Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION— SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 10 <br /> Councilmember Tamble asked the County to comment on their findings regarding the noise wall <br /> listed by Public Works Director Maurer as one of the three conditions of Municipal Consent. <br /> Joe Lux explained that he met with Mr. Cmiel and reviewed his calculations claiming that a 1500 <br /> foot noise wall would benefit twelve homesites. He explained that as of June 1, the rules have <br /> changed regarding noise walls. The old rules still apply to this situation because the <br /> environmental assessment was prepared under the old rules. There are 12 home sites and three <br /> buildable lots. The buildable lots would not have been considered but the County agreed to <br /> review it again. The addition of the three buildable lots does bring the area closer to the threshold <br /> for a 20 foot noise wall, but still does not meet the cost-effective threshold. <br /> Councilmember Tamble asked if reducing the height of the wall would make a difference. <br /> Mr. Lux responded that reducing the height would also reduce the benefit and impact the cost of <br /> the wall. He added that the source of noise for these homes is not Highway 96, but US 10 which <br /> is a state highway and it would be difficult to get any funding out of MnDOT. He also explained <br /> that the three lots Mr. Cmiel has asked to be included would not be allowed to be considered until <br /> a home has been built on each lot. He stated he does not think there is any scenario under which <br /> this area would meet the threshold for a cost-effective noise wall. MnDOT has volunteered to <br /> have their noise wall person look at it, but they do not have anything budgeted for it. <br /> Mr. Tolaas explained that the mill and overlay project doesn't rise to the level that it would cause <br /> the issue of a noise wall to be examined. The County's US 10/Highway 96 project cannot fund a <br /> • noise wall along US 10 because it is out of their scope and funding capabilities and, he added, <br /> their funding source could not be used for a noise wall. <br /> Councilmember Holden commented that the Council could include a condition in Municipal <br /> Consent addressing the noise wall. <br /> Mr. Tolaas responded the City could add a condition, but the County simply cannot use County <br /> State Aid Highway funds for a noise wall and the County cannot force MnDOT to do it because <br /> they have no leverage or legal basis to require it. He was also concerned that such a condition <br /> would result in a delay of the project and some of the funding has sunset dates beyond which the <br /> monies would no longer be available. He explained that the region wants these funds utilized and <br /> if the County and City "can't get their act together" to utilize the funds, they will be given to <br /> someone else. <br /> Councilmember Holden asked if there's any berming that can be done. <br /> Mr. Lux responded it is possible that the concrete barrier, typically 38 inches high, could be <br /> increased in height on the top of the retaining wall on the east side of Lakeshore Place. <br /> Councilmember Holmes stated there had been some discussion about placing a wall on Old 10 <br /> next to I-694 to block the car lights. <br /> Mr. Tolaas stated the County had actually discussed this with MnDOT recently but MnDOT <br /> indicated that they are not changing things in a way that would impact the car lights and a portion <br />