My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/01/1998
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/01/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:26:24 PM
Creation date
6/12/2003 2:32:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/01/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
View images
View plain text
Ben J. Deemer, 14501 Sunfish Lake Boulevard NW - "I have continually objected to the north <br />and westerly extension of CSAH #116 beyond CSAH #83 in Ramsey. The county very recently <br />had that road classified as Minor Arterial "A", in there presentations to Ramsey. This would put <br />Vehicle movements at about 15,000 per period. I have always advocated that CSAH #116 <br />should make a junction with US 10/169 as soon after crossing CASH [sic] #83 as possible, and <br />that new intersection should be grade separation of both the BNSF tracks and US 10/169. That <br />junction should be as close to the western boundary of Shorewood RV location as possible, and <br />Puma Street Alignment Does not meet that criteria. Reference Page 56 of Nov 9, 1998 Draft. <br />The reasoning given to push this westerly is the MNDOT requirement for separation of <br />intersections. This is MNDOT's restriction, and does not fit Ramsey's needs very well. <br />Reference Page 27, Nov. 9, 1998 draft, titled future land use. I suggest that the transportation <br />element illustrated on this page is more of what will suit Ramsey' needs in the future based <br />somewhat, but not entirely on the following reason's: 1. It is tentatively proposed that US10/169 <br />be upgrade to freeway (limited access) sometime in the future. This will create the need to <br />reconstruct all 3 CSAH roads that intersect US 10/169. 2. Page 27 probably illustrates what will <br />happen when 2 of those CSAH roads (83 and 56) are terminated at other than US 10/169. <br />3. Given this termination of CSAH 83's intersection the need for the NEW intersection to be <br />pushed west to PUMA St., to accommodate an intersection separation with 83 is eliminated. 4. It <br />would meet the separation requirement with the other New Intersection that is illustrated in <br />Figure 10. 5. It would accommodate a more nearly straight line to the Mississippi River if this <br />western location is chosen for the Proposed river crossing. 6. The eastern Crossing/Intersection <br />could exist also, and this would greatly accommodate the planning for any future Mississippi <br />River bridge, by the city proposing that which would accommodate either bridge location, and <br />allowing development in the City to continue based on this. 7. Using the 20/20 hindsight <br />criteria, I am able to conclude several things. The previous North metro bridge study, in about <br />the 1984/1986 era, concluded that Mississippi river bridges are about 20 to 25 years in planning. <br />The 610 bridge was under construction at the time and was not a location of choice. That the <br />bridge built because of that study which included all locations from north of 1694 to OLD #1 in <br />Elk River, was the second span for CSAH #101. That the next span over the Mississippi River <br />will be the second span for #610, this is a conclusion but, look at the reality of it with the current <br />construction of#610 through Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. That makes the Next Bridge over <br />the Mississippi River the one in a RAMSEY/DAYTON location if all things are in place, and the <br />governmental entities can agree on it. This bridge is Probably more than 20 years away, more <br />likely closer to 40 years, and to curtail development to wait on it or even pick a specific location <br />at this time would probably kill any chance of that bridge ever being constructed. These are <br />some points I would emphasize were I still a part of the Ramsey Planning Commission process, <br />but My opportunity to do it in that forum has been removed, so I will have to do it as a Citizen, <br />in that forum. In the 20 years I have spent as a commissioner, I can't recall a projection that has <br />been totally incorrect, but I am not perfect, and so I may have forgot some error or two, as a <br />matter of convenience." <br /> <br />John Enstrom, 8702 181st Avenue NW -"I was selected to serve on the Ramsey comprehensive <br />planning Committee. I attended all the meetings and seminars. It seems everyone enjoys <br />Ramsey for it's open spaces. Inevitably things change, and we need to make sure these changes <br />are for the better of the community. The tentative rough draft of the new comprehensive plan <br />designates the northern tier of Ramsey to remain in a permanent 4 in 40 status for developing. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December 1, 1998 <br /> Page 6 ofll <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.