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 14 <br /> It was the consensus of the City Council to add two additional Design Constraints to the Ramsey <br /> County Project, Section 11, Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96. The first one <br /> is building into the process the noise mitigation driven by the grade separation. The second <br /> design constraint is the addition to capture the pedestrian crossing on the side that any bridges <br /> are being built. <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated that the document will need to come back to the Council and they <br /> would review it again at the worksession on March 17, 2008. <br /> Councilmember Grant stated that under City Project. the first three bullet points talk about <br /> phasing but phasing is not talked about again in the document except a slight mention in Design <br /> Constraint #3. He also stated it needs to be noted that all the phasing needed to be cost effective <br /> and this may be another design constraint. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that the signalized intersection needed to be added as well. <br /> Councilmember Holmes agreed that the signalized intersection needed to be a separate design <br /> constraint. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that it should be noted that the City's preference would be to <br /> have a signalized at grade entrance into TCAAP along the Highway 10 diagonal. <br /> Councilmember Holmes disagreed with it being the preference. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that it should be strongly considered. <br /> Mayor Harpstead asked for clarification if this was considered an end point or phasing. <br /> Councilmember Holmes stated that it could be considered both ways. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that this would need to be a higher priority and something that <br /> the City would have to push for. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that Design Constraint #1 reviews the phasing options to see if <br /> all four ramps are needed, and Councilmember Grant had brought up that if there was half a <br /> diamond with the interchanges on the east then there would not be a need for legs on the east so <br /> it wouldn't be a full interchange. She stated that she thought the Council had agreed that it could <br /> work with just the exit and entrance ramps on the east side. <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated that this was complicated by the traffic pattern of commuters that are <br /> west bound on County Road 96/North bound on Highway 10 and the opposite in the evenings. <br /> The second element has been the semi truck traffic from Scherer Brothers. <br /> Mayor Harpstead would like Design Constraint#4 to include wording about phasing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.