Laserfiche WebLink
Workahap 8. <br />Presentation and Discussion <br />of DevelopmentTeam <br />Assumptions <br />�.�,f ���ump�i�n� with General <br />Consensus <br />fr�r.haM.rrpd� �ir L.�r� �r.r <br />IFi �tl N dSYF� � tirlF � W rYl <br />Ro�i'� +i�� ri �� irwr��pr�L r �qti� <br />{!�.�i4 wqn� <br />� 4UrYAo�Yr�t • M�.v���d p�oa tiYa �c <br />���+.,��+�o���F• <br />+y�� �+y� �� � � �} +� ��N �+ I►w � <br />Ry�+W++ r'. iti +�� � r,.�`r �r �� �. <br />I��WI W <br />nS�Hi���'1r1 9G�� d1Yf <br />�+vv+�,..,..r.... rr� �..a w �qo�� �i <br />R���� <br />R4+v-�-- b i�.t�rr, <br />R��-- - -- a�¢r+o-y <br />Rti}� p�tir iraloMar r <br />R��SM �# <br />���r��irn�r� Assessmentof <br />Eliminating Twin Lakes Parkway <br />• Trip Generation <br />— Twin Lakes AUAR evaluated'worst case" scenario, <br />which included retaileast of Fairview and <br />medical/hospital uses west of Fairview <br />— Revised concepts do not include these uses in these <br />locations <br />— Compared to AUAR'worst case;' newconcepts <br />reduce new traffic generation by 43°k to approx. <br />39.000 trips per day, 3,800 at the PM peak hour <br />Workshop # 9 - <br />Analysis of Alternatives <br />Summaryof Input from Previous Workshops will be <br />Graphically Synthesized and Opportunities & Constraints <br />Visualized <br />Presentation of at least 3 Land Use Scenarios <br />. Discussionof Likes8� Dislikesof Panel <br />— ID Fealures/Concems for CarefulDesian Attentionar t�Aitiaation <br />M�ures �. <br />• Development Team Participation <br />• KIh,}�11�• �aNrct FhrE�an a.wr77: •: n <br />��kk+h+�p wlh'�`I�-' MaoAtt�unth <br />� � [�e�aD^'�+� r.�n <br />�� - F+�x �po�^ on �YetKna <br />�ia�an �17�h11�Per_.=------ <br />��xJ�ec�rnpd�� with Continued <br />Discussion <br />. Demandfor, marketabilityof, configurationof, absorptionof <br />and quality of retail uses, partiada�iythe necessity of an <br />economic engine and the nature of that engine (does it <br />have to be a'big box'?) <br />Weak demand for, possible necessityof a subsidy to <br />office uses <br />. TwinLakesParkway.lsitessential?Implicationsof <br />removing? <br />,.,�.�p �r�lirr�in�n�r Assessmentof <br />Eliminating Twin Lakes Parkway <br />• Traffic FIOW <br />— AUAR'worst case; forecastedTwin Lakes Parkway <br />and Country Road C would carry 40,300 additional <br />trips per day combined. <br />— If all this traffic were on County Road C, that road's <br />capacitywould be exceeded (thus the need for Twin <br />Lakes Parkway). <br />— The revised concepts would put approx 33,000 <br />additionaltrips perdayon CountyRoad C (assuming <br />no Twin lakes Parkway) by 2020. This volume <br />approachesthe capacityof County Road C. <br />�� <br />