Laserfiche WebLink
Terry Hendri~ksen, 15631 Ramsey Boulevard N.W., Ramsey, stated that the Planning <br />Commission ~chose the alignment shown in //7 (westerly alignment) to avoid a "T" <br />intersection arid the traffic congestion. <br />Chairperson Wagner stated that everything is centering on what bridge alignment we would <br />prefer becaus~ it would change some of the land use. The County already has possession <br />of the right-o~f-way for the eastern alignment. The City will have a fair amount of <br />development,i He stated he agrees with the consultants, the road should be in a more <br />easterly posit'mn of the City and stated that he is still very much in favor of the easterly <br />alignment. ~ <br /> <br />Commissioner' McGhee stated that the easterly alignment would only require 10 acres of <br />land to be acquired for the right-of-way as opposed to 26 acres for the westerly alignment. <br /> <br />Cormnissione~ Ullen stated that the easterly alignment costs only $398,000 as opposed to <br />$1 million a~ld that is a significant difference. She added that the City has hired <br />professional c~onsultants for their opinion and she felt the Commission should take their <br />recommendatibns. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGhee commented that if the Cities of Dayton and Ramsey reach an <br />agreement on me alignment, it will be easier to deal with MnDOT. <br /> <br />Chairperson ,Wagner reiterated that the City of Dayton does not have a position and <br />suggested that Ramsey has to make a decision based on what is best for the City of <br />Ramsey. ~ <br /> <br />Commissione~ Kent stated that it appears the Economic Development Commission would <br />prefer the easterly alignment but as far as land uses, both plans are very similar. He felt <br />there is no reag. on both alternatives couldn't be submitted to the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissione~ Ullen stated that the bridge could impact residential development. If the <br />Economic De'~elopment Commission recommends this area as residential, then the impact <br />to that propert~t value has to be looked at also. <br /> <br />Commissioner. Kent reiterated that the Commission could actually recommend that the <br />Planning Commission and the City Council look at both altematives. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ullen stated that the reasons for choosing the alternative should be <br />documented. ~ <br /> <br />Commissioner Stafki stated that no one seems to be interested in backing the westerly <br />alignment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kent suggested that the easterly alternative is a more logical choice and <br />agreed that the~rreasons for choice should be documented. <br /> <br />Chairperson W. agner inquired if it was a consensus that the Commission recommend that <br />easterly alignment and added that it appears to be pretty much the same alignment the <br />Commission agreed upon at the last meeting. <br /> <br />Motion by Cqmmissioner S tafki and seconded by Commissioner Ullen to present the <br />alignment shown in Figure 7B (easterly alignment) as the unanimous decision. <br /> <br />E~Conomic Development Commission/October 20, 1994 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />