Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />PLANNING & ZONING BOARD <br />FEBRUARY 14, 1996 <br />stated he would provide copies for the Planning and <br />Zoning Boardmembers. <br />Chair Schaps asked if there was a time table involved for <br />financing. <br />Mr. McClellan noted it was six weeks. <br />Chair Schaps noted the Planning and Zoning Board only <br />received this information two to three days ago. <br />Mr. McClellan indicated this was due to the plan being <br />rehashed and rehashed. He stated there had been 14 <br />meetings and the traffic plans had been changed 14 times. <br />This is the alternative everyone agreed upon. <br />Mr. Johnson stated if it is absolutely essential to have <br />only one intersection on Lake Drive, he felt that <br />intersection should be Elm Street. <br />Chair Schaps asked if any consideration had been given to <br />the amount of traffic on 2nd Avenue. <br />Mr. Pieper stated traffic was projected for a 20 year <br />period, taking into consideration the opening of the <br />school and adjacent development. Also taken into <br />consideration was the anticipation of a stoplight being <br />installed at Lake Drive and Highway 35W. <br />Chair Schaps asked if traffic on 2nd Avenue had been <br />taken into account in the study. <br />Mr. Pieper stated the study included the intersection at <br />Elm Street and 49 as well as the intersection at Elm <br />Street and 2nd Avenue. <br />Chair Schaps asked if there was data on the traffic flow <br />which would be diverted to 2nd Avenue. <br />Mr. Pieper stated significant impact to the traffic flow <br />on 2nd Avenue could not be avoided under any alternative. <br />He stated he did have traffic counts for the intersection <br />of Elm Street and 2nd Avenue for both alternatives 3 and <br />4 but they were not included in the feasibility study. <br />Chair Schaps called a brief recess at 8:55 p.m. <br />14 <br />