The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2A, MnDot I694TH 51 Improvement Project Municipal Consent Discu EN HILLS Request for Council Review 2A Prepared By: Terry Maurer,Public Works Director Worksession Date: October 11,2010 Mn/DOT I-6941TH 51 Improvement Project- Municipal Consent Discussion Discussion Topic: Discuss the format and conditions to be attached to a Municipal Consent resolution for the I-694/TH 51 Mn/DOT improvement project Supporting Documents: • Memo from Terry Maurer and Kristine Giga dated October 11, 2010 • February 13, 2008 Worksession Minutes • March 10, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes • March 17, 2008 Worksession Minutes • March 31, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes • August 9, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • September 20, 2010 Worksession Minutes • Resolution 2008-020 (including position paper) • Mn/DOT Letter dated September 14, 2010 • Municipal Consent Process • Possible Conditions prepared by Staff - -ARzEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11,2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Mn/DOT I-694 Improvement Project- Municipal Consent Discussion Background Mn/DOT is proposing an improvement project for the interchange of Interstate 694, Highway 10, Snelling Avenue and Hamline Avenue in Arden Hills. In June, Mn/DOT submitted a Mn/DOT approved layout to the City. requesting City approval (Municipal Consent) of the layout. On August 9, 2010, the City Council held the public hearing for this project. Attached is the following information as background for this issue: • February 13, 2008 Worksession Minutes • March 10, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes • March 17, 2008 Worksession Minutes • March 31, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes • August 9, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • September 20, 2010 Worksession Minutes • Resolution 2008-020 (including position paper) • Mn/DOT Letter dated September 14, 2010 • Municipal Consent Process • Possible Conditions prepared by city staff Discussion Following the August 9, 2010 public hearing. City staff met with Mn/DOT and Ramsey County to review comments heard from City Council members and residents. (At a later date staff met with the Shoreview PWD as he was not available for the initial meeting) Items of discussion included traffic/access, pedestrian movements, noise, and project benefits. Staff requested additional information from Mn/DOT based on the comments made at the public hearing. Mn/DOT has provided the attached letter dated September 14, 2010. City Council Meeting C:\Userslterry.maurerlDesktopl]0-]1-10 Memo.doc Page ] of2 At the September 20, 2010 worksession the City Council asked staff to prepare some possible conditions for a Municipal Consent resolution. Those were prepared and emailed to council members late last month. A copy is also attached to this memo. Schedule Also attached is a summary sheet outlining the Municipal Consent process. Following the _ public hearing held August 9, 2010, the City has 90 days, or until November 7, 2010. to approve/disapprove the layout. The last regularly scheduled City Council meeting before this deadline is Monday, October 25, 2010. The City has three options when voting on Municipal Consent: ■ Disapprove Municipal Consent with conditions ■ Disapprove Municipal Consent ■ Approve Municipal Consent Council Action Requested Provide staff with direction on the Council"s position in order to place this item on the regularly scheduled City Council meeting agenda on October 25, 2010. City Council Meeting CAUserslterry.maurer\Desktop110-1 1-10 M ern o_doc Page 2 of 2 -AVEN HALLS Approved: February 25, 2008 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION FEBRUARY 13, 2008; 6:00 PM ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Harpstead called to order the City Council Special Worksession meeting at 6:05 p.m. Present: Mayor Stan Harpstead; Councilmembers David Grant, Brenda Holden. Fran Holmes, and David McClung. Absent: None. Also present: Interim City Administrator Jim Willis; Assistant City Administrator Noah Simon; Public Works Director Gregory Hoag; Civil Engineer Kristine Giga; Jim Tolaas of Ramsey County Public Works; Chris Roy of Mn/DOT; Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates; Mark Benson of SEH; Steve Bubul, Esq.; Ken Haider of Ramsey County Public Works; and Recording Secretary Barbara Hughes. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. 3. AGENDA ITEMS A. Discussion of One or More Revised Concept Plans for TH 10/CR 96 Improvements Interim City Administrator Willis presented the City Council with a memo containing a revised concept plan and explained that since the Council's last meeting, staff has met with Ms. Kvilvang and Mr. Benson to make some revisions to the previous plan that respond to the major issues raised by the Council and the public. He stated that there was a concern raised that a representative of SEH met with staff to prepare an update of the plan; the reason for this is that Mr. Benson has the background and expertise to develop two-dimensional graphics that represent ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 2 potential concepts for these improvements. He noted that the graphic contained in the memo is essentially the same drawing that the Council reviewed on January 28, 2008, with some revisions that could be used as essentially a phasing plan component of the January 28th plan. He explained that the changes that are suggested include reducing the number of homes impacted by the improvement, eliminating the frontage road to the south, to tighten the radius on the frontage - road to the north, reducing the width of the bridge over Highway 10, as well as some minor changes with the right-of-way. He stated that the revised drawing reduces the impact that requires removal of homes from the northeastern edge of Arden Manor; the impact along the south side, north of CR 96, remains unchanged. He indicated that based on his conversations with the County,the southern edge of construction should not go any farther to the south than the existing paved surfaces and as part of their turn-back project, the County will be acquiring the right-of-way from the northern side because at some fixture date, the bridge at the intersection of CR 96 and 35W will be widened and that bridge will be widened on the northerly side which will impact traffic as it travels westbound. Councilmember Grant asked if the bridge will be replaced or expanded. Interim City Administrator Willis replied it was his understanding that the bridge will be expanded to the north but it is unclear if that decision has been made yet. He stated that with respect to the designs, it is important to take into consideration requirements that are primarily related to safety and effective movement of traffic; as a result, the design must serve the community in order that the County can proceed with their plans for CR 96. He stated the County has informed him that they must commence their project within three months in order to maintain their project funding and have the project construction schedule of 2011 maintained. In addition, the Legislature will be adopting a transportation bonding package this year and the City plans to request some funding for either the design or construction of the project. He noted that at the Federal level, Congress has indicated that any requests for transportation-related support are due around February 22, 2008; a prerequisite to the funding request being made is to have a project at least approved in concept to accompany the City's request. He noted that if the City does not have these things in place, it could set that aspect of the project back and somebody will have to come forward with those funds. He requested that the City Council consider moving forward with a concept so the City can work toward obtaining a preliminary design; on a parallel track, the City will engage in ongoing discussions with the state government regarding a transportation project, which all comes together ultimately as part of an overall community development package. Mayor Harpstead stated that following discussion by the Council this evening, he would like to pose several questions to the Council: (I) Is there still support for the separation of TH I0/CR 96? (2) Does the Council still understand and support the width or alignment of CR 96 on the southern end (the "County project")? (3) Where does the Council stand as it relates to the Scherer Brothers access? (4) Should there be access that allows the movement between TH 10/CR 96? (5) What is the importance or value of access from TH 10 to the TCAAP site? AR.DEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 3 Councilmember Holmes asked why the road has to go to the north. Jim Tolaas, Ramsey County Public Works, stated there is a significant environmental concern along the south side of 96. In addition, the medians are important for safety, the shoulders are an important feature for safety, and the turn lanes provide some additional width. He stated the City will have to wrestle with whether it wants a sidewalk along the north boulevard area. He noted the new bridge has to be considerably larger, longer, and higher and the alignment of CR 96 is shifted northward to align with the 135W interchange and bridge. He stated if the County is able to curtail some of the impact on Arden Manor, it will do that, and added it is possible that some of the units along the north frontage may not be impacted. Councilmember Holden asked about the regional trail width. Mr. Tolaas stated the minimum standard is eight feet and the County is proposing 10-12 feet. Councilmember Holden asked if the trail could be moved five feet to the south to reduce some of the impact to Arden Manor. Mr. Tolaas stated when the environmental studies are completed, the County will see what the impacts are, and added it will be important to make sure the alignment on CR 96 approaching 35W is correct. Ken Haider, Ramsey County Public Works, indicated that most of this information will be available in the near future. He stated there are a number of constraints, including the lake, the bridge, and how to stage the bridge at the interchange, and these overarching concerns will guide the County as it does its preliminary engineering. Councilmember Grant stated he is in favor of trails on both sides as well as overhead or an underground connection on CR 96 given the existence of TCAAP so that people can cross over CR 96 safely. He stated he would need to see that in the plan in order to support that plan. Councilmember McClung stated he did not understand the need for a stoplight at Old Highway 10 and CR 96 if there is no longer a service drive coming down. Mr. Tolaas stated the County will review traffic movement to see if a signal is warranted. Discussion ensued regarding traffic volume and access points for TCAAP. Chris Roy, Mn/DOT, stated that the signal that currently exists at TH 10/CR 96 is one of the top 300 most dangerous intersections in the State. He noted there is a strong desire by people traveling on CR 96 who want to get to TH 10; with the removal of that signal, many of those people will be moved to an intersection at a desired interchange location. He indicated that while the signalized intersection at TH 10 and CR 96 is dangerous, the proposed intersection leading into TCAAP would be equally dangerous if signalized. