Laserfiche WebLink
2 391.1 <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATS: <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate <br />February 28, 1991 <br />SUBJECT: Highway 12 Corridor <br />Atitiachioenb: A. Planning Commission Minutes 2/20/91 <br />B. Highway 12 Corridor Memo Dated 2/5/91 (Memo Only) <br />ISSUE - <br />1. Present to the Council updated information regarding he <br />development of a recommendation from the Planning Commission s <br />process regarding Highway 12. <br />2. Determine what the Council desires to do once the <br />recommendation is received. <br />INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 25, 1991 Council^they <br />requested that the Planning Commission undertake a review of the <br />Highway 12 corridor study. <br />DISCUSSION - <br />Issue #1 - Planning Commission Recommendation - In response to <br />tHe'~Co1SncTl*s request the Planning Commission set up three <br />meetings for review of the corridor information which are as: <br />1. Review of information to date - February 6th <br />2. Public informational discussion - February 20th <br />3. Development of a recommendation — February 27th <br />A draft of the recommendation based on the Planning Commission <br />conceptual direction at the 2/27/91 meeting will <br />the Planning Commission at its 3/18/91 meeting for adoption. The <br />Planning Commssion will review the fj-nal ^^a^t o. <br />recommendation at their regular meeting, March 18th. The final <br />draft will be sent to Council on Tuesday, March 19th. <br />One of the issues .hat has been problematic during the Highway 12 <br />review process has been the connotations of the terms: <br />No build <br />Expressway i <br />Freeway <br />Because of this it may be more fruitful to avoid using such terms <br />and^as an alternative focus the discussion on the following