10/20/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #1: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update Chairperson Wagner inquired about the position of the City of Dayton and that of the Township of Burns. He also inquired if homes would have to be removed if the eastern- most alignment is chosen and asked about the right-of-way acquisition for the eastern alignment. Chairperson Wagner stated that Staff had been directed to solicit input from Dayton and Bums regarding their position on the location of the bridge crossing. He noted the response from Dayton and Burns; Dayton's position is that they have no position until a recommendation is made by their task force and Bums has stated that they are in favor of either alignment for the Ramsey/Dayton Mississippi River crossing. He again inquired about homes being removed. Economic Development Coordinator Gromberg stated that two alignments were drafted. Each alignment was broken down into identifying a bridge alignment, identifying the affected property, the current value of such property, the effect the bridge would have on the property value, etc. He added that with the easterly alignment, the City would need to acquire a 10-acre right-of-way which is now vacant property. With the westerly alignment, the City would have to acquire approximately 26.6 acres. He added that the number used for road construction cost was $75 per foot; therefore, the cost of the westerly alignment is estimated at $1,100,600 and the easterly alignment is estimated to cost $398,000. He continued that the only affected, developed property in the westerly alignment is the Hi- 10 Sports Center. The proposal would be to put the bridge through the property and relocate the business. The other property that would have been affected was an old farmstead and the thought was that it would be better to go through the non-conforming business and relocate it. This alignment would therefore affect one business and no homes. Chairperson Wagner stated that the Commission had seen the alignments but none had received endorsement from the consultants thus far. Steve Schwanke, RLK Associates, stated that he spent a considerable amount of time looking at what has happened in the past - 10 to 20 years ago - with regard to land use. Mr. Smith of Biko Associates reviewed the transportation part of it. A couple of issues resulted from the review. The City of Ramsey has an inadequate east/west road system and that there is an incredible amount of industrial land along Highway #10 N.W. There is not much, if any, multi-family housing within the City. He explained that aerial photos were taken which included most of the City of Ramsey and a portion of the City of Dayton to make it possible to look at the bridge issue. Alignments were drawn on sheets of acetate laid on the map which made it possible to "hammer out" different ones. He referred to the Commission's Figure #5 which is basically the same as they had seen before with a few minor changes. The concept is the same and this alignment has been dubbed the eastern alignment. There are two or three major reasons for this alignment. It is more on the eastern side of the City and is more in the area Ramsey will get to quicker, in terms of development. The Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation have a couple of criteria for development. The area needs to be in, or very close to, the MUSA. This is closer to being in it that the western area of the City. They will not fund anything that is not close to or in the MUSA. This does a good job of providing a major east/west transportation system for the City. It provides a collector for Highway #10 as it takes some of the traffic off of Highway #10 and puts it on County Road #116. The traffic on Highway #10 is becoming a real problem and this would demonstrate Ramsey's willingness to do something about that. Mr. Schwanke continued that this alignment would not take away from promoting a north/south transportation system as it will fit into it fairly well. Economic Development Commission/October 20, 1994 Page 2 of 7