Laserfiche WebLink
<br />th <br />(Clerk’s Note: At the onset of the 11 hour Commissioner Davis asked that Item <br />13.D.2 be heard prior to Item 10.) <br /> <br />There was a CONSENSUS to move Item 13.D.2. before <br />Item 10. <br /> <br />11.I.3. PUBLIC WORKS – PROS AND CONS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL <br />ND <br />AT CR512/102 AVENUE (ALTERNATIVE I) VERSUS CR <br />ST <br />512/101 AVENUE (ALTERNATIVE II) <br />County Engineer Christopher Kafer, Jr. P.E. displayed an aerial view (illustrations <br />ndst. <br />on file) of Alternative I (CR512/102 Avenue) and Alternative II (CR512/101Avenue). He <br />ndth <br />pointed out that 102 Court is the abandoned roadway, not 104 Avenue as indicated on backup, <br />page 258.A.4. <br />After several questions regarding costs by the Commissioners and the plans for <br />thst <br />104 Avenue, Commissioner Davis stated he preferred a light at 101 Avenue to utilize existing <br />arterial and collector roadways. The State Lands Division has been reconsidering the request to <br />nd <br />realign 102 Terrace to 101st Avenue; however, that land may be wetlands. Staff has the initial <br />nd <br />go-ahead for a light at 102 Avenue, which is where the commercial property owner, Mr. Ansin, <br />st <br />wants the signal for ingress and egress to his property. Staff favors 101 Avenue, Alternative II, <br />but these two issues need to be addressed. <br /> <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Davis, the Board unanimously <br />authorized staff to proceed with the design of the <br />median for CR512; approving Alternative II <br />st <br />(CR512/101 Avenue), and directed staff to negotiate <br />nd <br />with Mr. Ansin regarding not have a signal at 102 <br />20 <br />AUGUST 23, 2005 <br /> <br />