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 4 Councilmember Grant stated he felt it will be crucial to include some mitigation of noise in the concept plan due to the increased volume of traffic and the Iikelihood of increased truck traffic. Councilmember Holden stated the cost of funding for noise abatement will likely fall on the City because the decibel level will not reach Mn/DOT's threshold. Mayor Harpstead stated that the preliminary design process can include a provision for sound mitigation; this provision can be included in the resolution adopted by the City Council. Discussion ensued regarding sound abatement. Councilmember Grant stated that the Council has previously discussed whether the City wants to maintain certain turning movements on TH 10 and CR 96. He felt the most important turning movement is northbound TH 10 to eastbound CR 96, and added this would service the residents in the Briarknoll area. Councilmember Grant stated that when Round Lake Road was done, certain land was acquired and there was an agreement between the City and the County relative to the City's use of TIF funds; that agreement needs to be revisited. Mr. Tolaas stated when the County made its improved CR 96 section and determined how much of its drainage would end up in the City, the County agreed to pay a commensurate amount of construction costs when CR 96 was constructed as well as an amount representing a payback on the signal on TH 10 based on a depreciated value. He agreed to provide that information to the City. Mayor Harpstead stated the Council previously discussed the issue of access to Scherer Brothers and an attempt to minimize the impact by still allowing Scherer Brothers to use that road. He stated one of the elements was the turn radius at the interchange for semi trucks. Discussion ensued regarding the frontage road at the Scherer Brothers location. Mr. Roy pointed out that a signal will not be allowed at this (alpha interchange) location due to safety and capacity concerns. Councilmember McClung stated that Councilmember Holmes previously suggested hiring an independent outside evaluator to look at the project and assist the City Council in making its decision. He agreed with this suggestion and stated he would like the City to hire someone to assist the City Council. Discussion ensued regarding the relocation of TH 10, Mr. Roy stated that TH 10 is not currently planned for reconstruction and stated if it were to be realigned, there would obviously be costs associated with it. He noted that as you start to relocate further to the east, you have to reconstruct that portion of TH 10 going both north and .. .. . .. ....... ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION —February 13, 2008 S south and the cost grows almost exponentially. He stated that construction of freeways in the urban area is approximately $2 million per lane mile. Councilmember Holmes asked if this option could be included as part of the Council's resolution and stated this option would have less impact/no impact on the Arden Manor homes_ - Mr. Roy stated that Mn/DOT can review this option and prepare some layouts for consideration by the Council, including advantages and disadvantages. Councilmember Grant stated that one of the aspects to consider when moving the road is that you are trading property; if five or ten acres in TCAAP were removed, there is a value associated with that. Questions Presented to the City Council: 1. Does.the City Council still support the grade separation at CR 96 and TH 10? Councilmember McClung replied "no." Councilmember Grant stated he had serious reservations if noise abatement is not included in the plan. He added if noise mitigation can be accounted for,then he had no problem with it. Mayor Harpstead expressed his support for grade separation. Councilmember Holmes stated she would support the grade separation, but asked that the resolution include the issue of noise mitigation being addressed and satisfactorily resolved. Councilmember Holden stated she agreed with the grade separation, subject to a right turn lane onto CR 96 from TH 10 heading north to CR 96 east. She stated she wanted to see a one Ieg local access. She also concurred with Councilmember Grant and Councilmember Holmes regarding the resolution of the noise abatement issue_ Councilmember Grant concurred with Councilmember Holden's comment regarding the turn lane. He added if the noise abatement issue cannot be resolved, he would not support the grade separation. Councilmember McClung stated he was in support of addressing the noise abatement issue. Mayor Harpstead asked if the Council desired resolving the noise abatement issue during the preliminary design phase. Discussion ensued regarding the next phase of the plan. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 6 Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, presented an overview of next steps and explained that the preliminary design phase will include preliminary designs and associated costs based on the Council's discussions. Mr. Roy stated that typically, the preliminary design phase includes a preliminary geometric =- layout and an environmental document, the environmental document would include noise mitigation. He stated that Mn/DOT is committed to doing a noise analysis for the area, which is impacted on TH 10, and the area left as a gap between what Mn/DOT previously studied on 694 will be added to their existing environmental assessment for the 1-694 project. He added that Mn/DOT is currently in the process of doing an analysis of the "gap area," also referred to the Briarknoll area. Councilmember Holmes stated if the City Council does not feel that the issue of noise abatement is properly addressed to its satisfaction during the preliminary design phase, the Council should decide to go no further. 2. Does the City Council still understand and support the width or alignment of CR 96? Councilmember Grant stated that he is in favor of a plan that mitigates impact as much as possible and prefers to see a trail on both sides. Mayor Harpstead stated he would support a plan that forgoes the north trail route and understands that the concept would include turn lanes as appropriate. Councilmember Holmes stated she would support it with the understanding that Ramsey County will carefully look at impacts to determine if more homes can be saved. Councilmember Holden expressed her support and stated that realignment is the number one concern. Councilmember McClung stated he was not as concerned about alignment as he was about lessening the impact to the mobile home park. He stated it is crucial to minimize impact to any potential takings or additional right-of-way on CR 96. He added he supported trying to incorporate trails on one side only. 3. Where does the City Council stand as it relates to the Scherer Brothers concept? Mayor Harpstead stated he was in support of some form of access for Scherer Brothers. Councilmember Holmes concurred with Mayor Harpstead and stated by law, the City is required to provide as safe as possible. Councilmember Holden stated she was in support of access for Scherer Brothers, adding that she also supported the loss of the proposed off ramp to have Scherer Brothers' access run more parallel with TH 10. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 7 Councilmember McClung expressed concern that it does not appear that Scherer Brothers is sharing any of the impact here. Councilmember Grant stated he did not view Scherer Brothers as being given superior access in = terms of safety. He stated they are being impacted somewhat and expressed support for access for Scherer Brothers. He added he would be in favor of minimizing the amount of homes taken there by moving that access as far to the north and east as possible. Discussion ensued regarding the diamond interchange. Mayor Harpstead requested input regarding access between TH 10 and CR 96 and preserving the movements onto TH 10 and the diamond interchange. Councilmember Holmes stated she felt strongly about removing the northwest leg (southbound TH 10 to the intersection) and finding a safe, effective manner to move that to TCAAP or, alternatively, move TH 10 northeast into TCAAP. Councilmember Holden stated it would be her desire to force all traffic into TCAAP. She added she hoped to see further access from the south of Round Lake Road at some point. Councilmember Holmes stated when you get off the southbound leg, you have to go through TCAAP to get onto CR 96. Councilmember McClung expressed his disagreement with this configuration and asked about including a signalized intersection. Councilmember Grant stated it will be important to maintain the turning movements. Mayor Harpstead concurred. Mayor Harpstead asked the City Council: 4 Is it important to maintain the access from TH 10 to the TCAAP propeA northbound onJ. TH 10 with access to the "alpha" bridge to get to TCAAP)? Councilmember Holden stated she supported 3/4 access. Councilmember McClung stated he supported 1/4 access with no exit from TCAAP onto TH 10. He stated he would be willing to let people off of TH 10 onto TCAAP. Councilmember Grant stated he supported access to TCAAP both north and south. Mayor Harpstead stated he believed this is a value proposition for TCAAP. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION—February 13, 2008 8 Councilmember Holmes stated she supported three legs. She indicated you could come out of TCAAP and go south on TH 10. Councilmember Holden concurred with Councilmember Holmes. Mayor Harpstead indicated that what would be left off is a southbound access to TCAAP. Councilmember Holmes indicated there could be a frontage road right onto that exit ramp. Mayor Harpstead noted there was a preference stated earlier to have this be a signalized intersection. Councilmember McClung stated he would be in favor of that. Councilmember Grant stated he would be in favor of that and added he felt the two Iegs of the east side of TH 10 could remain. He noted there would be one dangerous turning radius on southbound TH 10 into TCAAP or southbound TH 10 out of TCAAP. He added that would be a phase-in since the grade is unclear at this time. Mayor Harpstead stated he would be opposed to this because it presents a signal too close to the freeway ramps and the boundaries of these intersections are already at threshold; this would negatively impact the overall neighborhood. Councilmember Holmes stated she would like to have this idea considered. Councilmember Holden stated she supported Councilmember Grant's statement but would take out the phasing part. Mayor Harpstead asked the City Council: 5 If TH 10 were moved to the east, does the City Council intend for all four lanes to be moved? -- - Councilmember Grant stated he would not be in favor of this. He added there needs to be a way to resolve the impact to Arden Manor,but moving TH 10 is not the correct way to do that. Mayor Harpstead stated he would be in favor of exploring the quality of the roadbed and to rebuild as much as possible to the northeast. Councilmember Holmes stated she would like this idea to be considered meaningfully during the preliminary design phase as a means to further decrease the impact on Arden Manor. Councilmember Holden concurred with Councilmember Holmes. Councilmember McClung expressed his support for moving TH 10. