Laserfiche WebLink
<br />) <br /> <br />. <br />>> <br />t <br />>> <br />>> <br />. <br />J <br />. <br />. <br />>> <br />. <br />. <br />>> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />III. Framework Plan <br /> <br />4. Interchange Option D - Major Ramp Relocation. In Option 0, th~ <br />1-35W on- and off-ramps would be relocated more: chan 700' to che north <br />in order to align them with the previously proposed Twin Lakes Parkway <br />location. This option would even funher increase the costs of <br />rc:consuucting me ramps. it would have a very significant impacts on the: <br />. existing pond and .wetlands, and it might present problems with the: <br />spacing rcq1.1.iremenrs betwt=cn interstate highway interchanges. since: there <br />is anomer interchange at County Road D . <br /> <br />The indications, &om discussions with MnDOT staff are that, although <br />MnDOT currently does not have plans nor allocated funds for highway <br />improvements in this area.. they would be open to further discussions <br />regarding the n.rnp modifications, especially if the improvementS rc:sult in <br />marked improvements to highw:ay o~rations. <br /> <br />Staff &om the Rice Creek Watc:nchc:d Oisuict. DNR, and Corps of <br />Engin~rs expresse:d unanimous opposition to Option D. All age:ncy <br />rc:prc:sc:nratives indicated that permitS would likely not be granted for <br />Option D in light of the: fact that orner options exist which have: minor or <br />no wetland impacts. <br /> <br />The conclusions from the: discussions with the various agencies regarding <br />the existing ponds and wetlands are that Options A and B present few <br />problems. Option C might be: doable. but that Option 0 would be: <br />difficult to implement due to the severity of the impacts on the existing <br />pond and wetlands. <br /> <br />Based upon an eva(uation of the agency reactions. me coSts associated. with <br />each option, and the: potential bene:fitS gained. the rcwmmencbtion is to <br />procc:cd with Option B - Ramp Rcconfiguration as the preferred plan for <br />the Twin Lak.cs district redevdopmenL Option B would improve the <br />overall traffic circulation in the area and. although it would require the <br />acquisition of the Cummins property. it would further the redevelopment <br />objccrives for the Twin Lakes district. It would be: more beneficial to spend <br />City money on the acquisition of the Cummins property. which could help <br />immensely in redeveloping the other properties at the comer of County <br />Road C and Cleveland Avenue. than to spend City money on relocating <br />the 1-35W ramps. <br /> <br />Twin Wes Parltway M/Zjt" Pl4n <br /> <br />11 <br />