2A, MnDot I694TH 51 Improvement Project Municipal Consent Discu

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 11 Mayor Harpstead noted that the 694 review is an ongoing process and that this is not the whole element of that review. Councilmember Grant stated that the concept of noise mitigation was not followed through on item #2, Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96. If Highway 10 is turned into a freeway, there will be an increase in traffic along with a substantial increase in truck traffic contributing to additional noise. Mayor Harpstead stated that an additional design constraint was dealing with noise mitigation with the City's perspective being along the lines that the grade separation would lead to increased volume and/or noise contribution from the traffic on Highway 10 and that needs to be minimized or mitigated. Councilmember Grant pointed out that while areas such as Snelling, McClung Drive. and the bottom side of Briarknoll are beyond the change of the off ramps with the 694 project, they would certainly be impacted with a grade separation at Highway 10 and County Road 96. Councilmember Holmes stated that this should be the responsibility of both the City and the County in that they should both be involved in the noise mitigation funding. Councilmember Grant stated that he would like to add Mn/DOT to that statement. Councilmember Holmes corrected her previous statement and agreed that it should be both the State and the County. Councilmember McClung stated that from the February 13. 2008 meeting. the Council had agreed that if sound mitigation was included, then a majority of the Council would support grade separation at County Road 96 and Highway 10. Without any sound mitigation to deal with the noise, there is no longer a consensus of the Council to support a grade separated crossing. He also stated that this was an example of something that the Council had agreed on and it was not in the document. Councilmember Holmes stated that the matrix that had been worked on shows that the Council would support a grade separation if sound mitigation were dealt with meaningfully_ Councilmember Holmes requested clarification on design constraint #1 and felt that it should be stricken from the document. Councilmember Holden explained the need for design constraint #1 to assist in accommodating 19,000 plus commuters once the flyover was completed. Councilmember Grant stated that he would not agree with striking design constraint #1 because the turn lane would be small and it would benefit the residents of Briarknoll, McClung, and Snelling,