Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />design issues and position. The issue tonight would be to determine if the draft resolution paper <br />clearly and reasonably captures the Council's desires as this project moves forward. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead asked the Council to comment on the position paper as it stands individually <br />as a Councilmember. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked the Council how they would like to handle this particular item. <br />He stated that they could go Councihnember by Councihnember or go item by item down the <br />page. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Council to go item by item down the page of the draft position <br />document. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked for clarification from Interim City Administrator Willis regarding <br />the author or authors of the draft position document. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Willis stated that Mr. Bubul put together the resolution; the <br />position paper document was originally drafted by Stacie Kvilvang and reviewed by the staff. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that it may be time to hire a Traffic Engineering group to <br />assist the City as they move forward. He then stated that it is a good idea that the City has some <br />type of task force to assist them with the process as they move forward and he would be <br />supportive of creating this type of group. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that the Council may need to refer back to the minutes from <br />the February 13, 2008 meeting because it talks about what the Council can support, where there <br />was consensus, and where there was not a consensus. He stated that the areas where there was a <br />consensus were not fully covered in the resolution paper. One of these areas is an at grade <br />signalized intersection along the 10 diagonal into TCAAP, which because it would be at a ninety <br />degree angle, would be much safer. This should not be thrown out because MnlDOT has said no. <br />It may turn out that MnlDOT does decide to accept it because the City wants it. Another area of <br />concern is in regard to the noise mitigation in terms of the flyover, this area is not strong enough <br />in the position paper. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated she would like the resolution document kept strictly to Highway <br />10 and County Road 96 and exclude the Interstate 694-35E to 35W Project. The resolution <br />paper does not contain a lot of the comments that it should pertaining to this particular project <br />since there will be a public hearing on it in the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung agreed with Councilmember Holden that the impact of additional <br />sound and additional speed is because of a flyover at Highway 10 and County Road 96. A lot of <br />the issues with 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 to that <br />intersection. <br />