12/01/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Bill Smith, re~esenting Biko Associates, advised that one of Dayton's main concerns was that they did not want fto interrupt the residential uses along County Road #121; the Elm Creek Park Reserve was not ~[s important as the residential uses. He also stated that Dayton was adamant about not allowing[ the bridge to dead-end and circle through the City of Dayton; they wanted a straight shot dow~to Trunk Highway #610. Commissioner He~driksen discussed how the easterly bridge corridor currently shown on maps did not receive a ~oper public hearing, yet became a part of the City of Ramsey's Comprehensive Plan, and he stateS, that the "foundation is very sandy and not set in concrete." Commissioner Dei~mer advised that the City of Dayton did not want the bridge to connect with an existing road, and that,~t~.is still the. ir preferred alignment. Commissioner Ull~n felt that if the City of Dayton is willing to do that for their citizens, then the City of Ramsey sl!buld also do such. Commissioner M~quart stated that the City of Ramsey is going to have to look at what's best for the City of Ramse¥, as the City of Dayton has to look at what's best for the City of Dayton. Commissioner Holland noted that it was a major issue that the Plannin, g Commission did not want to "shove somethi0g down another City's throat that they do not want.' Commissioner D~mer concurred that the Planning Commission's intent was to find something that would accomrhodate all situations. [ Commissioner He~adriksen further stated that the Planning Commission attempted to select a road skeleton that would accommodate a wide range of options. The Planning Commission felt the bridge should firsl[ accommodate Highway #10, and if one did not want to access Highway #10, they could swing,east onto County Road #116 to access the commercial and industrial area. Commissioner HeOdriksen commented that the bridge will impact somebody wherever it is located. [ , Commissioner K~t inquired where Ramsey s current Transportation Plan sits in authority, and whether the City o~' Dayton recognizes it or has thrown it out. Commissioner He[ndriksen advised that it is Ramsey's official document and is recognized by Anoka County, bu[ is most likely not recognized in State planning documents. Chairperson Bawglen suggested using Figure 7 and plugging in the Economic Development Commission's re~-ommended land uses. He inquired whether the Economic Development Commission had ~y objections with the west well field. City Engineer Janl~owsld explained why the particular field was chosen, but stated that it could be moved. He advisqd that he hasn't done borings or tests but based the location on the bedrock map. He felt it wouldn'tlmake a difference to what the land use is as long as the City reserves parcels in that area for 4-5 w~lls that are 7-800 feet apart. Chairperson Baw~en inquired whether'wells would be needed in the northern part of the city if expansion occurs ~here. Mr. Jankowski sta!ed that wells would be needed if expansion occurs in that area. Chairperson Bawden summarized that the Commissions should not be overly concerned with the well field at this p~int. PC/EDC/Septemberpage 3 of 715, 1994