11-14-11-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETNG—NOVEMBER 14, 2011 10 Mr. Lux responded that he is not. Councilmember Tamble asked what time constraints the City is facing to pass Municipal Consent. Public Works Director Maurer stated that the Council is under no time constraints as they have already acted on Resolution 2011-048 which still stands at this time. If the Council does not act on the proposed resolution, the ball is in the County's court; they can proceed to the Appeal Board or attempt to get the Council comfortable with the project. If they proceed to the Appeal Board and the Board finds in favor of the City, Ramsey County will not have the right to get the Commissioner to overturn the Appeal Board decision because this project does not involve an interstate highway. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2011-054 approving the Final Layout of the US 10/Highway 96 Improvement and rescinding Resolution 2011-048. Councilmember Tamble commented that this is a difficult situation with the noise abatement concerns and because the residents were here before the roads. Also, the Council is limited by statutes with regards to the offer to this neighborhood that was made to Briarknoll. Councilmember Holmes questioned the disparity that Councilmember Tamble referred to because there was an offer made by MnDOT to Briarknoll but no noise wall was built because the City didn't agree to pay the difference in cost. Even if MnDOT were to make the same offer for this project, it wouldn't be fair for the City to agree to assist with the cost of a noise wall when they did not do so for Briarknoll. She then stated that the Council has dealt with the sound wall issue many times and what she has found is that if a specific area meets the State standards, they get the noise wall. If they don't meet the standards, they don't get the noise wall. The standards are set and there's not a lot the Council can do. Councilmember Holden stated that when the Briarknoll area was before the Council, she made it very clear that she would not use a significant amount of City monies for a noise wall; those costs would be assessed to the homeowners. She stated that she would take the same position with this project;she would not want to use a large amount of City funds for the benefit of so few homes. Mayor Grant asked how many homes were included in this project analysis. Mr. Lux responded that based on the project limits, there were nine homes included. Mayor Grant commented that if there were homes on the three vacant lots that would be a 25% increase which would put it pretty close to the required threshold for cost-effectiveness. Mayor Grant stated he doesn't believe the City s getting very good answers on this matter. Councilmember Holmes commented that the City has the report from Chris Chromy which states "Even with the addition of three platted lots into the calculation, the noise mitigation costs would remain above the established reasonableness threshold of $3,250 per decibel reduced per residence."