Laserfiche WebLink
General Assessmentof Comments <br />• Concepts 1& 2 by far outpace the general interest <br />and positive interest of concepts 3& 4. <br />• The only major difference between Concepts 1& 2 <br />is the presence/absence of the parkway, and this <br />one item led to the differences in positive and <br />negative comments between the two. <br />• In short, with minor alterations, the panel prefers <br />the residential/retail mix and arrangement shown in <br />concepts 1& 2, and would prefer NOT having Twin <br />Lakes Parkway. <br />Process <br />SRF Consulting Group was provided <br />revisions of concept 1(with parkway) and <br />concept 2 (without continuous parkway) <br />from the previous meeting <br />They have performed a more detailed <br />traffic analysis of these master plan <br />concepts, considering both roadway <br />alignments. <br />Analysis <br />• Fromatransportationitrafficperspective, <br />Concept 1 (continuous parkway) provides <br />benefits <br />—Would reducetraffic on County Road C <br />Assessmentof Twin Lakes <br />Parkway <br />Analysis <br />• SRFdidnotfindanysignificantoperational <br />problems with concept 2 (non-continuous <br />roadway). <br />— Due to reduction (poterrtially 50%) in generated trips <br />— Due to changes in land use fi'om original analysis <br />• With the "offset roadway" the internal system will <br />serve primarily local trips. <br />Analysis: Ramp Modifications <br />Any Interstate Highway ramp <br />modifications require an Interstate Access <br />Modification Request (IAMR). <br />IAMR process has become more difficult <br />in past few years <br />If the modification is seen as a"driveway," <br />it may be more difficult still.. . <br />