02-13-08-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION - February 13, 2008 2 potential concepts for these improvements. He noted that the graphic contained in the memo is essentially the same drawing that the Council reviewed on January 28,2008, with some revisions that could be used as essentially a phasing plan component of the January 28th plan. He explained that the changes that are suggested include reducing the number of homes impacted by the improvement, eliminating the frontage road to the south, to tighten the radius on the frontage road to the north, reducing the width of the bridge over Highway 10, as well as some minor changes with the right-of-way. He stated that the revised drawing reduces the impact that requires removal of homes from the northeastern edge of Arden Manor; the impact along the south side, north of CR 96, remains unchanged. He indicated that based on his conversations with the County, the southern edge of construction should not go any farther to the south than the existing paved surfaces and as part of their turn-back project, the County will be acquiring the right-of-way from the northern side because at some future date, the bridge at the intersection of CR 96 and 35W will be widened and that bridge will be widened on the northerly side which will impact traffic as it travels westbound. Councilmember Grant asked if the bridge will be replaced or expanded. Interim City Administrator Willis replied it was his understanding that the bridge will be expanded to the north but it is unclear if that decision has been made yet. He stated that with respect to the designs, it is important to take into consideration requirements that are primarily related to safety and effective movement of traffic; as a result, the design must serve the community in order that the County can proceed with their plans for CR 96. He stated the County has informed him that they must commence their project within three months in order to maintain their proj ect funding and have the proj ect construction schedule of 20 11 maintained. In addition, the Legislature will be adopting a transportation bonding package this year and the City plans to request some funding for either the design or construction of the project. He noted that at the Federal level, Congress has indicated that any requests for transportation-related support are due around February 22, 2008; a prerequisite to the funding request being made is to have a proj ect at least approved in concept to accompany the City's request. He noted that if the City does not have these things in place, it could set that aspect of the project back and somebody will have to come forward with those funds. He requested that the City Council consider moving forward with a concept so the City can work toward obtaining a preliminary design; on a parallel track, the City will engage in ongoing discussions with the state government regarding a transportation proj ect, which all comes together ultimately as part of an overall community development package. Mayor Harpstead stated that following discussion by the Council this evening, he would like to pose several questions to the Council: (1) Is there still support for the separation ofTH 10/CR 96? (2) Does the Council still understand and support the width or alignment of CR 96 on the southern end (the "County project")? (3) Where does the Council stand as it relates to the Scherer Brothers access? (4) Should there be access that allows the movement between TH 10/CR 96? (5) What is the importance or value of access from TH 10 to the TCAAP site?