Laserfiche WebLink
November 30, 1994 <br /> <br />To: Planning Commission <br /> <br />From: Terry Hendriksen <br /> <br />Subject: EDC Memorandum, November 18, 1994 <br /> <br />The EDC recently distributed a memo which included six justifications for selecting the <br />East bridge alternative. I believe these points are flawed and the City Council would <br />benefit from another perspective. I have drafted the following point by point response for <br />your consideration at the December meeting: <br /> <br />The right-of-way acquisition cost used by EDC addressed the cost of a xxx foot wide <br />corridor and selectively ignores the costs associated with condemnation / relocation of <br />businesses impacted or displaced by the Easterly alignment. The Planning <br />Commissions review included condemnation & relocation costs that would probably <br />result from each alternative. We determined acquisition cost for the East alignment <br />will far exceed the West right-of-way acquisition costs. <br /> <br />2. The West alternative is actually closer to the midpoint between the highway ]0l river <br /> crossing in Elk River and the highway 169 river crossing in Anoka. <br /> <br />Contrary to EDC's statement, the East alignment will have significantly greater impact <br />on existing development in Ramsey. The West alignment would only affect residential <br />development potential South of highway 10. Residential development potential will be <br />replaced by significantly greater commercial development potential. According to <br />Mayor elect Harden Commercial development is a much higher land use and pays four <br />times the tax revenue of residential development. The West alternative will create jobs, <br />the East alternative wilt result in a net loss of jobs (displacement of current business <br />not offset by new business development). <br /> <br />The Easterly location creates a "T" intersection with l 16. Most traffic planners would <br />consider this confi~m.~rafion less efficient than the Planning Commissions <br />recommendation. EDC opposed the creation of a "T" intersection at l 16 as recently as <br />August but is now calling it a benefit. <br /> <br />EDC claims surrounding communities, primarily Dayton, are undecided. Actually the <br />citizens of Dax'ton oppose the East alignment and Da>~on has withdrawn its support <br />for the East location. I believe Dayton will ultimately indicate a preference for an <br />alignment consistent with the West alternative. <br /> <br />The West alignment wilt undoubtedly result in significant commercial development <br />potential at its intersection with highway 10. The resulting Commercial development <br />will see the corridor as a benefit not a disruption. <br /> <br /> <br />