Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Deemer stated he still felt that the Economic Development Commission would <br />benefit from the information from the City of Dayton. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner Marquart to submit both <br />recommendations (Figure 7 [Planning Commission] and Figure 7B [Economic Development <br />Commission]) along with their options to City Council for review. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Stafki stated he felt that the concerns of the Economic <br />Development Commission were not depicted on any of the maps, including Figure 7B. <br />Commissioner Kent noted that Figure 7 doesn't show a north-south corridor, however Figure 7B <br />shows a dead-end. Chairperson Bawden felt these differences should be resolved before going to <br />City Council. He suggested getting the background information from Dayton for the Economic <br />Development Commission to review; otherwise, he felt only Figure 7 should be submitted after <br />allowing the Economic Development Commission to color in the land uses. Chairperson Kent <br />objected to Chairperson Bawden's suggestion because Figure 7 does not depict a north-south <br />corridor. Commissioner Deemer could see no benefit to Ramsey in allowing the traffic to pass <br />through to another city. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Commissioners Holland, Marquart, Wagner, Kent, Stafki, and <br />Ullen. Voting No: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Hendriksen, and Terry. <br />Absent: Commissioners LaDue, Thorud, McGhee, and Nelson. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen stated that if the City Council found it essential to have a north-south <br />road, then they would need to see what is available---Ramsey Boulevard N.W., which is not <br />suitable for a north-south collector due to its curving configuration. He noted that Armstrong <br />Boulevard was more suitable, and it serves Bums Township. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden inquired about the next step in this process. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated that this will go to City Council for their decision, and the Planning Commission <br />will schedule:the public hearing. She noted that the Economic Development Commission would <br />like to hold a joint public hearing. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden noted that if both proposals are sent to City Council and they select one, the <br />land use is still up in the air. <br /> <br />Mr. Gromberg suggested selecting land uses on Figure 4 through Figure 7B. <br /> <br />Steven Schwanke, RLK Associates, inquired whether the Commissions were sending forward to <br />City Council both the land use and transportation plans depicted on Figure 7 and Figure 7B. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden felt it was their intention to submit both. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Deemer to reconsider the <br />previous motion. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Hendriksen, Deemer, <br />Holland, Terry, and Wagner. Voting No: Commissioner Ullen. Abstain: Commissioners Kent, <br />Marquart, and Stafki. Absent: Commissioners LaDue, Thorud, McGhee, and Nelson. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Terry to forward to City <br />Council the ~ransportation plan depicted in Figure 7 and the land uses from the Economic <br />Development Commission's Figure 7B. <br /> <br />PC/EDC/September 15, 1994 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />