My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1B, TH10/CR96 Preliminary Design Issues & Positions
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
03-17-08-WS
>
1B, TH10/CR96 Preliminary Design Issues & Positions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2008 12:18:31 PM
Creation date
3/18/2008 12:16:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
TH10/CR96 Prelim Design Issues
General - Type
Agenda Item
Date
3/17/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 DR AFT <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead noted that the 694 review was an ongoing process and that this <br />is not the whole element of that review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that the concept of noise rmtIgation was not <br />followed through on item #2, Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road <br />96. If Highway 10 is turned into a freeway, there will be an increase in traffic along <br />with a substantial increase in truck traffic contributing to additional noise. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that an additional design constraint was dealing with <br />noise mitigation with the City's perspective being along the lines that the grade <br />separation would lead to increased volume and/or noise contribution from the traffic <br />on Highway 10 and that needs to be minimized or mitigated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant pointed out that while areas such as Snelling, McCormick <br />Drive, and the bottom side of Briarknoll are beyond the change of the off ramps <br />with the 694 project, they would certainly be impacted with a grade separation at <br />Highway 10 and County Road 96. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that this should be the responsibility of both the <br />City and the County in that they should both be involved in the noise mitigation <br />funding. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that he would like to add MnJDOT to that statement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes corrected her previous statement and agreed that it should <br />be both the State and the County. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that from the February 13, 2008 meeting, the <br />Council had agreed that if sound mitigation was included, then a majority of the <br />Council would support grade separation along Highway 10. Without any sound <br />mitigation to deal with the noise, there is no longer a consensus of the Council to <br />support a grade separated crossing. He also stated that this was an example of <br />something that the Council had agreed on and it was not in the document. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that the matrix that had been worked on shows that <br />the Council would support a grade separation if sound mitigation were dealt with <br />meaningfully. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes requested clarification on design constraint #1 and felt <br />that it should be stricken from the document. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.