1995 Working Papers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 31, 1995 Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator ~ Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinatdc;fd Comprehensive Plan As you are aware, the City has received input from three members of the Planning Commission subcommittee working on the Comprehensive Plan update. I have reviewed the materials that they have submitted and at your request submit the following responses to the statements contained within these materials. Mr. Bawden's Memo of May 19. 1995 It appears Mr. Bawden's concerns stem from the inability of the Planning Commission and EDC to agree on one Comprehensive Plan concept and frustrations revolving around this. The EDC used Figure 5 (attached), which had been prepared by the Planning Commission and which was presented at the July 6, 1994 joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and EDC. This figure was used by the EDC to develop its recommended land uses, which were then discussed by both the Planning Commission and EDC at their joint meeting on September 15, 1994. At this meeting, Planning Commission member Deemer stated that the westerly alignment was the preferred alignment by the City of Dayton, and Planning Commission member Hendriksen stated that the westerly alignment was also preferred by Burns Township. Based upon this new information, Planning Commission member Deemer made a motion to table forwarding any recommendation to the City Council until the EDC could review this new information. The motion carried 7 to 1, with one abstention. At the direction of the EDC, I contacted Burns Township and the City of Dayton regarding their preferred bridge alignments. Both replied that they did not currently have a preference as to the bridge location. After a discussion of the figure showing the easterly alignment at the October 20 meeting, the EDC unanimously recommended that it be sent to the City Council as their recommendation. This figure later became known as Figure 8 (attached). It appears that both the Commissions arrived at their plan preferences based upon their individual concerns and discussions. Mr. Hendriksen's Memo dated May 13. 1995 Mr. Hendriksen indicates that the memo generated comparing the costs of the proposed bridge alignments was in error, in that the wrong alignments are shown for the westerly alignment of the proposed bridge. Attached is a copy of the alignments used for the comparison, and a copy of Figure 7 (attached), which was the formally approved copy by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1994, and again on December 6, 1994. The information that was provided for the cost comparison was based upon the relocation costs of three businesses to the east of the proposed bridge crossing. As the copy of the memo states, property values for all locations were derived from the Anoka County tax records. The estimated costs for business relocations were based upon a verbal discussion with Mr. Storm. He was provided with a description of the businesses and facilities and, as the memo states, a formal appraisal of the costs would cost $100 - $200. From Mr. Hendriksen's previously supplied information, it appears that he is discussing the relocation of Skelgas. The Skelgas facility is not