Laserfiche WebLink
(e) Inconvenience to residents and the traveling public <br />during construction. <br />(f) Responsibility and maintenance for frontage roads. <br />(g) Current land ownership patterns. <br />(h) Communities' ability to control the rate of development <br />growth and limit density. <br />(i) The goals, policies and standards of the communities of <br />Central Washington County. <br />(j) The short and long term needs of the communities in cen- <br />tral Washington County. <br />(k) The environmental constraints of either route before, <br />during and following construction. <br />4. The I-94 Management Committee has asked: <br />"Identify which alternate best fulfills your community's <br />plans and criteria". <br />RESPONSE <br />The City Council finds that Alternate I best fulfills the City's <br />goals, policies and standards. The City Council is of the opinion that <br />less adverse impact to the majority of residents will occur with Alternate <br />I. The County and the City have both planned for Alternate I as shown in <br />the City Comprehensive Plan and the County Comprehensive Plan. This <br />commitment to the County Plan is evidenced by the/RTistruction of C.S.A.H. <br />15 at the Alternate I interchange area,by the reconstruction of three and <br />one-half miles of County Road 70 and the right-of-way acquisition for C.R. <br />19B. The City's commitment to this Plan is evidenced by the location of <br />several business developments - namely; Lampert Lumber Company facilities <br />and the J & W Marine facilities in accordance with a local street plan co- <br />ordinated with Alternate I location and the construction of Helmo Avenue <br />North. <br />5. The I-94 Management Committee has asked: <br />"Identify for the Committee any special concerns which <br />your community might have if either of the two alternates <br />is selected." <br />RESPONSE <br />The City Council finds: <br />(a) Washington County will receive T.H. 12 as a turnback <br />with Alternate I. We are prepared to accept this highway <br />and feel it will best serve the adjacent communities as a <br />county highway. We do not feel the frontage roads pro- <br />posed with Alternate II will serve the function of county <br />roads. These roads are generally turned back to munici- <br />