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSESSION February 13,2008 9 Discussion ensued regarding next steps and the preliminary design phase. Mr. Roy stated that during the preliminary design phase, you look at all available options and develop profiles that maximize the best design while minimizing costs. He stated that Mn/DOT is currently doing the preliminary engineering design for the Ramsey County CR 96 project; - since Mn/DOT owns the highway (TH10), it is responsible for reviewing the "alpha" bridge and all access to the highway. There was consensus by the City Council to: (1) Direct staff to prepare a matrix based on the City Council's answers to the questions posed by Mayor Harpstead this evening.; (2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution for City Council review at a worksession.; and, (3) Request Mn/DOT to prepare a preliminary design document that includes all of the issues raised by the City Council this evening. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS None. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. The motion carried (5-0). Stanley D. Harpstead Noah A. Simon Mayor Deputy City Clerk ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 7 the Deputy Clerk position until after the City Administrator position had been filled. He stated that he is supportive of this type of position but not supportive of advertising the position at this time_ Councilmember Holmes stated that the staff seems to be overloaded with all the responsibilities and demands and the City is becoming more focused on recording and communications. She stated that her preference would be to hire the position. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to table item 5E, Motion to Approve the Job Description for Deputy Clerk and to Authorize Staff to Advertise the Position, until the City Administrator is on board and comes back to the Council with a recommendation to fill this position. The motion passed (3-2, Mayor Harpstead and Councilmember Holmes.) - 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Resolution No. 2008-020, Approving Preliminary Design Positions For Interstate 694 Highway 10 and County Road 96 Projects. Interim City Administrator Willis introduced this item for Stacie Kvilvang; this item is a follow up to the February 13, 2008 worksession regarding the various concept plans. The staff looked at the comments made on February 13, 2008 and then developed the concept plan and position paper that was being presented. This is designed to be a communication tool to articulate the Council's issues they would like to have reviewed and addressed as this process moves forward. The comments made by the Council were put into categories of three projects. There are three separate agencies specifically going to be involved in the various tasks that will ultimately arrive at decisions and conclusions as these projects move forward. The first is the Mn/DOT-Interchange project, the Interstate 694 Study from 35E to 35W.Mn/Dot indicated that they are willing to extend the study area up Highway 10 Second is Ramsey County-Grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96. The third is to preserve full access for residents between Highway 10 and County Road 96 through development of an interchange that includes access to TCAAP from Highway 10. The only issue not addressed that was raised by the Council was support for a signalized intersection at Highway 10 into TCAAP. As was noted in the report, Staff did not move this forward as a preliminary design consideration since Mn/DOT has repeatedly stated they will not support this type of access. Interim City Administrator Willis stated that they are asking the Council to review the draft Position documents that have been submitted and see if they meet the expectations of the Council from the meeting on February 13, 2008. If it does or at such time that it does, then staff would ask the Council to adopt it. There is a draft resolution document prepared by Mr. Bubul and it adopts by reference the Draft Interstate 694, Highway 10, and County Road 96 preliminary ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 8 design issues and position. The issue tonight would be to determine if the draft resolution paper clearly and reasonably captures the Council's desires as this project moves forward. Mayor Harpstead asked the Council to comment on the position paper as it stands individually as a Councilmember. Councilmember Grant asked the Council how they would like to handle this particular item. He stated that they could go Councilmember by Councilmember or go item by item down the page. It was the consensus of the Council to go item by item down the page of the draft position document. Councilmember Grant asked for clarification from Interim City Administrator Willis regarding - the author or authors of the draft position document. Interim City Administrator Willis stated that Mr. Bubul put together the resolution; the position paper document was originally drafted by Stacie Kvilvang and reviewed by the staff. Councilmember McClung stated that it may be time to hire a Traffic Engineering group to assist the City as they move forward. He then stated that it is a good idea that the City has some type of task force to assist them with the process as they move forward and he would be supportive of creating this type of group. Councilmember McClung stated that the Council may need to refer back to the minutes from the February 13, 2008 meeting because it talks about what the Council can support, where there was consensus, and where there was not a consensus. He stated that the areas where there was a consensus were not fully covered in the resolution paper. One of these areas is an at grade signalized intersection along the 10 diagonal into TCAAP, which because it would be at a ninety degree angle, would be much safer. This should not be thrown out because Mn/DOT has said no. It may turn out that Mn/DOT does decide to accept it because the City wants it_ Another area of concern, is in regard to the noise mitigation in terms of the flyover, this area is not strong enough in the position paper. Councilmember Holden stated she would like the resolution document kept strictly to Highway 10 and County Road 96 and exclude the Interstate 694-35E to 35W Project. The resolution paper does not contain a lot of the comments that it should pertaining to this particular project since there will be a public hearing on it in the future. Councilmember McClung agreed with Councilmember Holden that the impact of additional sound and additional speed is because of a flyover at Highway 10 and County Road 96. A lot of the issues with the noise and speed on Highway 10 come from taking out the signalized at grade intersection at Highway 10 and County Road 96. The issue of noise should be tied to that intersection. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL March 10. 2008 9 Mayor Harpstead stated his concern with this type of methodology was that it did not tie the components directly together. By laying these items out separately, they may only get one or two of the items approved and all the items are really linked together. He also stated that he did not like the assumptions that were sometimes made regarding the grade separation impact on either the width of the road and/or the crossing for pedestrians. He would be willing to consider a trail on one side of County Road 96 not necessarily both and does favor a solution that would be beneficial to the City in the future, not something that is necessarily driven by the desires of the City today. Councilmember Grant stated that Mn/DOT should have a responsibility strictly from the Interstate 694-35E to 35W project to do noise mitigation and favors pulling that out of the document and making it a separate item. He also stated that when moving to project #2 they need to be careful not to lose some of the concepts from project 41, more specifically the concept of noise mitigation. He stated that he does agree that the concept of noise abatement was not stated strongly enough in the document, the concept of a signalized intersection as part of a phasing is not addressed at all, and there were four members of the Council who wanted that included. Councilmember Grant would like to have the first line of the document to read: The City reviewed three projects that have potential impact on residents. Councilmember Holden stated that she did not agree with Councilmember Grant's statement because the City had not reviewed the Interstate 694, 35E to 35W project. Mayor Harpstead suggested that rather than going through the specific language of the document at this time they should capture the thought that these are not necessarily the City's projects and that the Council has not reviewed them all because some of them are still in phases. Councilman Grant stated that two members of the Council, Councilmember Holden and Councilmember Grant, had reviewed the Interstate 694, 35E to 35W project. Councilmember Holden stated that one of the main reasons for the Alpha Bridge was to also maintain access from Arden Manor and item 93 talks generally about the TCAAP property but does not talk about existing parcels that the City has and she would like to see this integrated into item #3. Mayor Harpstead stated that he would like to see item #3 include the Scherer Brothers business. Councilmember McClung stated that he would like to see item #3 include access into the northern half of Arden Hills that is north of 694 should the City have a flyover at Highway 10 and County Road 96 that takes away local access. Mayor Harpstead stated that this was already included with the preservation of full access between Highway 10 and County Road 96. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10. 