Minutes - Planning Commission - 05/19/1994 - Special Meeting

Home

Acting Chairperson Hendriksen stated he recollected that the Commission decided they did not want the eastern bridge option depicted as an option. Mr. Schroeder stated that he recalled that the eastern bridge was not preferred but the consensus was to keep it in the study at this point for comparison purposes. Commissioner Deemer pointed out that the railroad crossing at Puma Street is non-existent. City Administrator Schroeder noted that the City may want to consider the need for another railroad crossing in the future. Commissioner Deemer stated that the railroad will not consider another crossing unless it is above grade. Acting Chairperson commented that it would be advantageous to the City's commercial area to have that crossing, and the City will have to consider it in the future. Mr. Smyser explained that Figure 6, Western Bridge Alignment, Alternative gl, was the Commission's preferred bridge option. He described Figure g7, Western Bridge Alignment, Alternative/f2, as the consultants' suggested alternative. He also discussed and compared the land uses. He advised that the traffic issue of where the congestion is going to be coming off the bridge should be considered, noting that for this reason, the Armstrong Boulevard connection to Highway gl0 was eliminated in Figure 6. Commissioner Deemer stated he would rather give up the traffic light at Armstrong and Highway gl0, rather than eliminate the connection altogether and losing the railroad crossing. He pointed out that there was no traffic light at that intersection at present although it is on the priority list. Mr. Smyser noted that the consultants will keep Armstrong Boulevard extending out to Highway glO. Mr. Smyser inquired whether the Commission wanted the eastern bridge option (Figure 5) omitted. Acting Chairperson Hendriksen and Commissioner Deemer were in favor, however Commissioner LaDue stated he thinks it makes sense to give City Council some options. Commissioner Holland felt that by deleting Figure g5, City Council will want to see it because they will see it discussed in the minutes. Mr. Smith mentioned keeping in mind that when the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) does their study, they are going to look at several alternatives for comparison, and inquired whether the City would like to be the one making those alternatives for MnDOT. He suggested using the no bridge and one other alignment option besides the Commission's preferred western bridge crossing. Acting Chairperson Hendriksen advised that the City of Dayton is looking at three alternatives and that the western alignment satisfies all three alternatives. He added that the eastern route has less potential for commercial because it crosses at the park. The Commission was polled, and Acting Chairperson Hendriksen and Commissioners Deemer and Terry were in favor of Figure 6 as the preferred bridge option, deleting Figure 5, and showing Figure 7 as an alternative option; Commissioners Holland and LaDue were in favor of Figure 6 as the preferred option and submitting both Figures 5 and 7 for review. Planning Commission/May 19, 1994 Page 3 of 6