My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Comprehensive Plan Update
>
Comprehensive Plan
>
Comprehensive Plan (old)
>
1990-1999
>
1995 (Approved)
>
1994 Land Use Study
>
Comprehensive Plan Update
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2024 11:57:33 AM
Creation date
8/18/2014 12:38:56 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
315
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Page 2 <br />The West bridge approach corridor can be aligned to become the extension of 116 <br />without creating a "T" intersection. This is most efficient and it will allow traffic to flow <br />into Ramsey's industrial area unimpeded. <br />There is substantial opposition to the East bridge in Dayton. Although officially <br />undecided, Dayton is investigating other alternatives and has withdrawn its support for <br />the East bridge location. The West bridge location proposed by the Planning Commission <br />supports all road alignments being considered by Dayton. <br />If County Road 116 is extended to Highway 10, including a grade separated intersection, <br />the East alternative will require an additional interchange. Cyrus Knutson, MnDOT, <br />estimated the cost of the East interchange to be $2,000,000 to $6,000,000. <br />2. SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EDC PLAN (East Bridge I,gcatio) <br />On November 18, 1994, the Economic Development Commission enumerated six criteria <br />they consider to be the benefits of the East bridge location. Many of these points were <br />incomplete or wrong. <br />This is our perspective on each of these points: <br />1. If calculated correctly the acquisition cost for the East alignment exceeds the cost <br />of the West alternative. .Tim Gronaberg, Economic -Development Coordinator <br />prepared the figures EDC used. However, He didn't use the Planning Commission <br />proposal and his comparison contains many questionable items. <br />2. Contrary to EDC's statement, the West alternative is actually closer to the <br />midpoint between Highway 101 and 169 river crossings and central to what <br />would become a major retail/commercial area. <br />3. Contrary to EDC suggestion, it's the East alignment which will have the greater <br />impact on existing development in Ramsey. The West alignment only affects <br />residential development potential. The residential zoning will be replaced by <br />significantly greater commercial development potential. XthYSATALtukwyl s d- <br />a y �li,,;ll nec/Ir�.f,. i <br />4. The East location creates a "T" intersection with 116. A "T" intersection is less <br />efficient than the Planning Commissions recommendation. EDC opposed a "T" <br />intersection at 116 in August yet they now highlight it as one of the benefits. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.