2A, MnDot I694TH 51 Improvement Project Municipal Consent Discu

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 8 design issues and position. The issue tonight would be to determine if the draft resolution paper clearly and reasonably captures the Council's desires as this project moves forward. Mayor Harpstead asked the Council to comment on the position paper as it stands individually as a Councilmember. Councilmember Grant asked the Council how they would like to handle this particular item. He stated that they could go Councilmember by Councilmember or go item by item down the page. It was the consensus of the Council to go item by item down the page of the draft position document. Councilmember Grant asked for clarification from Interim City Administrator Willis regarding - the author or authors of the draft position document. Interim City Administrator Willis stated that Mr. Bubul put together the resolution; the position paper document was originally drafted by Stacie Kvilvang and reviewed by the staff. Councilmember McClung stated that it may be time to hire a Traffic Engineering group to assist the City as they move forward. He then stated that it is a good idea that the City has some type of task force to assist them with the process as they move forward and he would be supportive of creating this type of group. Councilmember McClung stated that the Council may need to refer back to the minutes from the February 13, 2008 meeting because it talks about what the Council can support, where there was consensus, and where there was not a consensus. He stated that the areas where there was a consensus were not fully covered in the resolution paper. One of these areas is an at grade signalized intersection along the 10 diagonal into TCAAP, which because it would be at a ninety degree angle, would be much safer. This should not be thrown out because Mn/DOT has said no. It may turn out that Mn/DOT does decide to accept it because the City wants it_ Another area of concern, is in regard to the noise mitigation in terms of the flyover, this area is not strong enough in the position paper. Councilmember Holden stated she would like the resolution document kept strictly to Highway 10 and County Road 96 and exclude the Interstate 694-35E to 35W Project. The resolution paper does not contain a lot of the comments that it should pertaining to this particular project since there will be a public hearing on it in the future. Councilmember McClung agreed with Councilmember Holden that the impact of additional sound and additional speed is because of a flyover at Highway 10 and County Road 96. A lot of the issues with the noise and speed on Highway 10 come from taking out the signalized at grade intersection at Highway 10 and County Road 96. The issue of noise should be tied to that intersection.