My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2. PCSR AGENDA 03-01-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2006-2010
>
2010
>
03-01-2010 JOINT
>
2. PCSR AGENDA 03-01-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2013 8:26:30 AM
Creation date
2/26/2010 3:33:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCAG
date
3/1/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
based on County GIS data. A comprehensive wetland delineation has not been completed. <br />~letland impacts are a critical component of transportation planning; MnDUT must <br />demonstrate how it has avoided wetlands, according to the Wetland Conservation Act. <br />C~MPARIS~N ~F PTI~NS <br />The plan~aa~ng team offers some comparison between the options. This is offered as a way to <br />organize the information in a palatable format. The most desirable of each option is <br />highlighted in bold. <br /> Issue Lion A tiou. ~ Lion C <br />1 Property acquisition needs from Roughly Roughly Most <br /> currently develo ed properties a ual to ~ e ual to .A <br />2 Property acquisition needs from currently Least Roughly Roughly <br /> undeveloped properties equal to C equal to B <br />3 Gas main impacts E ual E ual E uai <br />4 Wetland impact Middle Least Most <br />5 New development potential east side Equal to C Most Equal to A <br />G New development potential west side Middle host Least <br />7 Appears to meet MNIDGT criteria Mostly Best Marginal <br />8 rmpact on residential street traffic Minimal Mininrial 1Vlinimal <br />9 Anticipated land acquisition costs Middle Least Most <br />10 Anticipated roadway construction costs Middle Least Most <br />Comments: <br />#1 Reflects property needed for eventual interchange scenario. Land would be needed <br />for Highway 10 realignment, future interchange, and local street circulation. In <br />intersection„stake o,f,im~emen~, land needs axe roughly equal among options, <br />#2 Same comments as above except intersection sta e, "B" will require the most land, <br />"A" is in the middle and "C" would require none. <br />#3 Gas main alignment urould have fill placed over it in all three interchange options, <br />There would be relatively no impact with intersection options. <br />#4 Most wetland impacts would occur with interchange, Some wetland impacts will <br />occur' with the intersection with "A" and "B" being equal and "C" being the most. <br />#5 Primary factor is developable terra,nant parcels resulting from interchange location, <br />gas main, wetlands and Twin Lakes Parkway alignment. <br />#G "A" and "B" offer new development potential associated with <br />intersection/interchange on currently undeveloped property. <br />#7 "C" does not meet intersection spacing requirements and has more property and <br />envrtonmental impact, <br />#S All options tt•eat Yale Street equally. <br />S;~PLANNING MAIN~Projects~rAST Study Area~1±~S'I' memo to CC RE transportation 3-1-IO Bruce-DII cl~angcs,dac <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.