Laserfiche WebLink
Commission Kent expressed concern about these streets being able to handle the increase in <br />traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated that MnDOT 'also takes care of arterial street improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwanke stated that they showed the bridge connection with the north and south but <br />the Planning Commission was concerned about the alignment of the bridge with County <br />Road #56 so moving from that stage to this stage was an acceptable comparison - T- <br />intersection. He added that it is possible that when this plan goes into the next phase, it <br />could get modified. MnDOT may say you have to hook up with a north/south road. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated that one advantage of this alignment is it gives the City an option to go <br />north on Armstrong or on Ramsey Boulevard, etc. It cuts down on the circuity of the <br />traffic flow. He explained there is a formula that allows you to rate different road routes <br />with regard to a person's travel time, etc. He reported that he does not see this alternative <br />as any different in terms of getting to where you want to go. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stafki stated that the land acquisition cost will be less on the easterly <br />alignment but the cost for elevating the road has not been figured in. <br /> <br />Chairperson Wagner stated that the road would have to be elevated for either alignment. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith commented that maybe these figures did not have to be considered because this <br />plan is so far in the future. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ullen stated that even though this is a plan for the future, cost absolutely has <br />to be considered. She continued that the easterly alignment would head the route toward an <br />area where another bridge is being proposed over the Rum River. It would seem like the <br />Met Council would look at this as the natural way to go. It's a growing area and this <br />would be the natural traffic flow. MnDOT would want a bridge built with connections to <br />where people would want to go. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGhee inquired if MnDOT does a Scoping Study and presents <br />alternatives, would the City ask them to provide a package deal also - the bridge and an <br />arterial support system to which Mr. Smith stated yes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stafld stated he would like to see the Commission "get through" this bridge <br />issue and added that the decisions they make right now do not really matter anyway. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwanke stated that the Commission may have gotten the wrong impression and that <br />he did not want them to think that they are going through this for nothing. He stated there <br />are things that Ramsey can do now to prepare for the anticipated bridge crossing. If <br />nothing would be done at this stage, it's impossible to tell where the bridge may end up <br />being constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith agreed that it makes sense for Ramsey to start planning out the kinds of land <br />uses not impacted by the bridge. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ullen suggested that some of that planning has already been done. Anoka <br />County already owns some of the land in preparation of the bridge and she felt that Ramsey <br />needs to make a decision. <br /> <br />Chairperson Wagner inquired which alignment the Planning Commission chose. <br /> <br />Economic Development Commission/October 20, 1994 <br /> Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />