Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL-April 13, 2009 14 <br /> Councilmember Grant asked if the bituminous overlay was something that was <br /> ............ <br /> being considered, if it was already approved or where in the process this was with <br /> Mn/DOT. <br /> Mr. Tolaas stated that a few months ago it was in the program for 2012. Ramsey <br /> County was working with Mn/DOT to coordinate that effort with the County's <br /> improvements of grade separation. He was not sure where in the program the <br /> overlay was at this time or if it was still in the program. He stated that he would <br /> report this informati on back to the Council. <br /> MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a <br /> motion of Support to Complete Environmental Documentation and <br /> Preliminary Design for the US 10/CR 96 Grade Separation and CSAH <br /> 96 Improvements using the Signalized Intersection Alternative as the <br /> Preferred Alternative. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that he would not support this motion. He <br /> credited the County and Mr. Tolaas for working with Arden Manor but there were <br /> still issues that the City would like to see resolved. These issues include where the <br /> flyover is going to be, Round Lake Blvd and how that will impact the manufactured <br /> home park in Arden Manor. He stated that the sound mitigation for the Briarknoll <br /> neighborhood and access from westbound Highway 10 to eastbound County Road <br /> 96 continue to be concerns for the Council and need to be addressed as well. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if it would help the County to stay on schedule if <br /> the motion were passed without a preferred alternative identified. She stated that <br /> there were still too many "what ifs" at this time and would not support a <br /> recommendation at this time. <br /> Mr. Tolaas stated that there are subtle differences in the environmental studies and <br /> it was important to just continue with only one alternative at this time. <br /> Councilmember Holmes stated that she was under the impression that both <br /> alternatives would continue to be modeled at this time. <br /> Mr. Tolaas stated that this was incorrect and that whatever the City helped the <br /> County to decide on would be modeled. He stated that the County would also be <br /> talking to New Brighton in regards to any decisions made. <br /> Councilmember Grant stated that signals were the correct way to go. He stated <br /> that he did not hear that the overlay was definitely attached to this project and the <br /> noise mitigation for the Briarknoll neighborhood had not been properly explored. <br />