2008 10 Councilmember Holden stated that she would address the southern border of County Road 96 later in the meeting and answer the questions brought up during the public inquiries. Councilmember Grant stated he would like to see the third sentence under Mn/DOT Project, City Perspective, to read: The City requests Mn/DOT to review and implement measures to reduce noise via noise walls, landscaping, and/or paving materials. Councilmember Holden stated that she would like MnJDOT to do this but if they did a mitigation study and the study doesn't meet the standards, then the cost may be responsibility of the City. The Council may want the report and to review all the information prior to making this type of change. Councilmember Grant stated that this should be the responsibility of Mn/DOT, not the City, and he would like to see the final sentence in ibis section stricken entirely. Councilmember McClung agreed with striking the final sentence under City Perspective. Mayor Harpstead stated that a second draft could be drawn up that considers eliminating the last sentence or possibly suggests an obligation by Mn/DOT for the noise mitigation. Mayor Harpstead pointed out that there are restrictions on what the State funds can be used for with noise mitigation. Councilmember Grant stated concerns with Mn/DOT and a noise abatement study. They may come in and do a study then snake a change and not do additional studies after the change has occurred. He suggested the City should request the standards or guidelines that Mn/DOT uses so that the City is aware of what they are dealing with. Councilmember Holden asked Kristine Giga what the standards may be for sound mitigation. Civil Engineer Giga stated that she did not know at this time. Mayor Harpstead asked that Staff get the specific noise standard requirements. Councilmember McClung stated that because things tend to get complicated quickly, he would suggest that the City needs technical expertise to assist them. It was the consensus of the City Council, in regard to Mn/DOT Project. Interstate 694-35E to 35W, that they would like to tighten the obligation portion of noise mitigation in the City Perspective section. Councilmember Holden stated that in addition she would like to say that when the project does come forward there would be other comments and that the issue with noise mitigation is not the only issue the City has. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 11 Mayor Harpstead noted that the 694 review is an ongoing process and that this is not the whole element of that review. Councilmember Grant stated that the concept of noise mitigation was not followed through on item #2, Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96. If Highway 10 is turned into a freeway, there will be an increase in traffic along with a substantial increase in truck traffic contributing to additional noise. Mayor Harpstead stated that an additional design constraint was dealing with noise mitigation with the City's perspective being along the lines that the grade separation would lead to increased volume and/or noise contribution from the traffic on Highway 10 and that needs to be minimized or mitigated. Councilmember Grant pointed out that while areas such as Snelling, McClung Drive. and the bottom side of Briarknoll are beyond the change of the off ramps with the 694 project, they would certainly be impacted with a grade separation at Highway 10 and County Road 96. Councilmember Holmes stated that this should be the responsibility of both the City and the County in that they should both be involved in the noise mitigation funding. Councilmember Grant stated that he would like to add Mn/DOT to that statement. Councilmember Holmes corrected her previous statement and agreed that it should be both the State and the County. Councilmember McClung stated that from the February 13. 2008 meeting. the Council had agreed that if sound mitigation was included, then a majority of the Council would support grade separation at County Road 96 and Highway 10. Without any sound mitigation to deal with the noise, there is no longer a consensus of the Council to support a grade separated crossing. He also stated that this was an example of something that the Council had agreed on and it was not in the document. Councilmember Holmes stated that the matrix that had been worked on shows that the Council would support a grade separation if sound mitigation were dealt with meaningfully_ Councilmember Holmes requested clarification on design constraint #1 and felt that it should be stricken from the document. Councilmember Holden explained the need for design constraint #1 to assist in accommodating 19,000 plus commuters once the flyover was completed. Councilmember Grant stated that he would not agree with striking design constraint #1 because the turn lane would be small and it would benefit the residents of Briarknoll, McClung, and Snelling, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL March 10, 2008 12 Councilmember Holmes questioned why there would not be one west on County Road 96 to turn right onto Highway 10 or any additional places. Councilmember Grant gave examples of traffic movement to better explain the need for this turn lane to reduce the need of residents to go to far out of their way. Councilmember Holden stated that this turn lane would eliminate the need for an additional ramp to get onto Highway 10. Mayor Harpstead clarified that they do try to space apart any ramps that exit in to traffic that is going onto a different ramp. So the one that is included in this plan is the only one that would work. He also stated that this would not be his first choice for design constraint and did not feel it was the highest priority. Councilmember McClung stated he felt the design would result in a lot of elevation changes, reminiscent of a rollercoaster. Councilmember Holden stated that some of this may be addressed when the 694-35E to 35W project is done. Mayor Harpstead stated that there was a need for additional engineering and design. Councilmember Grant stated under Design Constraint 42, City Perspective, the first sentence, remove the word "possible". Mayor Harpstead asked Councilmember Grant to explain having the trail on both sides of the roadway because he would like to have a choice in this. Councilmember Grant stated that there needed to be a trail on at least one side and the addition of trails does not add to the noise. The only question would be if the width of the trails takes away homes. And if it doesn't, then there could be trails on both sides. If it does take away homes, then the Council will need to decide which side they want the trail. He stated that he would like to see a trail on both sides to Highway 10 to alleviate people having to cross County Road 96 in order to get onto the trail. If there can be a trail on only one side, the north side would be the better choice because of the number of people on the north side. Mayor Harpstead stated under Design Constraint #2, City Perspective. the last part of the first sentence, should read: trail widths and location of trails on one or both sides of the roadways are ways to assist in meeting this goal. Councilmember Holden stated that the City Perspective should not be just the median and trail widths, but also the shoulder. Mayor Harpstead stated that the shoulder was included under Design Constraint #2 but could also be included under the City Perspective. ........................... ............................ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10. 2008 13 Councilmember Grant stated that it is not clear in the document that the City was willing to sacrifice the width of mediums and shoulders in order to have a trail on both sides. He also stated that the design constraints needed to be prioritized. Mayor Harpstcad stated that he did not have enough information at this time to prioritize these constraints. Councilmember Holden stated that she would not want to prioritize at this time. Councilmember Grant stated that if he were to prioritize he would be willing to sacrifice width in the median and shoulder in order to have a trail on both sides. Councilmember Holden agreed with Councilmember Grant. She pointed out that a trail on the south side does make County Road 96 hug as far south as it can. - Mayor Harpstead stated that especially in the area where it approaches Round Lake Road they do not want it to be in alignment with the bridge but the City wants it as close to Round Lake as possible, which should be added to Design Constraint #3. It was the consensus of the Council that County Road 96 should be as close to Round Lake as possible rather than to the future alignment with the Highway 35W bridge expansion, and that this be added to Design Constraint#3. Councilmember Grant stated that Design Constraint 44 referred to a pedestrian crossing, either over or under, located east of North Heights Lutheran Church but it could also be taken to refer to an over or under, a grade separated intersection, at Highway I0 and County Road 96. Mayor Harpstead stated he would like to have the sentence under Design Constraint #4 to read_ Provide pedestrian crossing over or under County Road 96 to the east of the access at North Heights Lutheran Church. Councilmember Grant stated he would like to add that if there is a grade separated intersection, the bridges should allow for pedestrian traffic. Councilmember McClung clarified Councilmember Grant's comments stating that if a design comes back having County Road 96 going over Highway 10, there should be a pedestrian option as part of that. Mayor Harpstead restated that the sentence under Design Constraint 44 needs to capture the access to the east of North Heights Lutheran Church or to any bridges built to allow for pedestrian crossing. Councilmember Holden agreed with allowing for pedestrian crossing on any bridges that may be built_ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 14 It was the consensus of the City Council to add two additional Design Constraints to the Ramsey County Project, Section 11, Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96. The first one is building into the process the noise mitigation driven by the grade separation. The second design constraint is the addition to capture the pedestrian crossing on the side that any bridges are being built. Mayor Harpstead stated that the document will need to come back to the Council and they would review it again at the worksession on March 17, 2008. Councilmember Grant stated that under City Project. the first three bullet points talk about phasing but phasing is not talked about again in the document except a slight mention in Design Constraint #3. He also stated it needs to be noted that all the phasing needed to be cost effective and this may be another design constraint. Councilmember McClung stated that the signalized intersection needed to be added as well. Councilmember Holmes agreed that the signalized intersection needed to be a separate design constraint. Councilmember McClung stated that it should be noted that the City's preference would be to have a signalized at grade entrance into TCAAP along the Highway 10 diagonal. Councilmember Holmes disagreed with it being the preference. Councilmember McClung stated that it should be strongly considered. Mayor Harpstead asked for clarification if this was considered an end point or phasing. Councilmember Holmes stated that it could be considered both ways. Councilmember McClung stated that this would need to be a higher priority and something that the City would have to push for. Councilmember Holden stated that Design Constraint #1 reviews the phasing options to see if all four ramps are needed, and Councilmember Grant had brought up that if there was half a diamond with the interchanges on the east then there would not be a need for legs on the east so it wouldn't be a full interchange. She stated that she thought the Council had agreed that it could work with just the exit and entrance ramps on the east side. Mayor Harpstead stated that this was complicated by the traffic pattern of commuters that are west bound on County Road 96/North bound on Highway 10 and the opposite in the evenings. The second element has been the semi truck traffic from Scherer Brothers. Mayor Harpstead would like Design Constraint#4 to include wording about phasing. