My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2A, MnDot I694TH 51 Improvement Project Municipal Consent Discu
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
10-11-10- WS
>
2A, MnDot I694TH 51 Improvement Project Municipal Consent Discu
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/23/2024 12:07:04 AM
Creation date
1/31/2011 10:48:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
10-11-10 City Council Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL March 10, 2008 12 <br /> Councilmember Holmes questioned why there would not be one west on County Road 96 to <br /> turn right onto Highway 10 or any additional places. <br /> Councilmember Grant gave examples of traffic movement to better explain the need for this <br /> turn lane to reduce the need of residents to go to far out of their way. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that this turn lane would eliminate the need for an additional <br /> ramp to get onto Highway 10. <br /> Mayor Harpstead clarified that they do try to space apart any ramps that exit in to traffic that is <br /> going onto a different ramp. So the one that is included in this plan is the only one that would <br /> work. He also stated that this would not be his first choice for design constraint and did not feel <br /> it was the highest priority. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated he felt the design would result in a lot of elevation changes, <br /> reminiscent of a rollercoaster. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that some of this may be addressed when the 694-35E to 35W <br /> project is done. <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated that there was a need for additional engineering and design. <br /> Councilmember Grant stated under Design Constraint 42, City Perspective, the first sentence, <br /> remove the word "possible". <br /> Mayor Harpstead asked Councilmember Grant to explain having the trail on both sides of the <br /> roadway because he would like to have a choice in this. <br /> Councilmember Grant stated that there needed to be a trail on at least one side and the addition <br /> of trails does not add to the noise. The only question would be if the width of the trails takes <br /> away homes. And if it doesn't, then there could be trails on both sides. If it does take away <br /> homes, then the Council will need to decide which side they want the trail. He stated that he <br /> would like to see a trail on both sides to Highway 10 to alleviate people having to cross County <br /> Road 96 in order to get onto the trail. If there can be a trail on only one side, the north side <br /> would be the better choice because of the number of people on the north side. <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated under Design Constraint #2, City Perspective. the last part of the first <br /> sentence, should read: trail widths and location of trails on one or both sides of the roadways are <br /> ways to assist in meeting this goal. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that the City Perspective should not be just the median and trail <br /> widths, but also the shoulder. <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated that the shoulder was included under Design Constraint #2 but could <br /> also be included under the City Perspective. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.