CCWS 10-18-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ARDEN HILLS eITY eOUNeIL WORKSESSION - oeTOBER 18, ] 999 4 . November 29, 1999 City Council decides on Interview/Appointment . December 6, 1999 Council Interviews (If Determined Necessary) . December 13, 1999 - Formal Council Appointment Hil!hwavs 10/96 Discussion Mr. Post requested the Council revisit the status of the Highways 10/96 pending improvement projects with Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Ramsey County has contacted staff several times regarding the City of Arden Hills endorsing one of the plans as previously presented by Ramsey County. Mr. Post sought direction from the City Council on this matter. Mayor Probst reviewed the various options available to the City Council, consisting of: . No changes in design, with all access points remaining "as is;" . Endorse the design option that was originally brought forward, providing as many movements as possible; . Endorse the option that eliminates many of the existing movements and access points; . Endorse the MnDOT option providing future TCAAP service and a frontage road on . the west side of Highway 10. Discussion items included, impacts to local residents in the mobile home park and along Highway 10, as well as business owners along North Highway 10; consideration of a "folded diamond" design option; Jersey barriers; greater utilization of median space, bridge construction; and the possibility of seeking the input of a former MnDOT Engineer living in the community. Mayor Probst expressed his concern regarding the lack of cooperation being received from MnDOT with them only willing to uphold "design standards," with no further consideration apparently being given to achieving a viable solution to those needs of the Arden Hills community, as well as regional transportation problems. Arden Hills Resident, Becky Olson, of 4647 Highway 10, was in attendancc at the meeting and spoke representing her neighborhood. Mayor Probst asked for Ms. Olson's opinion of the residents' wishes; with Ms. Olson responding that, with the exception of one eldcrly resident, the homeowners were looking forward to moving. Further discussion included the need to verify who would be responsible for right-of-way acquisition costs. .