06/10/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Jankowski responded that the City discussed this about a year ago and our primary concern is that it connects to Armstrong. Mr. Schroeder asked if 147th is too close to the highway. If you go to the north (at about 149th) it's far away from the highway and railroad tracks but gets closer to the neighborhood. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that the City is opening up its comprehensive plan for review. We have had a couple meetings with MnDOT - the first one to do with what's going on at C,R. #5 and T.H. #47 and the other dealt with whether MnDOT wants the City to cooperate as it relates to a north/south route across the fiver. Mr. Makthar Thakur told us that MnDOT has nothing planned on T.H. #47 in the next 20 years other than turn lanes. They have for turn-back, about 19 miles of T.H. #47 by Northtown and going south (potential turn-back) and it was indicated that they are not looking at the current #47 to carry much traffic north and south. Mr. Olson stated that their plan indicates #47 coming back to the County from #694 south. We feel it ought to connect to #694 and that #65 ought to connect to #694. Discussion ensued relating to different alignments. Mr. Olson stated that some information provided from the City talked about an alignment to #47 at about C.R. #63. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that some people think it goes up C.R. #56. Mr. Olson replied that it did, but later on, he and Mr. Jankowski had conversations about a river crossing. There is a fair amount of opposition to the C.R. #56 alignment. More discussion about alignments - It was stated that the alignment could go over to C.R. #83 to which Mr. Olson felt that getting that land over to #47 would be a "trick". Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that the discussion was about bringing it over and hooking it up to Green Valley Road. She commented on #47 going up to St. Francis and going nowhere from there. Mr. Olson commented on it being fairly well spaced with Highway #65 and added that it does not seem like it will serve many Anoka County residents. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that fight now we are serving a lot of people on T.H. #10 and T.H. #47 that aren't necessarily our own residents. She added that she is trying to get fid of the bottlenecks. Discussion ensued relating to a river crossing and doing a study again. Councilmember Haas Steffen asked why not a route that replaces T.H. #47. If they want something going north, why does it have to come over #47. Mr. Olson stated that it does not have to come over there, but #47 is a road that will take a substantial amount of traffic. It's too far out of the way to go over #83. Road and Bridge Committee/June 10, 1997 Page 2 of 5