Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that the TMP was still in draft form and a work- <br /> in-progress. <br /> Chair DeBenedet estimated that the first draft was provided by staff to <br /> Commissioners at their July 2011 meeting. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted the numerous comments and revisions since that <br /> original draft was provided by staff. <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that he was not aware that there was anything included <br /> in any of the TMP drafts that would have provided guidance to the City Council <br /> for the County Road C-2 discussion, whether supporting keeping it open or <br /> closing it. Chair DeBenedet reviewed the intent of the proposed TMP as a tool <br /> for neighbors who feel there was a traffic problem on their specific street; <br /> allowing them to come as a group to City Hall for discussions and reviewing <br /> potential options with staff Chair DeBenedet reviewed the process for the TMP, <br /> once the PWET Commission provided it and a recommendation to the City <br /> Council; and subsequent City Council review and revisions prior to its potential <br /> adoption as a City policy. Chair DeBenedet noted that if it became a policy, it <br /> would still need funding for studies or temporary measures; and reiterated that the <br /> TMP still had a long way to go before the City Council would make a decision to <br /> adopt it and provide funding for it as a policy. <br /> Ms. Gardner opined that, there was no doubt in her mind that it would be a <br /> mathematical impossibility for the City Council to open County Road C-2 if the <br /> existing draft of the TMP was in place at the time of their decision; and expressed <br /> her curiosity as to why the City Council would take such a vote before a policy <br /> had been finalized. <br /> Member Vanderwall suggested that the PWET Commission could not comment <br /> on that question, since it would only be conjecture on their part and serve to <br /> second guess the City Council; and suggested that Ms. Gardner directly question <br /> those decision-makers. <br /> Member Gjerdingen noted that there was no tool in place to address opening a <br /> street, and while there were neighborhood concerns for residents on Josephine <br /> Road as well as adjacent streets and area traffic concerns, he was unsure if they <br /> could have been addressed under this proposed TMP policy other than to attempt <br /> traffic calming options off Josephine Road. <br /> Ms. Gardner questioned one neighborhood making a request that impacted other <br /> neighborhoods; and how a mathematical percentage would be addressed. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that such a tool was not measured anywhere, as <br /> became obvious throughout this TMP process; and that only tools were included <br /> for closure, but not opening up streets. <br /> Page 7 of 16 <br />