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 10, 2008 15 It was the consensus of the Council to add Design Constraint #4 to address the at grade signalized intersection at the Highway 10 diagonal with access to TCAAP including wording about phasing. Councilmember Grant stated that a financial plan needs to go along with this. - Councilmember Holden stated that Mn/DOT was not planning to reuse part of the Highway 10 lanes that are there and the City had requested that they look at repaving these. However, this was not captured in the document. She stated that it could be included under Design Constraint #1 Mayor Harpstead stated that it would fit under Design Constraint #3, which deals with realignment. MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to table Resolution No. 2008-020, Approving Preliminary Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 project until the City Council Worksession on March 17, 2008. Councilmember Grant stated that Resolution No. 2008-020 could be ready for a vote on March 31, 2008. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Approval of Resolution No. 2008-021,_Approvng Second Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement with RRLD, LLC. Interim City Administrator Willis stated the existing preliminary agreement with RRLD, LLC expires at the end of March. The agreement was approved last year with the expectation that the process would move forward more rapidly. He stated that it was proposed to extend the agreement for an additional year. The budget that was originally set up for this project still has approximately half the funds remaining so there would be no need to amend the budget at this time: there may be before the end of the next twelve months. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 2008-021, Approving Second Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement with RRLD, LLC. Councilmember Holden asked if there was a clause in the agreement that allowed the City to negotiate if there is a shortage of funding. Interim City Administrator Willis stated that if there was a need for additional funding then both parties have the opportunity and obligation to get together and discuss it. There will be a need to discuss a budget amendment in the future and the developer is aware if this. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—March 17, 2008 3 Fire Chief Boehlke stated that all the room alarms at the hotel go to a central office which requests a fire dispatch. He explained that technically with a change of hands the building should have fire sprinklers. He explained that with 300 students and four stories he would prefer to go there even if it is a false alarm to make sure people are safe. He explained that he is not concerned about the volume of calls. B. TH_10/CR 96 Preliminary Design Issues and Positions Mayor Harpstead stated that tonight's meeting is a continuation of a Council public meeting and will be used to review the draft position document. Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates stated that after reviewing the Council video and notes she would like to review some things that were changed from the proposed position paper. She commented that the design constraints, numbers one through six, are not in a particular order. She commented that 1-694 should remain in the position paper and be discussed. She referred to the sound study with the separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96 along with the development of TCAAP. She explained that MN/DOT will look at the sound study and is responsible for payment of the study of 1-694. She explained that safe pedestrian crossing connecting to trails when crossing over or under Highway 10 or County Road 96 was added. She explained that access for residents to Highway 10 and County Road 96 was included. She stated that MN/DOT has not found a signalized intersection to be viable but City Council believes it is a viable option. Councilmember McClung asked what will happen when the proposed plan is completed. Ms. Kvilvang explained that in a month or so they will return with work projects to review. She explained that a noise study will be completed and results can be reviewed. She commented that they will review the mitigation along with who covers the costs. She reviewed they would look at the roadways with medians and trail widths. She explained they would look at exit ramps and pedestrian access to the bridge along with associated costs. She stated that they anticipate this information to be roughly available for the Council meeting on April 14th. She explained that they should have estimates on the Highway 10 north and south alignment of the roadway and intersections. She explained that they could discuss medians and boulevards at Highway 10 and County Road 96 on the western area where it affects Arden Manor. She explained they could look at the north end where there will be an exit ramp from Highway 10 onto County Road 96. She stated that they could review pedestrian crossing options for crossing over or under Highway 10 and County Road 96. Mayor Harpstead stated he feels the April 14`h date is too soon for all of the information to be available. Ms. Kvilvang stated that they will provide what information they have available at the time. She explained that they will review what the minimums are for all options and will work from there once the impact is understood. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION--March l 7, 2008 4 Councilmember McClung asked who the technical expert is on behalf of the City that will evaluate the responses received back from the State and Mn/DOT. Ms. Kvilvang stated that they have access to staff with SRF and WSB and the City engineering staff without bringing in additional staffing. _ Councilmember McClung requested that an expert traffic engineer be involved on the City's behalf Ms. Kvilvang stated that if Council considers this critical they will look into it. Interim City Administrator Willis stated that there will be City cost involved in consulting with an expert. Councilmember McClung stated that this type of decision should not be made without technical expertise. Mayor Harpstead asked how this lines up with the timeline of the County. Ms. Kvilvang stated the County is working to begin pre-design in May or June. She explained that they are working to get some decisions made to Iead up to this. Civil Engineer Kristine Giga stated that SRF, Bolton and Menk and Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey are in the City's transportation engineering pool. Councilmember Holmes asked about State, County and MN/DOT communication and response. Ms.Kvilvang stated that they will collect this information and share it with the City. Councilmember McClung questioned if items should be prioritized. Mayor Harpstead reviewed the list of changes. He commented 1-694 noise mitigation plans would be funded from an outside source. He explained the 1-694/35W and 35E project are only impacted as they relate to noise in the position paper. Mark Benson. SEH representative, explained that existing sound levels are maintained to verify that the noise model is accurately predicting future noise levels. Councilmember McClung stated that he is concerned with the wording in the last sentence of City perspective that says "mitigation that may be required." He commented that it is not specific enough relating to costs. Mayor Harpstead requested that the fourth line of the City Perspective on Mn/DOT Project, section 1. the term "measures and costs to see if noise can be reduced" be added to the City perspective. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION —March 17,2008 5 Councilmember McClung confirmed that the items discussed can be changed in the future. Ms. Kvilvang agreed that future changes can be made. Discussion ensued regarding sound mitigation. Mayor Harpstead questioned if any changes should be made to section H. Councilmember McClung stated that if the highway goes up and over noise mitigation should be necessary. Discussion ensued regarding sound study collection methods and locations. Councilmember Holmes questioned design constraint number three which says "minimize impact to Arden Hills by considering the impact." She suggested that they consider the impact of minimizing specific aspects such as the shoulder or a trail but not minimizing the entire area. Mayor Harpstead mentioned that wording should be consistent throughout the plan for safe pedestrian crossing and access where there is a bridge with a shoulder. Councilmember Holmes asked if design constraint number five regarding safe access to pedestrians to "cross County Road 96 to access trails" is clear. Mayor Harpstead stated that this is a historic perspective relating to navigating the bridge. He explains that the word "cross" refers to going over the bridge. Councilmember Holmes inquired if they should prioritize items in number 11. She stated that the first,third and fourth items are priorities based on citizen input. Councilmember Holden stated that items are intertwined and it is too early to set priorities. She stated that priorities may be decided later when costs are known. Mayor Harpstead asked if changes should be made for number III. Councilmember McClung stated that the language should be stronger for design constraint number one. Discussion ensued regarding the wording of III, design constraint number 1. Consensus of the Commission was to change the wording of Ill, aspect number one to: "Can An at-grade signalized...'' It was agreed change the wording of design constraint 41 to "Review option io Determine if an at-grade..." Councilmember McClung stated that they need a construction plan in mind when working with MN/DOT so that they have input to the process. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION —March 17. 