My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/03/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/03/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:50:16 PM
Creation date
7/9/2003 11:34:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/03/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The West bridge approach corridor can be aligned to become the extension of 116 <br />without creating a "T" intersection. This is most efficient and it will allow traffic to flow <br />into Ramsey's industrial area unimpeded. <br /> <br />There is substantial opposition to the East bridge in Dayton. Although officially <br />undecided, Dayton is investigating other alternatives and has withdrawn its support for <br />the East bridge location. The West bridge location proposed by the Planning Commission <br />supports all road alignments being considered by Dayton. <br /> <br />If County Road 116 is extended to Highway 10, including a grade separated intersection, <br />the East alternative will require an additional interchange. Cyrus Knutson, MnDOT, <br />estimated the cost of the East interchange to be $2,000,000 to $6,000,000. <br /> <br />2. SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EDC PLAN (East Bridge Location) <br /> <br />On November 18, 1994, the Economic Development Commission enumerated six criteria <br />they consider to be the benefits of the East bridge location. Many of these points were <br />incomplete or wrong. <br /> <br />This is our perspective on each of these points: <br /> <br />If calculated correctly the acquisition cost for the East alignment exceeds the cost <br />of the West alternative. Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinator <br />prepared the figures EDC used. However, He didn't use the Planning Commission <br />proposal and his comparison contains many questionable items. <br /> <br />Contrary to EDC's statement, the West alternative is actually closer to the <br />midpoint between Highway 101 and 169 river crossings and central to what <br />would become a major retail/commercial area. <br /> <br />Contrary to EDC suggestion, it's the East alignment which will have the greater <br />impact on existing development in Ramsey. The West alignment only affects <br />residential development potential. The residential zoning will be replaced by <br />significantly greater commercial development potential. Mayor Harden has stated <br />that Ramsey should encourage Commercial development because it pays four <br />times the tax revenue of residential development. <br /> <br />The East location creates a "T" intersection with 116. A "T" intersection is less <br />efficient than the Planning Commissions recommendation. EDC opposed a "T" <br />intersection at 116 in August yet they now highlight it as one of the benefits. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.