04/04/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

been recently mended and includes the proposed Mississippi River Bridge crossing_ a: the Rum River Bridge crossing scheduled to be completed in late 1991. City Staff meeting with Anoka County on March 20 to review right-of-way alignment for the Mississippi River Bridge crossing. Mr. Don Greenberg inquired ff there has been any further consideration given to realigning County Rd. #83 to run straight north from about ] 64th and intersect Count)' Rd. #5; Bnrns is planning their development around such an alignment. Mr. Raatikka replied that the matter will have to be considered as soon as possible because there is development planned in the vet3' near future that could prohibit such an alignment for Ct>,. Rd. #83. Councilmember Peterson suggested that a Park & Ride be developed on that part of C~y. Rd. #116 that will be severed by the new 116 alignment. Mr. Hanley noted that the current mill rate in Ramsey is approximately .38 and would increase to 3.7 if Ramsey were to be a part of the Transit System. ]',.ir. Raatildca proceeded to review planned sen, ices roads in Ramsey. Mr. Raatikka no~cd that the Hwy. #10 Corridor Study recommends control of accesses onto Hv,.v. #]0. In thc 2.56 mile stretch along Hwy. #10, there are 53 private access points and l l media:; crossings. Mn/DOT wants these accesses eventually eliminated and one way is through frontage roads. Mr. Raafikka stated that the City acquires all the frontage road right-of-way it can during platting and requires no construction of structures in the proposed frontage road right-of-way on site plans. Fir. Jim Martin - Union Terrace Lane - Plymouth - Inquired if the State is going to pay for the frontage roads if they eliminate the accesses onto Hwy. # l 0. iNir. Raatikka replied that Ramsey is attempting to preserve right~of-ways for frontage roads; the State will have to provide funding for ahemate accesses onto Hwy. #10 when existing accesses are closed. Mr. Jim Martin - Noted that the frontage road on the south side of Hwy. #I0 has about a 300 foot setback and inquired ff that ali~ment is set. Mn Raatikka replied that the 300 foot setback is to allow for stacking space and prevent gl~e from headlights onto Hwy. #10; development will dictate the exast tocarion of frontage road on the south side of Hwy. -g. 10. Mr. Raatil4:a then initiated a discussion regarding street right-of-way widths, iN~-. Raatikt:a stated that the current ordinance rem. uires 150 feet for thoroughfares, 80 feet for collector streets, 66 feet for minor streets and service roads and 65 feet for cut-de-sacs. Developers are requesting that the city decrease the minor street fight-of-way requirements in urban areas to 60 feet. /~ir. Raatikka also requested a consensus on whether or not sidewalks should be required in urban areas. The consensus of those present was to not require sidewalks in urban areas as they do present maintenance and liabiliry problems. iNCr. Hartley noted that nmwow streets provide less room for pedes~s and create a need for off-street parking, which is an enforcement problem. CiD, Council/Planning & Zoning/Park & Recreation/Econon'fic Development Page 2 of 3~'Iarch 15, 1989