Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. McBride advised there will be significant environmental issue related to the County Park. <br />There is the possibility of land swaps, which will not be insurmountable if the County is on <br />board as a willing partner. <br /> <br />TH I 0 I Armstrong Boulevard Future River Crossing System Interchange - Alternative C I, C2 <br />and C3, an unofficial recommendation for Alternative Cl, with further study needed. <br /> <br />Mr. McBride indicated this Study made assumptions on a future 169 route all the way to 1-94. <br />This area is complicated because there will be system moves as well as local moves. In addition <br />to the interchange, suggestions were made with several iterations of how to connect the land on <br />the south side of Highway 10 with possible underpasses, overpasses and bridge connections. An <br />issue of interest is the need to connect the frontage road all the way through. A couple of <br />iterations were studied, but none of them will be easy. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle indicated Council is being requested to consider the two recommendations for the <br />Sunfish Lake and Ramsey Boulevards intersections, which are included in the City's plan to <br />move forward into Phase 2 for additional work. Further study is needed regarding the <br />THIO/Armstrong Boulevard future river crossing system interchange. She indicated the City of <br />Elk River was pleased to see the consideration for the connection to the north, as it works in <br />tandem with what they are studying. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Nelson noted it appears the Brockton Interchange is proceeding. She <br />inquired about the position of Dayton regarding the future river crossing. <br /> <br />Elwyn Tinklenberg, The Tinklenberg Group, indicated the City of Dayton has been adamant in <br />pushing the western alignment following the Brockton Lane route to the south. There are some <br />other alignments that have been considered, one being more central straight through the <br />community. Dayton is adamantly opposed to that alignment, as well as an alignment that would <br />be more to the east and would need to cross Elm Creek Park. There have been conversations <br />with the Three Rivers Park District with the thought that this route may be of interest to them in <br />relation to a new entrance to the park. The Park District has indicated they would be open to <br />discussions, but they have the entrances they would like to the park from the south and the east <br />and do not see that as an issue for them. Mr. Tinklenberg advised at this point the other thing <br />that fed into this discussion was questions from MnDOT about whether this crossing is really a <br />state highway. MnDOT has indicated there are already two state highways in this area with <br />Highways 101 and 169, and they do not think there is a need for another state highway between <br />the two. An argument has been made against this regarding a new alignment for 169. At this <br />point, the most recent conversations he has heard at MnDOT has been that they do not see this as <br />a necessary state highway and it is more likely to be a county road, which would mean a <br />different level of service. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look indicated Councilmember Dehen and he were informed by a Dayton <br />Councilmember that there is about 90 to 95% consensus that the City of Dayton does not see a <br />benefit to them with the river crossing. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / February 20, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br />