2008 6 Mr. Benson stated that signalizing the TCAAP intersections would be similar to the volumes and operation of the signal at County Road 96 and highway 10. Mayor Harpstead questioned if the volume for turning traffic was taken into consideration for TCAAP and County Road 96. He asked that they have better numbers to use in looking forward at the project. He explained that the 2030 volumes would create a turning hazard entering onto I- 694. Councilmember McClung requested numbers for the Highway 10 diagonal for 2030 which relate to turning. He explained that some current turns will not be possible in the future. Discussion ensued regarding future road use. Councilmember Holmes commented that she would like a design constraint to be to compare the cost of a signalized intersection and a diamond interchange. She commented that the City perspective should include a consideration of costs, timing, and phasing options. Councilmember McClung commented that be agrees with adding a request for costs of various options for design constraint number one. Councilmember Holden commented that they would like the project as far north as possible. Ms. Kvilvang stated that they would look at the alignment to see what is possible. Councilmember McClung stated that this would depend on stacking up to 1-35 and will be reviewed. Ms. Kvilvang suggested including in design constraint number 4 a review of costs associated with realigning Highway 10 so that it is spelled out. Mayor Harpstead asked if the position paper is ready to come before Council on the 31". It was the consensus of the City Council to direct Staff to prepare this to go before City Council on the 31 Mayor Harpstead asked if anyone else present would like to respond. Kristi Effinger, 1969 Banyon Street asked if an email with comments from another resident about a conversation with Mn/DOT was included in the comments. Ms. Kvilvang stated that the comments have been forwarded. Al Hilgers of 1536 Briarknoll Drive asked what factors are involved in the criteria MN/DOT looks at compared to the study done 20 years ago. He stated that there are differences and would like Council to look at it. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION March 17, 2008 7 Mr. Mark Benson stated that federal and state standards are being reviewed. He commented that most major highways in the Twin Cities will exceed the state standards for noise. He explained that traffic volumes would need to increase by half or decrease by half to impact a recognizable change in noise. He stated that they review walls for ten and 20-foot heights and the impact of change in noise. He explained that the cost of the wall is taken into consideration versus the change noise. He stated that the Federal Highway Administration determined the amount that can be spent on sound abatement so there are guidelines. Mr. Hilgers stated that MN/DOT can make it possible that walls can be built to help with sounds. Gerald Garner of 4652 Prior Circle stated that he has 46 years of experience with MN/DOT. He stated that he thinks the traffic volume on Highway 10 is greatly exaggerated. He commented that if a light is added by the arsenal it would help traffic going north. Cheryl Fish of 2059 Todd Drive stated that if there is a signaled intersection going into TCAAP it would act as a meter for traffice going on to 35W. Mayor Harpstead requested a recess at 7:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:13 p.m. C. City Administrator Recruitment Mayor Harpstead stated that they will conduct some interview meetings on the evening of March 24th and in the morning of March 29"'. He commented that he would tell Harry Brull of PDI to start the process. Mr. Brull joined the meeting by speaker phone. Harry Brull of PDI stated that they will interview six candidates divided between the two dates. He suggested adding a half hour to the time for a Council orientation. Mayor Harpstead suggested they meet at 6:00 p-m. on March 24"' for the orientation and then have interviews on each hour to follow. He discussed that on Saturday. March 29th the interviews would start at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Brull suggested having a brief meeting following the meeting with the candidates to discuss whom to consider. Mayor Harpstead suggested meeting prior to the Council meeting at 6.30 p.m. on March 31 st to discuss the candidates. Councilmember Holmes stated that she will not be able to attend the meeting that night but can make her preferences known prior to the meeting. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 31, 2008 7 City Engineer Bloom stated that is why she is presenting the report at this time to the Council as they are hoping to get the meters installed before the wet or rainy season starts so that they can gather better data. Councilmember Grant asked if sump pumps were being looked at as well. Public Works Director Gregory Hoag stated they will be looking at these when they do the water meter battery replacements so that they will only have to enter a house once. Mayor Harpstead stated that the sump pump only needed to be disconnected from the sanitary sewer system but they could go out into the ground water. Councilmember McClung asked if it was possible to quantify how much the City had exceeded their allowable flow and how much of a difference the improvements have made. City Engineer Bloom directed Councilmember McClung to page 4 of 12 of the report for these numbers. MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to accept the Presentation of Inflow and Infiltration (lil) Final Draft Report with specific action items to be brought to the City in the future. The motion carried unanimously (4-0)_ D. Consider Approving TH10 & CR96 Position Paper and Resolution. Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates stated that the position papers were the final draft based on the last meetings and worksession. Upon consideration and approval of this document, City Staff and its transportation consultant, Bolten and Menk, will work with Ramsey County, MnDOT and SEH to coordinate preparing and gathering the data and information the Council will need to make decisions to progress the process forward to a final conceptual design. Councilmember McClung stated that because of the magnitude of this project, he would like to have it specifically stated something to the effect that this document does not imply municipal consent. Ms. Kvilvang stated that this document does not imply municipal consent and would not be seen as such but if the Council wished to add this language it could be done. Mayor Harpstead asked if making a statement such as this would hamper the City's ability to ask for funds in the future. Ms. Kvilvang stated that it would not be seen as the City withholding municipal consent but rather not grant municipal consent at this time. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 31, 2008 8 Councilmember Grant stated that page 1 Item 1 Interstate 694.35E to 35W Project under City Perspective, the third line: should read "The City would like MnDOT to review mitigation measures". Ms. Kvilvang stated that it was the City who wished to review what was proposed for mitigation measures and the costs associated with that. Mayor Harpstead stated that a better alternative for this statement would be "The City would like to review MnDOT's mitigation efforts". It was the consensus of the Council that page 1, Item I Interstate 694 35E-35W Project, City Perspective, line 3 should read "The City would Iike to review MnDOT's mitigation measures and costs to see if noise can be reduced through noise walls." MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to Approve Resolution No. 2008-020 Preliminary Design Positions for the Interstate 694; Highway 10 and County Road 96 Projects as amended. Councilmember McClung stated that he would like to amend the motion to include that in the position papers that will be attached to the resolution a statement that nothing in this document should imply municipal consent at this time for any project at this time_ There was no second to this amendment. Councilmember Grant stated that the MnDOT Project Interstate 694 35E-35W Project would have to come to Council for municipal consent at a future date once that project is in Arden Hills. Mayor Harpstead asked City Attorney John Miller if there was anything in the resolution that may imply consent for any existing projects that are contemplated from a municipal standpoint. City Attorney John Miller stated that there was nothing in the resolution documents that implied municipal consent. Councilmember Grant clarified that passing this resolution does not imply municipal consent for any projects and that there is no intention to provide such consent. The motion carried 3-1 (Councilmember McClung). E. Motion to Authorize Staff to Contract with Bolton & Menk Inc. to Provide technical Support for Transportation Projects. City Engineer Bloom stated that the City of Arden Hills approved an engineering consultant pool last August. The Staff is recommending that the City hire Bolton & Menk from that pool to assist the City with the highway projects currently underway along with other projects dealing ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL--March 31, 2008 9 with TCAAP. The support to be provided will include review of technical documents, proposed concepts, responses to the Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Paper provided by Ramsey County and/or MnDOT. The consultant will be available to attend City Council meetings and work sessions as needed. The contract will be on an hourly basis based on actual hours spent providing support. Staff is recommending Bolton & Menk as they have assisted the City with the review of the 1-694 EA, and is already familiar with this project. Mayor Harpstead asked if this is a budgeted item and if it would be prudent to put a cap on the amount being requested with the stipulation that Staff request additional funding if needed. Councilmember Holden agreed with placing a cap on the amount that the City will be exposed to. City Engineer Bloom stated that a cap would be acceptable and suggested a cap between $25,000 and $30,000 as a starting point. Finance Director Iverson stated that this item would fall under the PDA and would be reimbursable. Councilmember Holden stated that there should be a more specific scope for Bolton & Menk because the City may not need them to look at everything. City Engineer Bloom stated that Staff understood the Council was looking for an independent voice and an independent set of eyes to review what Ramsey County and MnDOT brought forward with the expertise in transportation. She stated that it may be difficult to write a scope that encompassed everything so it was written as an as needed basis contract. Councilmember Holden asked when the I694 project would come before the Council for review. City Engineer Bloom stated that it is expected later this fall and that the EA has already been reviewed. Councilmember Holden stated that the biggest areas of concern at this time are the Highway 10 and County Road 96 projects and that the City was not ready to review the 1-694 project. Mayor Harpstead stated that it could be stated that the scope could be specific for the Highway 10 and County Road 96 projects at this time. Be also questioned if the noise mitigation and impacts would be addressed under these projects. Councilmember Holden stated that the noise mitigation south of 10 and 96 was being addressed under the I-694 project. Mayor Harpstead stated that the documents presented are specific to the Highway 10 and County Road 96 project. