Agenda - Council - 04/27/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PaEe - 2 - either - · ' .,tra~gh~ east or northeastv:ard. The reasons for this choice arc as follous: i) This s~Le does not directly impact river frontage land that alternative [/3a docs.' 3a will prohibit future use of this valu~h!e river frontaze area. 2) The site proposal does not bisect ooen space area as in a!ternativc 3) The site would soan river only once which would create orobable cost savings over aitcrnative sites //2 or ~) The site proposal would impact less prime ag land thzu~. a!terna- 5) The proposed site docs not ir:,pac6 existing wetland areas as .!ensive3y as ::lte~native sitea #2 o:- ~,) ~onnection with Jct. o~' CSAH d~5 and STH #4? is a good location £or tra££ic ~o di££n~e north and west. The Board recommends that this suggested proposal be given more he .... we consideration. Our second choice will remain with alternative ~Th, for these reasons: 1] T* ~S the least, deve!or~ed'and uould cause less LnDact on =~- isting development, and facilities (Anoke },~h School ins Center). This we feel is an extremely important point in relation to projec~ cost a~;'d soil erosion factors. 2) Shorter bridge span across river which would create a 5rohable cost ' 3) in relation to ~horter bridge span~ the occurrence of unavoid- able erosion and sedimentation to the river might be appreciably less. 4) With alternative ~&, there ~il! be 'little or no imoact on is:in3 wetlands. 5) Connection with Jet of CSA}{ #5 and STH #&7 is a good location for traffic to diffuse to points north and west. ..6) Land use plans can be more readily adapted to the new road ar~ bridge due to virtual lack of existing development and facilities at present. The opposite would be necessary if other alternatives are useS. The environmental assessment indicates proposing alternative ~. We fee! the adverse impact is greater with alternative ~3 than with aZternative $& or the new proposed site area. Some reasons are: f) More £1ood plain and river encroachment with ~3 requiring longer brid,se svan~. 2) The close proximity to the school and its facilities wif~,'l be a disturbing distraction despite the roadway being constructed 6 feet below grade. 3) Although #g bisects the open space area, this factor limit the comprehensive use of this area. Both areas of the open space wo~d bc larte enough,to be functional. Access across the highway would he hi ne.deztrian bridge as in #3.