My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2024 1:26:05 PM
Creation date
12/10/2024 1:24:17 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
450
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
A. Kunze asked whose goa,!s/issues/concems would govern the process and how each <br />would be rated to determine importance. <br />Reply: Three segments may be individually studied to concentrate ^r'o-Mudies” within <br />the project between neighboring communities. All eva-iiaaon criteria would <br />receive equal weight. TIk sooner the key individuals, issues, goals, and concerns <br />are identified, the sooner the consultant can begin to evaluate. An informal list <br />of these items was requested. <br />Kunze asked about funding for the (preliminary engineering), who would proceed with <br />EIS after HNTB completed the list of activities, and the State ’s priority for this project. <br />Reply: Hay explained the process for the project budget and that an additional funding <br />request was made for the consultant to complete the EIS (to provide short-term <br />supplemental stafO, and that this project is Mn/DOT’s number two priority in the <br />Golden Valley office. <br />Kunze also asked about estimated costs per mile of freeway vs. expressway and when <br />costs (for the project’s construction) wil' be known. <br />Reply: Project costs depend on the design, number of interchanges, grade separated <br />crossings, frontage road needs, etc., and that the freeway to expressway juncture, <br />when known, will assist in defining costs. <br />Acromite asked whether the Policy Committee would have input in redefining, as <br />necessary, the 500 foot corridor width. <br />Reply: If agreed upon, yes; but depends on issues and concerns identified in the scoping <br />process. <br />M. Johnson asked what the ordinary width of a freeway is (for future protection and <br />preservation mapping purposes), and if frontage roads must be parallel to the corridor. <br />Reply: A roadway may require 300 feet of wi^ih, depending on whether it is an <br />expressway or freeway section, and irontage roads are not necessarily <br />parallel. <br />Acromite asked ior a clarification between "comdor" and "nght-of-way", and whether <br />Mn/DOT wanted form^i documentation of goals, issues, and concerns from each <br />representing jurisdiction for the next policy committee meeting. <br />Reply: "Corridor" ’»*nlies planning/search area, while "right-of-way" ccwcems land <br />acquired fot uu: actual operation of a roa<iway. No formal documentatiem of <br />goals, issues, and concerns is necessary; but a list is neekd f(» consultant to <br />stay on schedule, by the next meeting i<»r sooner).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.