Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.- <br /><.... ..:"0 <br /> <br />~/ <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DAlE: January 13, 1995 <br /> <br />W: Ramsey City Council <br /> <br />CC: Economic Development Commissioner <br />Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br />Steven Jankowski, City Engineer <br />Sylvia Frolik, Zoning Administrator <br />James Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinator <br /> <br />FROM: Ramsey Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee <br />(Commissioners Bawden, Deemer, and Hendriksen) <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Land U seffransportation Plan Update <br /> <br />The City Council asked the Planning Commission to update the Land Use and Transportation <br />elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission's recommendation is complete, however, <br />the location selected for the Mississippi River bridge is controversial, and the Economic <br />Development Commission has developed an alternative plan. <br /> <br />This memorandum will focus on the shortcomings of the Economic Development Commission <br />(EDC) plan and errors in the December 12, 1994 report from Jim Gromberg, Economic <br />Development Coordinator. <br /> <br />SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EDC PLAN (East Brid~e Location) <br /> <br />On November 18, 1994, the EDC enumerated six criteria they consider to be the benefits of the <br />east bridge location. <br /> <br />This is our perspective on each of these points: <br /> <br />1. If calculated correctly, the acquisition cost for the east alignment exceeds the cost of the <br />west alternative. Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinator, prepared the figures <br />EDC used. However, he didn't use the Planning Commission proposal, and his <br />comparison contains many inaccurate costs and comparisons. <br /> <br />2. In comparing the east and west alternatives, the west alternative is actually closer to the <br />midpoint between Highway #101 and Highway #169 river crossings and central to what <br />would become a major retail/commercial area. <br /> <br />3. The east alignment will have the greater impact on existin~ development in Ramsey. The <br />west alignment only affects residential development potential. The potential residential <br />zoning will be replaced by significantly greater commercial development potential. Ramsey <br />should encourage commercial development because it pays four times the tax revenue of <br />residential development. <br /> <br />4. The east location creates a "T" intersection with C.R. #116. A "T" intersection is less <br />efficient than the Planning Commission's recommendation. EDC opposed a "T" <br />intersection at C.R. #116 in August, yet they now highlight it as one of the benefits. <br /> <br />Planning Subcommittee Memo to Council/January 13, 1995 <br />Page 1 of 3 <br />