03/13/1996 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Hearing no further comments, Al Robinson made a MOTION to Close the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesich noted EIm Street was currently substandard and stated his disappointment that none of the plans included upgrading of that street. He suggested traffic be brought into the school site from Elm Street, the cul -de -sac installed, and the business park install it's own road if necessary. A signal Tight could then be installed on Elm Street. Mr. Ahrens explained a pedestrian study is planned to assist the school staff and police staff to determine a plan to meet the pedestrian traffic in the area. This pedestrian study will not be performed until a specific roadway plan for the area is determined. He noted there is intent to ask the City Council to consider EIm Street as a state roadway. At that time, it would be possible to consider reconstruction of the road with State Aid. Mr. Ahrens noted Elm Street is narrow and a trail is proposed for the south side of Elm Street. He stated the City Council would be asked to install regulatory signing assuming the roadway approved is inadequate for parking. Mr. Mitchell stated he was confident the pedestrian issue would be addressed. He noted the signal Tight is a major issue in this proposal. EIm Street currently carries 1000 trips per day. It is estimated the school will generate 1500 to 2000 trips per day. Options A and B will triple the amount of traffic on Elm Street. Option C decreases the amount of traffic and Option D eliminates the traffic on Elm Street. He noted the proposal is making a more dangerous intersection to provide for a safer intersection with installation of a signal light. OSM feels this is a better option than having two mediocre intersections. Option C does not allow for a signal light and Option C1 which will leave Elm Street open does not provide for a signal light. He noted if southbound traffic on 4th Avenue is forced to go to Elm Street and wanted to access Highway 49, their best opportunity would be to use 2nd Avenue. This would impact 2nd Avenue. He noted, however, all options would impact 2nd Avenue. Mr. Mitchell noted the option presented by Mr. Mesich had been considered but was not feasible as it would not provide ample storage for the signal. He stated from a professional standpoint, he could not support either Option C or D. 11