My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-08-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
03-10-08-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2012 5:13:17 PM
Creation date
4/4/2008 10:11:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Regular City Council Minutes
General - Type
Regular Meeting
Date
3/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the City Council to add two additional Design Constraints to the Ramsey <br />County Project, Section II, Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96. The first one <br />is building into the process the noise mitigation driven by the grade separation. The second <br />design constraint is the addition to capture the pedestrian crossing on the side that any bridges <br />are being built. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that the document will need to come back to the Council and they <br />would review it again at the worksession on March 17,2008. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that under City Project, the first three bullet points talk about <br />phasing but phasing is not talked about again in the document except a slight mention in Design <br />Constraint #3. He also stated it needs to be noted that all the phasing needed to be cost effective <br />and this may be another design constraint. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that the signalized intersection needed to be added as well. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes agreed that the signalized intersection needed to be a separate design <br />constraint. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that it should be noted that the City's preference would be to <br />have a signalized at grade entrance into TCAAP along the Highway 10 diagonal. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes disagreed with it being the preference. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that it should be strongly considered. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead asked for clarification if this was considered an end point or phasing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that it could be considered both ways. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that this would need to be a higher priority and something that <br />the City would have to push for. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated that Design Constraint #1 reviews the phasing options to see if <br />all four ramps are needed, and Councilmember Grant had brought up that if there was half a <br />diamond with the interchanges on the east then there would not be a need for legs on the east so <br />it wouldn't be a full interchange. She stated that she thought the Council had agreed that it could <br />work with just the exit and entrance ramps on the east side. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that this was complicated by the traffic pattern of commuters that are <br />west bound on County Road 96/North bound on Highway 10 and the opposite in the evenings. <br />The second element has been the semi truck traffic from Scherer Brothers. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead would like Design Constraint #4 to include wording about phasing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.