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 />9 <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated his concern with this type of methodology was that it did not tie the <br />components directly together. By laying these items out separately, they may only get one or <br />two of the items approved and all the items are really linked together. He also stated that he did <br />not like the assumptions that were sometimes made regarding the grade separation impact on <br />either the width of the road and/or the crossing for pedestrians. He would be willing to consider <br />a trail on one side of County Road 96 not necessarily both and does favor a solution that would <br />be beneficial to the City in the future, not something that is necessarily driven by the desires of <br />the City today. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that MnlDOT should have a responsibility strictly from the <br />Interstate 694-35E to 35W project to do noise mitigation and favors pulling that out of the <br />document and making it a separate item. He also stated that when moving to project #2 they <br />need to be careful not to lose some of the concepts from project #1, more specifically the concept <br />of noise mitigation. He stated that he does agree that the concept of noise abatement was not <br />stated strongly enough in the document, the concept of a signalized intersection as part of a <br />phasing is not addressed at all, and there were four members of the Council who wanted that <br />included. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant would like to have the first line of the document to read: The City <br />reviewed three projects that have potential impact on residents. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated that she did not agree with Councihnember Grant's statement <br />because the City had not reviewed the Interstate 694, 35E to 35W project. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead suggested that rather than going through the specific language of the <br />document at this time they should capture the thought that these are not necessarily the City's <br />projects and that the Council has not reviewed them all because some of them are still in phases. <br /> <br />Councilman Grant stated that two members of the Council, Councihnember Holden and <br />Councilmember Grant, had reviewed the Interstate 694, 35E to 35W project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated that one of the main reasons for the Alpha Bridge was to also <br />maintain access from Arden Manor and item #3 talks generally about the TCAAP property but <br />does not talk about existing parcels that the City has and she would like to see this integrated into <br />item #3. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that he would like to see item #3 include the Scherer Brothers <br />business. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that he would like to see item #3 include access into the <br />northern half of Arden Hills that is north of 694 should the City have a flyover at Highway 10 <br />and County Road 96 that takes away local access. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that this was already included with the preservation of full access <br />between Highway 10 and County Road 96. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.