Agenda - Council - 04/27/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I -2- systems on TH 10 because the ramps would all have to be located on the south side of TH 10 to avoid interference with the BNSF Railroad. These ramp takings would be similar to or larger than that proposed at the Diamond Sports Center when that alignment was being considered. A rough alignment is shown on the attached aerial photograph, certainly not good enough for engineering purposes, but for planning future fight-of-ways it may be adequate. Note that the most easterly right-of-way line has major impacts on the development east of Llama Street NW and south of TH 10 & 169. Once the selection of this site is confirmed, I would suggest that an actual mathematical alignment be completed through this area. Once the alignment is more firm, a meeting between Mn/DOT, Anoka County, Hennepin County, the City of Dayton, and the City of Ramsey, should be held to discuss the alignment. Issues regarding the ownership of the fiver c. rossing need to be discussed as well as the access to TH 10 which I would think is dedicated in *.his area. Alternatives such as the closure of the Armstrong Boulevard access to TH 10 and the Puma Street NW access to TH 10 could be beneficial in these discussions. I am sure that the BNSF Railroad would be happy to see both of these crossings closed as well. This could be accomplished by cul-de-sacs and a development of a supporting street system north of TH 10. In any event, this information should get you past the request for a building permit on the north piece of Hy-10 Ramsey Second Addition with some level of comfort. The site plan you submitted for the property in the north half of Lot 1 Hy-10 Ramsey Second Addition, is problematic in that the only access for Lot 1 of Hy-10 Ramsey Second Addition appears to be the proposed alignment of CR 116. While the County has no current plans for extension of CR 116 through this area, it appears as though the City is interested in moving that direction and I am sure that the County would be cooperating in that effort. The good part is that the properties are fairly long from east to west and that access could be moved as far as possible from the intersection of Armstrong Boulevard and CR 116. If in fact Armstrong Boulevard is detached from TH 10 on the south end of this, the predominant movement at this intersection may be eastbound to northbound which would require channelization of that intersection and a fairly lengthy left turn phase. This would make access located too close to Armstrong Boulevard right- in/right-out and would also be problematic in that the predominant morning time movement may be from southbound Armstrong Boulevard to westbound proposed CR 116. From the parcel currently being considered for development, it appears as though drainage could be toward the wetland located in the northeast comer of that property, however, onsite temporary ponding to remove solids might be necessary prior to discharge to the wetland. Depending on the amount of impervious surface being developed as part of this project, a future outlet for the wetland in the northeast comer of the lot may be necessary.