Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Deemer stated he still felt that the Economic Development Commission would <br />benefit from the i~formation from the City of Dayton. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner Marquart to submit both <br />recommendatior~ (Figure 7 [Planning Commission] and Figure 7B [Economic Development <br />Commission]) al~, ng with their options to City Council for review. <br /> <br />Further Discuss!on: Commissioner Stafki stated he felt that the concerns of the Economic <br />Development C ~mmission were not depicted on any of the maps, including Figure 7B. <br />Commissioner K mt noted that Figure 7 doesn't show a north-south corridor, however Figure 7B <br />shows a dead-em Chairperson Bawden felt these differences should be resolved before going to <br />City Council. H~ suggested getting the background information from Dayton for the Economic <br />Development Cdmmission to review; otherwise, he felt only Figure 7 should be submitted after <br />allowing the Ecc[nomic Development Commission to color in the land uses. Chairperson Kent <br />objected to Chairperson Bawden's suggestion because Figure 7 does not depict a north-south <br />corridor. Comm[jssioner Deemer could see no benefit to Ramsey in allowing the traffic to pass <br />through to anothe[r city. <br /> <br />Motion carried, iVoting Yes: Commissioners Holland, Marquart, Wagner, Kent, Stafki, and <br />Ullen. Voting No: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Hendriksen, and Terry. <br />Absent: CommiJ~;ioners LaDue, Thorud, McGhee, and Nelson. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen stated that if the City Council found it essential to have a north-south <br />road, then they' vould need to see what is available---Ramsey Boulevard N.W., which is not <br />suitable for a no 'th-south collector due to its curving configuration. He noted that Armstrong <br />Boulevard was n ore suitable, and it serves Bums Township. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bar'den inquired about the next step in this proc. ess. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated ithat this will go to City Council for their decision, and the Planning Commission <br />will schedule thePublic hearing. She noted that the Economic Development Commission would <br />like to hold a join public hearing. <br /> <br />Chairperson Ban rten noted that if both proposals are sent to City Council and they select one, the <br />land use is still u in the air. <br /> <br />Mr. Gromberg s~ ggested selecting land uses on Figure 4 through Figure 7B. <br /> <br />Steven Schwank~ ;, RLK Associates, inquired whether the Commissions were sending forward to <br />City Council bott the land use and transportation plans depicted on FigUre 7 and FigUre 7B. <br /> <br />Chairperson Ba¢~len felt it was their intention to submit both. <br /> <br />Motion by Cornrlaissioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Deemer to reconsider the <br />previous motion.[ <br /> <br />Motion carried.[ Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, commissioners Hendriksen, Deemer, <br />Holland, Terry, ~nd Wagner. Voting No: Commissioner Ullen. Abstain: Commissioners Kent, <br />Marquart, and StOl. Absent: Commissioners LaDue, Thorud, McGhee, and Nelson. <br /> <br />Motion by Cornr~ issioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Terry to forward to City <br />Council the traasportatio,n plan depicted in Figure 7 and the land uses from the Economic <br />Development Co~mission s Figure 7B. <br /> <br />PC/EDC/September 15, 1994 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />