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 SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 2 <br /> potential concepts for these improvements. He noted that the graphic contained in the memo is <br /> essentially the same drawing that the Council reviewed on January 28, 2008, with some revisions <br /> that could be used as essentially a phasing plan component of the January 28th plan. He explained <br /> that the changes that are suggested include reducing the number of homes impacted by the <br /> improvement, eliminating the frontage road to the south, to tighten the radius on the frontage - <br /> road to the north, reducing the width of the bridge over Highway 10, as well as some minor <br /> changes with the right-of-way. He stated that the revised drawing reduces the impact that <br /> requires removal of homes from the northeastern edge of Arden Manor; the impact along the <br /> south side, north of CR 96, remains unchanged. He indicated that based on his conversations <br /> with the County,the southern edge of construction should not go any farther to the south than the <br /> existing paved surfaces and as part of their turn-back project, the County will be acquiring the <br /> right-of-way from the northern side because at some fixture date, the bridge at the intersection of <br /> CR 96 and 35W will be widened and that bridge will be widened on the northerly side which will <br /> impact traffic as it travels westbound. <br /> Councilmember Grant asked if the bridge will be replaced or expanded. <br /> Interim City Administrator Willis replied it was his understanding that the bridge will be <br /> expanded to the north but it is unclear if that decision has been made yet. He stated that with <br /> respect to the designs, it is important to take into consideration requirements that are primarily <br /> related to safety and effective movement of traffic; as a result, the design must serve the <br /> community in order that the County can proceed with their plans for CR 96. He stated the <br /> County has informed him that they must commence their project within three months in order to <br /> maintain their project funding and have the project construction schedule of 2011 maintained. In <br /> addition, the Legislature will be adopting a transportation bonding package this year and the City <br /> plans to request some funding for either the design or construction of the project. He noted that <br /> at the Federal level, Congress has indicated that any requests for transportation-related support <br /> are due around February 22, 2008; a prerequisite to the funding request being made is to have a <br /> project at least approved in concept to accompany the City's request. He noted that if the City <br /> does not have these things in place, it could set that aspect of the project back and somebody will <br /> have to come forward with those funds. He requested that the City Council consider moving <br /> forward with a concept so the City can work toward obtaining a preliminary design; on a parallel <br /> track, the City will engage in ongoing discussions with the state government regarding a <br /> transportation project, which all comes together ultimately as part of an overall community <br /> development package. <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated that following discussion by the Council this evening, he would like to <br /> pose several questions to the Council: <br /> (I) Is there still support for the separation of TH I0/CR 96? <br /> (2) Does the Council still understand and support the width or alignment of CR 96 on the <br /> southern end (the "County project")? <br /> (3) Where does the Council stand as it relates to the Scherer Brothers access? <br /> (4) Should there be access that allows the movement between TH 10/CR 96? <br /> (5) What is the importance or value of access from TH 10 to the TCAAP site? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.