CC 06-28-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28,1999 9 Councilmember Larson asked what thc cost differences were between the two proposals. Mr. Tolaas stated tl1at the proposal with the ramps would be much more expensive. Councilmember Larson asked how much more thc ramp proposal would cost. Mr. Tolaas stated that the ramps thcmselves cost approximately one-quarter of a million dollars each. Additionally, the north ranlp would need to acquire TCAAP property and could cause a major delay in the complction of thc project. Mr. Tolaas noted that thc staging of either of the proposals would be challenging because of tlle traffic. The construction will require by-pass lanes and temporarily signalizcd intcrsections, which can be very costly. Councilmember Larson asked Mr. Tolaas to cxplain what tl1e noise level impacts would be to tl1e rcsidents in the area west of US Highway 10. Mr. Tolaas explained that the grade separation at US Highway 10 would be achieved by Highway 96 being under US Highway 10. The profile leading to and from the bridge would be approximately the same. Therefore, aside from normal traffic growth, which will occur with or without this effort, tl1e Mobile Home Park residents experience would be about the same. With regard to ramps, the ramp areas would be closer and would generatc more traffic, which would otherwise be directed ovcr to I-35W. Cutting offtl1e connection would rcduce thc number of vehicles on Highway 96. Mr. Tolaas noted that, witl1 the expected increase in traffic ovcr time, tl1is arca might not be attractive for residential use. Councilmember Larson asked, ifthere is a choicc to move forward with the proposal with ramps, would there also be impacts tl1at would be eliminated with tl1e reduction of stop and go traffic noises. Mr. Tolaas noted that there would still be noise from traffic traveling at a high rate of speed. With regard to the second option presented tl1is evening, Councilmcmbcr Larson asked what dictated the location of the future intersection to the north, which was shown in gray on tl1e map. Mr. Tolaas stated that tl1is area was shown on tl1e map simply as a gcneral vicinity. The location of this intersection will depend upon land use. He noted that thcrc couldn't be two intersections so close to each other. Therefore, if the intersection at Highway 96 were constructed with ramps, the ramps would have to be removed in order to construct the new intersection to the north. Councilmember Larson noted that this would be assuming that the proposed new intcrsection would be located at the site shown on the map. He indicated tl1at there is nine-tenths of a mile between the intersection and the off-ramp from US Highway 10 to I-35W. Therefore, there is quitc a bit of room to allow an access at the TCAAP property. Mr. Tolaas statcd that thc Minnesota Department of Transportation would oppose this idca since thc Statc is vcry protcctivc about how far apart interchanges arc. With the high speed of traffic, the State would want any connections to US Highway 10 as far apart as possible. The Minnesota Department of Transportation prefers two miles betwcen interchanges. Councilmember Larson stated that he would still prefer the original proposal. This proposal would eliminatc thc need to acquire property and displace homeowners. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the City has the option to choose the original proposal. Mr. Tolaas stated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation's position was that they would reluctantly