CCP 07-12-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28,1999 "',~ $'Q /i"o 7J>, OJ-''', Councilmember Larson asked what the cost differences were between the two proposals. Mr. To1aas stated that the proposal with the ramps would be much more expensive. Councilmember Larson asked how much more the ramp proposal would cost. Mr. Tolaas stated that the ramps themselves cost approximately one-quarter of a million dollars each. Additionally, the north ramp would need to acquire TCAAP property and could cause a major delay in the completion of the project. Mr. To1aas noted that the staging of either of the proposals would be challenging because of the traffic. The construction will require by-pass lanes and temporarily signalized intersections, which can be very costly. Councilmember Larson asked Mr. Tolaas to explain what the noise level impacts would be to the residents 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, the Mobile Home Park residents experience would be about the same. With regard to ramps, the ramp areas would be closer and would generate more traffic, which would otherwise be directed over to 1-35W. Cutting off the connection would reduce the number of vehicles on Highway 96. Mr. Tolaas noted that, with the expected increase in traffic over time, this area might not be attractive for residential use. Councilmember Larson asked, if there is a choice to move forward with the proposal with ramps, would there also be impacts that would be eliminated with the 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 this evening, Councilmember Larson asked what dictated the location of the future intersection to the north, which was shown in gray on the map. Mr. Tolaas stated that this area was shown on the map simply as a general vicinity. The location of this intersection will depend upon land use. He noted that there 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 intersection would be located at the site shown on the map. He indicated that there is nine-tenths of a mile between the intersection and the off-ramp from US Highway 10 to 1-35W. Therefore, there is quite a bit of room to allow an access at the TCAAP property. Mr. T olaas stated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation would oppose this idea since the State is very protective about how far apart interchanges are. 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 between interchanges. Councilmember Larson stated that he would still prefer the original proposal. This proposal would eliminate the need to acquire property and displace homeowners. Councilmember Aplikowski asked ifthe 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