03-28-11-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 28, 2011 4 7. NEW BUSINESS A. I694/TH 51 Municipal Consent Resolution Public Works Director Maurer stated on October 25, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-052 Disapproving the Final Layout of 1-694/TH 51 with Conditions. There were 14 conditions attached to that resolution. Since that time there have been ongoing negotiations with Mn/DOT regarding the conditions and Ramsey County participated in the discussions. On February 9, 2011, a meeting was convened by Senator Goodwin and Representative Knuth. In attendance were the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County and Mn/DOT. The City has received two letters from Mn/DOT concerning the 14 conditions since the adoption of Resolution 2010- 052. The first was dated November 29, 2010 and was the result of several meetings between Mn/DOT and City Staff. It dealt with a number of the 14 conditions but several of them unresolved. The second Mn/DOT letter was dated February 28, 2011, and was the result of the meeting held by Senator Goodwin and Representative Knuth. The second letter went further than the first and dealt with two key traffic mitigation issues on the local system. The City has recently received a third letter from Mn/DOT dated March 22, 2011, that clarifies and corrects Conditions 42 and #3 from the February 28, 2011, letter dealing with noise mitigation measures. The latest letter states that the City has until April 29, 2011, to make a decision on funding for the noise wall and indicates that Mn/DOT will have their designers take a more detailed look at berming on the south side of 1-694. At the work session on March 21, 2011, the City Council reviewed Mn/DOT's response to the original 14 conditions and felt that sufficient progress has been made to provide Municipal Consent to Layout 2A for the 1-694/TH 51 Improvement. The City could choose not to give Municipal Consent at this time and the appeal process would move forward. Mr. Maurer advised the Council that State law allows the Commission to choose not to follow the appeal board recommendation and the City could risk the compromises that have been reached. If the City approves the Resolution before them then this will rescind Resolution 2010-052 and give Municipal Consent. Coouncilmember Werner asked how many projects in the Twin Cities area have gone through the appeal process and what the results were for these projects. Public Works Director Maurer stated he was aware of two projects that had gone through the appeal process. The appeal board approved the project in Belle Plaine 2-1 and the other project was Crosstown and that project is currently being done. He stated he could not be sure if the communities had gotten what they were requesting through the appeal process because he was not aware of what their specific issues had been. Councilmembcr Tamble asked if the City would be limited to the original fourteen conditions during the appeal process or if the City could ask for additional items. He stated most of the original conditions had been addressed adequately and there was not much more the City could expect to gain except in regards to additional funding for the sound walls. Public Works Director Maurer stated he did not believe the City could add to the fourteen conditions or bring up things that have not been brought up previously. Some of the conditions could be defined more specifically but they could not add conditions. The best option for the City at the appeal hearing would be to address the consequences of the project on the City and how