Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Deemer agreed that land uses could be modified but not the roads, therefore, <br />emphasis should be on preparing road alignment now to work with a no -bridge scenario and with a <br />bridge when it comes in. <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the skeleton of Co. Rd. #116 outlined in <br />Figure 5 was the preferred alignment to be used for all bridge scenarios. <br />Commissioner Thorud stated he was in favor of the river crossing delineated in Figure #5. <br />Commissioner LaDue suggested outlining all three alternative bridge crossings on one map, <br />although he noted that the land uses would change with each crossing. He added that he also <br />favored the river crossing delineated in Figure #5. <br />Mr. Smith advised that it would be difficult to delineate all three crossings on one map because the <br />land uses were different. <br />City Administrator Schroeder discussed the alignment of Sunwood Drive and how it would affect <br />each scenario. He also urged the Commission to narrow their choices of bridge crossings to <br />eliminate the need for purchasing and acquiring an excess of right-of-way. <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Figure #5 with a bridge crossing near <br />Bowers Drive and connecting with Co. Rd. #116 west of Armstrong Boulevard was the preferred <br />alignment, and that although the other crossings are still options, they are not to be delineated in the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />Commissioner Hendriksen objected to such an alignment because of its impact on Ramsey <br />Boulevard. <br />Mr. Schroeder suggested showing that the bridge <br />Armstrong Boulevard as it appears on the map. <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission <br />north -south route but with Co. Rd. #116, so that Co. <br />Mr. Schroeder suggested that the other scenarios <br />compare land uses. <br />crossing connects with Co. Rd. #116, not <br />that all scenarios would not connect with a <br />Rd. #116 terminates as the bridge crossing. <br />not be discarded as they could be used to <br />Mr. Smith agreed that the City might want to move the industrial closer to the bridge, stating that <br />land uses change significantly depending on where the bridge is located. <br />Mr. Schwanke summarized that the consultants would draft up the new alignment depicting a <br />couple scenarios of land use and that they would also use Figure #5 with the current crossing. He <br />went on to outline the proposed goals for a Mississippi River bridge (page 5 of memorandum dated <br />April 18, 1994). <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the proposed goals as presented. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed criteria for a Mississippi River bridge (page 6 of <br />memorandum dated April 18, 1994). <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept #1 through #4 and #6 as presented, <br />however to validate #2 they added a criteria to read "Any Mississippi River bridge crossing should <br />maximize the development potential which would arise from such bridge crossing." <br />Planning Commission/April 21, 1994 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />