My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-30-08-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
06-30-08-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2012 5:06:45 PM
Creation date
7/29/2008 12:44:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
06-30-08 Regular City Council Minutes
General - Type
Minutes
Date
6/30/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 - June 30, 2008 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung clarified that Chris had not had an opportunity to <br />review the traffic data that Ramsey County had done and submitted with the Federal <br />Grant. He also asked if Staff had received a copy of this. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that he had not received it. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy stated that he had just received of copy of the federal funding <br />application and had not had a chance to fully review it. He also stated that City <br />Staff had received a copy of the full application from Ramsey County for the <br />Federal grant several weeks ago. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung asked if Staff had reviewed this information then or ifit <br />had been presented to Council yet. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated that the application had been read but not the data that <br />was behind it. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that if Ramsey County did a traffic study this <br />should be a public document. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy stated that this would be correct. He also stated that he was not aware <br />of a traffic operations study that had been done as part of this project. He was <br />quoting part of the safety analysis that had been completed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked to clarify ifMnlDOT's vision for TH 10 was to turn <br />it into a freeway because it was cheaper than fixing Interstate 694 and Interstate <br />35W. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy stated that Councilmember Grant was generally correct in his <br />statement that it would be converted to a freeway type facility but disagreed that it <br />would be solely because of costs and that environmental impacts and property <br />impacts would also need to be compared. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead asked if MnlDOT had addressed the second signalized <br />intersection as well as the signalized intersection at Highway 1 0 and County Road <br />96. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy stated that he was addressing the second signalized intersection and <br />that he had used the Highway 1 0 and County Road 96 as an example as to why <br />MnlDOT would not consider this type of intersection. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.