03-28-11-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 28, 2011 5 7.A. -16941TH 51 Municipal Consent Resolution (continued) Mn/DOT could address these problems to alleviate the adverse affects on the City. The only potential problem with continuing with the appeal process was if the City had to go back to the original fourteen conditions. This would not include the compromises and commitments Mn/DOT has already made in regards to those conditions. Councilmember Holmes stated most of the concerns expressed by residents have been related to sound mitigation. Public Works Director Maurer stated that the City would be reviewing the Mn/DOT noise studies and the information from the Noise Analysis Committee (NAC). The Council has until the end of April to commit to the City's portion of the funds needed for the sound walls. Mayor Grant asked what the City would have to lose by going through the appeal process. Public Works Director Maurer stated he did not know that the City had anything to lose, but the City did not have more to gain. Mn/DOT has already committed to making modifications to the Lexington Avenue Bridge for traffic mitigation. This project is near the final design stage and they are scheduled to award the contract in July 2011. At this time the project will not be stopped. Once the final plans have been approved,the City will receive a set. Councilmember Tamble asked for clarification regarding Mn/DOT's response to Condition 11 on Page 5. Public Works Director Maurer stated TH 51 Bridge would have enough room on the shoulder for commuter bicycles. The City had requested a pedestrian bridge separate from TH 51 but attached to the bridge. Councilmember Holmes stated the negotiations with the State have provided most everything the City had requested. The sound walls are a big issue, but this will be addressed again, along with the berming. The City will also look at the height of the rail on the bridge crossing. She asked what conditions the City felt were not being met. Councilmember Tamblc stated the only reason he could see for the City not to give consent would be the issues that are on Highway 10. The only thing that is not being addressed adequately from the original fourteen conditions is the sound walls. If the City goes through the appeal process, Mn/DOT may consent to pay for more of the sound walls. He stated he would be in favor of going through the appeal process. Councilmember Werner stated the residents want the City to go through the appeal process but he was concerned the City may lose something in the process. Councilmember Holmes stated it was important to have a meeting to discuss the noise and sound walls. She stated if the noise studies were flawed then Mn/DOT would address noise mitigation, but at this time there was no reason for the City to delay the process any further by going through the appeal process.