with the feasibility report. <br />City Engineer stated the feasibility report was prepared <br />and distributed to the City Council last Monday. He <br />13 <br />