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—March 31, 2008 10 Ms. Kvilvang stated that the intent of hiring Bolton & Menk was the issues surrounding the position paper. This will include the review of the noise study that was done as part of the 1-694 project to cover the residential area south of 96 and in addition it is going to be reviewing all of the City's requests for information regarding Highway 10 and County Road 96 and any local access interchange for County Road 96. _- Councilmember Holden clarified that the only part of the I-694 project being addressed at this time is the noise mitigation. Mayor Harpstead stated that a $30,000.00 budget would translate to about 300 hours of engineering time. Councilmember Grant stated that given the concerns of residents in regard to noise in that area, the City is making a good recommendation in having an independent engineering company evaluating the project. He also stated that there should be a budget stated for this particular contract. It was the consensus of the Council that a budget limit of$30,000.00 be set at this time with the understanding that Staff could request additional funding if needed. MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a Motion to Authorize Staff to Contract with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to Provide Technical Support related to the Highway 10 and County Road 96 Position Paper not to exceed $30,000. Councilmember McClung stated that if the scope should change or the budget needs change that the City would be able to do those things in the future. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). F. Motion to support the PTRC recommendation to desiF_nate the land donated by Mr. James Shaker and Mr. C.E. Sheehy as Johanna Marsh. ^� Parks and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson stated the City had received 8.57 acres of land from Mr_ James Shacker and Mr. C.E. Sheehy in 1994, which included a tennis court. The City opened the tennis court to public use in October 2007 and requested Staff to provide a plan for establishing this donated land. Staff has designated three steps in establishing this donated land. The first step is to have the tennis courts resurfaced which is included in the Cummings Park Reconstruction Project set to be completed this spring. The second step would be to designate a name for the park following the guidelines approved the City Council in 2006. The final step would be to add a park sign and list it as an official park. At the February 26, 2008 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee Meeting the naming was discussed_ The Arden Hills No. 3 Association was unable to attend but did submit a letter stating the position of the Association. The consensus of the neighborhood and the Sheehys' is that the name should relate to the neighborhood, its geography and its recreation. Park name suggestions included Johanna Marsh and Johanna Park Preserve. An important point made by the Arden Hills No. 3 Association was ............................. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 9, 2010 I0 B. Mn/DOT Interstate 694 Improvement Project--Public Hearing Civil Engineer Giga stated at the City Council work session on July 19. 2010. the City Council identified concerns about the project, as well as additional information that would be needed prior to making a decision on Municipal Consent. A letter was sent to Mn/DOT, dated July 29, 2010, which incorporated the City Council's concerns, as well as some of the City's consultant's (Bolton & Menk) comments on the layout. The City of Shoreview also sent a letter to Mn/DOT regarding the proposed project layout. Mn/DOT provided a response on August 5, 2010_ Following the public hearing the City has 90 days, or until November 7, 2010, to approve/disapprove the layout. The last regularly scheduled City Council meeting before this deadline is Monday_ October 25. 2010. The City has three options when voting on Municipal Consent: ].Approve Municipal Consent, 2.Approve Municipal Consent with conditions, or 3.Deny Municipal Consent. Mr. Mary Lindeberg, North Area Engineer with Mn/DOT, stated Mn/DOT is proposing an improvement project for the interchange of Interstate 694, Highway 10, Snelling Avenue and Hamline Avenue in Arden Hills. In June, Mn/DOT submitted a Mn/DOT approved layout to the City. requesting City approval (Municipal Consent) of the layout. This project was initiated because there are nine bridges in this area that are in need of replacement. It was clear to Mn/DOT that this would be an opportunity to improve the safety and lane continuity in this area, as wells as provide for future expansion and eliminate the mainline weaves. He reviewed the process that has been followed to date including the formation of the Noise Advisory Committee (NAC). He stated the project benefits included increased safety, regional transportation improvement. local business benefits; smoother commutes and a more efficient local roadway system. Councilmember Holden asked how the local businesses would benefit from this road design. Mr. Lindeberg stated businesses are going to want to locate where they can get access and flowing conditions to and from their locations. There will be less stopped traffic when trying to get to their businesses. He went on to review the project benefits to the Northern Pointe (TCAAP) area and better access to this area will be a benefit to the City of Arden Hills. The improved roadway will also pull traffic off local streets such as County Road E, County Road F, County Road 96 and Lexington. Councilmember Holden stated the local businesses would not be located right on 1694 so people will need to get off the Interstate. She asked how this made for more effective local roadway systems. She asked if this was done in the Mn/DOT modeling. The only way to get onto Snelling Avenue will be County Road E or Lydia with this design_ Mr. Lindeberg stated business at the TCAAP site would benefit because traffic will be able to flow to Highway 10 or Highway 35 easier. Councilmember Holden clarified this was more of a regional improvement than a local improvement. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 9, 2010 11 6. B. Mn/DDT Interstate 694 Improvement Project Public Hearing (continued) Mr. Lindeberg stated businesses such as Boston Scientific or Deluxe Checks would also benefit from the improved flow of traffic on I694. Councilmember Holden asked for clarification on the efficiencies for local roadways and if this was also modeled. - Mr. Lindeberg stated through traffic modeling and traffic projections. An improved 1694 will pull traffic off the local roads because the roadway will not be stopped like it is currently. Councilmember Holden asked if this modeling included the closure of 1694 going east and the impacts all the way back up to Lydia. Mr. Lindeberg stated these items were taken into consideration in the modeling. Councilmember Grant stated noise and noise abatement was important to the City, the residents and the Council. He asked what Mn/DOT was going to do to mitigate noise. Mr. Lindeberg stated no noise mitigation was deemed to be cost effective and MnIDOT does not have any plans for noise mitigation at this time. Councilmember Grant stated a lot of the circulation would be putting more stress on the City and County roads. As a Council they need to be aware of the needs of the City. This design is putting additional burden on Lexington Avenue and other County Roads. He asked Mr. Lindeberg to explain the pedestrian safe options that were brought into this design. Mr. Lindeberg stated this current design does not provide for a safe pedestrian crossing at Interstate 694. Mn/DOT had looked at crossing Interstate 694 at Hamline or at Snelling Avenue but these were not safe situations. The only safe pedestrian crossing would be the construction of a separate pedestrian bridge and when viewing the City and County's future trail plans, the City had a trail on their plans but the County did not. When the County plans do not match the City plans Mn/DOT needs to work with both entities to find a design that will work for both. He clarified that there was no safe option in the plan because there is not an option that meets a County plan or there is a City plan but there is no connection on the south end of the trail and Mn/DOT wants to look at the whole pedestrian flow and not put a crossing into one area. Councilmember McClung stated it may not be on the County's plan but it is on the City's plan. The City's plan should have some weight since Mn/DOT is looking for Municipal Consent from the City. He asked what capacity for future pedestrian crossings are being built into the plan so that something could be added at a future date. According to the design being presented there is no capacity for this type of future development. He also clarified MDIDOT will not be doing anything in regards to noise mitigation for the residents of Arden Hills. Mn/DOT is asking Arden Hills to carry all these burdens but there are no benefits for the residents. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 9, 2010 12 6. B. WDOT Inlerstate 694 Improvement Project Public Hearing (continued) Councilmember Holmes stated the trail crossing being proposed is reasonable and goes into County Road E where the City has plans to make a trail. She asked Mr. Lindeberg to respond to the trail proposed by Gene and Steve Gjerdingen. Mr. Lindeberg stated a trail that ran parallel to Trunk Highway 51 would need to go under the = railroad bridge and there is presently not enough width under this bridge or this trail would need to go up and over the railroad bridge, which the railroad may not be in favor of. Councilmember Holmes stated Mn/DOT is not trying to accommodate a pedestrian crossing. The US Secretary of Transportation stated that when a road project is being looked at, non- motorized traffic should be taken into account. Mr. Lindeberg stated Mn/DOT looked at having a pedestrian crossing but it was found to be unsafe unless a separate pedestrian bridge was constructed. Mayor Harpstead stated the project design and information being presented is incomplete. The whole concept of being unable to connect to existing County and City plans is a problem because this is a fast design. Clearly the whole opportunity to have those landing spots developed in parallel to Mn/DOT's project is an impossible opportunity. The City has been explicit in that they would like to be able to get pedestrians through here. Mn/DOT should pay attention to the fact that bikes do currently travel Hamline Avenue and Trunk Highway 51 and they are not prohibited from doing this. Bikes currently travel these roads and currently have the safety concerns that Mn/DOT has outlined and the design being proposed will increase the jeopardy for these people rather than reduce it if the margins are not increased to accommodate for them_ The analysis on the benefits to local businesses is incomplete as well. The ramp traffic flows are not complete and it is not possible to compare "apples to apples". Mr. Lindeberg pointed out that local streets would benefit by having less traffic because it will move to 1694 but the 2009 Traffic Counts state southbound Hamline Avenue is at 3,370 and in 2030 this is increased to 8,960. Clearly traffic has been added to this area from southbound Hamline rather than reducing it. He pointed out this analysis was not possible for northbound Hamline Avenue because the figures were not provided. The traffic figures also show that the traffic count through this area in 2009 is in the 16,000 range for northbound Trunk Highway 10 and the westbound 1694 counts in the 43,000 range. When the project is finished these traffic counts are expected to be 36,000 on northbound Trunk Highway 10 and 43,000 on westbound 1694. The redesign is shifting everything onto Trunk Highway 10, which impacts the City of Arden Hills and its residents directly and this is an area of concern. The traffic counts for north and south Lexington Avenue are not available for analysis. He asked if Bolton & Menk had these figures available. Mr. Lindeberg stated he would leave a copy of the layout that had the figures that Mayor Harpstead was requesting. Mr. Chris Chromy, Bolton & Menk; Inc., stated the layout that was reviewed by Bolton & Menk did not have the 2030 traffic figures and so these figures have not been analyzed. ...... . