10-14-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TH 12 Policy Committee Meeting September 18, 1991 Page 2 There was discussion about residences within a corridor as a social economic impact Dallam said that residential impacts are also considered economic impacts, but is only listed once. The Chair asked what the impaa is within the corridor to properties/land during the period of time before the project is actually built and whether it should be included as a criterion. (Nobody will want to buy a home, for example, if it is identified within the corridor.) Dallam said funds are made available through the Right-of-way Acquisition Loan Fund program (RALF) administered by the Metropolitan Council at the timg of the preliminary layout and final EIS for economic hardships caused by the project. The Chair said that this is an issue which warrants further attention. P.21ietlow asked if the criterion which identifies the number of units and businesses includes property valuations. Dallam said that the EIS w ould cover the impact to property valuations, and that it was hoped that the projea scoping could be completed without this element. Dallam also explained that properties identified in the scoping within a corridor does not necessarily mean they will be "taken". T. Humbert added that one of the purposes of project scoping is to use available qualitative information to narrow the number of viable alternatives, and that quantitative information will be used extensively in the EIS. The Chair asked if under the traffic impact criteria that sight distancing was included. Dallam said that it was included within # 13. B.Bauman agreed that cemeteries should be added to the impact criteria. He also asked that aerial photography be used to cover the remaining western portion of the study area in Franklin Township, and suggested that the ASCS in Wright County would be able to assist. D.Harmon stated Wayzata’s Public Works facility is planned, but not committed (as a potential impaa in Criterion #1). P.Zietlow asked if each evaluation criteria would receive equal weight. Dallam said yes, so they can be ranked for assistance to municipalities and Mn/DOT to drop alternatives or to recommend an alternative for fi'rther study. D.Poss asked that traffic criterion #14 be explained. Dallam explained that safety and convenience of movement of local traffic (auto, pedestrian and bicycles) along and aaoss existing TH 12 are the major considerations. B.Peterson asked what would be included in the estimated constniciion costs. Dallam said that only construction costs (rounded off to nearest $5 milhon) and not ROW or other acquisition/relocation expenses, are included. The EIS will detail the costs of each alternative.