Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 DR AET <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that the Council may need to refer back to the <br />minutes from the February 13, 2008 meeting because it talks about what the <br />Council can support, where there was consensus, and where there was not a <br />consensus. He stated that the areas where there was a consensus were not fully <br />covered in the resolution paper. One of these areas is an at grade signalized <br />intersection along the 10 diagonal into TCAAP, which because it would be at a <br />ninety degree angle would be much safer. This should not be thrown out because <br />Mn/DOT has said no because it may turn out that Mn/DOT does decide to accept it <br />because the City wants it. Another area of concern is in regard to the noise <br />mitigation in terms of the flyover, this area is not strong enough in the position <br />paper. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated she would like the resolution document kept <br />strictly to Highway 10 and County Road 96 and exclude the Interstate 694-35E to <br />35W Project. The resolution paper does not contain a lot of the comments that it <br />should pertaining to this particular project since there will be a public hearing on it <br />in the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung agreed with Councilmember Holden because of the <br />impact that would be caused in terms of additional sound and additional speed is <br />because of a flyover at Highway 10 and County Road 96. A lot of the issues with <br />the noise and speed on Highway 10 come from taking out the signalized at grade <br />intersection at Highway 10 and County Road 96. The issue of noise should be tied <br />to that intersection. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated his concern with this type of methodology was that it did <br />not tie the components directly together. By laying these items out separately, they <br />may only get one or two of the items approved and all the items are really linked <br />together. He also stated that he did not like the assumptions that were sometimes <br />made regarding the grade separation impact on either the width of the road and/or <br />the crossing for pedestrians. He would be willing to consider a trail on one side of <br />County Road 96 not necessarily both and does favor a solution that would be <br />beneficial to the City in the future, not something that is necessarily driven by the <br />desires of the City today. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that Mn!DOT should have a responsibility strictly <br />from the Interstate 694-35E to 35W project to do noise mitigation and favors <br />pulling that out of the document and making it a separate item. He also stated that <br />when moving to project #2 they need to be careful not to loose some of the concepts <br />from project #1, more specifically the concept of noise mitigation. He stated that he <br />does agree that the concept of noise abatement was not stated strongly enough in <br />the document, the concept of a signalized intersection as part of a phasing is not <br />