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 9, 2010 13 6. B. WDOT Interstate 694 Improvement Project Public Hearing(continued) Councilmember Holden stated the accident ratio in the area that will be redesigned is currently 5.6%. She asked if this figure would increase during construction. Mr. Wayne Norris, North Area Manager with Mn/DOT, stated due to the limited access during the construction phase the number of accidents is expected to reduce but there are no studies that have been done by Mn/DOT in this respect. Mayor Harpstead opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Gene Gjerdingen, 2553 Fisk Street, Roseville, stated he is a bike commuter. He provided the Council with information from Mn/DOT's bicycle design manual. He stated that according to this information Mn/DOT has the responsibility to provide a safe pedestrian or bicycle crossing and this should have been part of the planning and design of this project. Mr. Maurice Gieske, 1817 Janet Court, Arden Hills, stated he had participated in the NAC and understands that Mn/DOT will not be providing a noise wall. He suggested alternatives that have not been considered, such as utilizing the large amounts of dirt that will be removed to build a berm which will help reduce noise levels for neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are already above the maximum decibel level set by the State and having the increase in traffic will only make this worse without some sort of noise barrier in place. Mn/DOT should be able to provide some compromise for these neighborhoods. Ms. Chris Lustig, 1901 Todd Drive, Arden Hills, encouraged the Council to deny Municipal Consent at this time because, as the Mayor pointed out, the plans are not complete and Mn/DOT has not been able to provide answers to the questions that have been brought up by the residents and the Council. Ms. Linda Hansohn, 1124 Amble Drive; Arden Hills, stated she is happy that Mn/DOT is looking at redesigning this section of the system because this area needs to be made safer for people to travel on. She encouraged the Council not to shut down the project even though it is not perfect because something needs to be done in this section of the highway. Mr. Tom Valind, 1463 Arden View Drive, Arden Hills, stated concerns about the noise and the need for some sort of noise abatement. He also stated that a stop sign at County Road F would cause problems in the future as the traffic count increases. Ms. Toni Morgan, 1565 Briarknoll Drive, Arden Hills, moved to Arden Hills in 1987 and at that time there was no noise. Each project has brought changes to the noise levels but Mn/DOT continues to say that this change will not be significant. All these changes over time add up and something needs to be done about the noise levels. Mr. Steve Gjerdingen, 2553 Fisk Street, Roseville, agreed that the project is incomplete and the main reason is because it lacks a bicycle and pedestrian crossing. He asked if there had been any contact with the railroad regarding the possibility of a bridge or underpass. He stated Mn/DOT could make a better design. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 9, 2010 14 6.B. Mn/DOT Interstate 694 Improvement Project Public Hearing (continued) Mr. George Winiecki, 4175 Highway 10, Arden Hills, stated he had participated in the NAC and does not believe that in twenty years the noise levels will not be any more than they are today. He has lived at this location for 62 years and has seen the changes. He has to deal with looking at the highway in his backyard and the pollution. He has to pick up the litter from the highway from his backyard. He stated he is upset about this project and does not agree with the highway moving - closer to his home. He stated that anything that could be done to hide the sight and sounds from the highway would be appreciated. Ms. Marcia Droege, 1200 West County Road F, Arden Hills, representing Land O'Lakes, stated Land O'Lakes has over 1500 employees at the headquarters location and 900 of these are in Arden Hills and 600 in Shoreview. Several of these employees have expressed concerns about safety on County Road F and Lexington Avenue. She stated these problems would only get worse with the increased traffic that will occur on County Road F_ Ms. Jean Day, 4250 Hamline Avenue N, Arden Hills, stated she has lived in her neighborhood for 31 years and watched the traffic increase on Hamline Avenue. The traffic is such that it is dangerous for her to get her mail. She disagrees with Mn/DOT's assessment on what will happen on 1694 when the north access to Hamline Avenue is removed. They are proposing a new light and less traffic but this will not be the case. Mr. Russell Bertsch. 4419 Amble Circle, Arden Hills, stated Lexington Avenue is already a busy street and it will only get busier with the removal of the accesses for Hamline Avenue. The demands on Lexington Avenue will increase and this needs to be addressed before moving forward with this project. Mr. David Boldt, 1555 Briarknoll Circle_ Arden Hills, stated he supports everything that has been said by the Council and the residents and agreed that something needs to be done with the roads to increase safety. The road being proposed is a bad choice. They could provide a better design that would include a pedestrian crossing and noise mitigation for Arden Hills. The plan being proposed will destroy the north part of the City. Mr. Rich Straumann, 4380 Arden View Court. Arden Hills, stated the Resolution dated July 14. 2010, from the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department places priority on pedestrian crossings. A possible pedestrian crossing has been proposed and he thinks this should be looked into more. Even though a trail may not have been in the County's plans, they did pass a resolution last month making pedestrian crossings a priority. Mr. Chris Vosbeek, 1553 Briarknoll Drive, Arden Hills, expressed concerns about the noise in his neighborhood and would like to see noise mitigation for this area_ He also expressed concerns regarding impairment of local roadways with this design. Mayor Harpstead closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 9, 2010 15 6.B. Mn/DOT Interstate 694 Improvement Project—Public Hearing (continued) Civil Engineer Giga stated after the public hearing the City has 90 days to decide about Municipal Consent. Council may direct Staff to obtain additional information, or the Council may defer discussion to a future meeting or work session. Councilmember Holden stated another meeting would not be needed. The Council and residents have expressed several concerns and issues that need to be resolved before Municipal Consent is given. Mayor Harpstead suggested allowing Mn/DOT time to answer the questions and concerns that were raised and have this brought back to the Council's August 30"' meeting. Councilmember Holmes stated this should be further discussed in a work session because there is still the potential that a design could be worked out that would be beneficial to the City of Arden Hills. Another work session with Mn/DOT may be helpful in finding a resolution. Councilmember Holden asked Mr. Lindeberg if the input from tonight's meeting would impact the design Mn/DOT has for this project. Mr. Lindeberg stated if the Council did not vote on this proposal tonight then Mn/DOT would go back and look at the design again to determine if anything can be done to meet the needs of the City. He clarified that the design may not change based on this information but he could not answer this at this time. Councilmember Holden stated if MnIDOT had something new to bring forward then another meeting could be scheduled. Councilmember Holmes stated Mn/DOT heard good input from the Council and the residents of Arden Hills and it would be better to try and work with Mn/DOT at this time rather than just saying no. Mayor Harpstead stated the county and Shoreview have not had a chance to participate in these discussions. Another worksession involving these interested parties could be arranged. Councilmember Holden stated another meeting should be scheduled only if Mn/DOT has something new to present to the City. It was the consensus of the Council to allow Staff to work with Mn/DOT to determine if this should be brought back to a work session or the next Council meeting for a vote. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. ResoZviutivir--2e'1-tl"0392 Adopting used Spe••;cTzrlrAssessment Roll for the 2010 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION-- SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 5 Councilmember Holden stated that Eureka recycles everything while other companies do not. She believed we should compare the level of service as well as cost. Mayor Harpstead agreed that the City receives a high level of service and that Eureka recycles more materials than other companies. He added that he would like to see them recycle plastic bags. Chris Goodwin, Eureka Recycling, explained that they can't take plastic bags at this time because once they're wet it takes a long time for them to dry and they can't be recycled while wet_ Mayor Harpstead asked about any composting plans for the future. Chris Goodwin explained that the PCA is looking for comments from cities regarding organic materials. Currently if a company wants to begin handling organic materials, they must go through the very extensive landfill approval process. There is only one organic processing center in the state at this time. Councilmember McClung stated he would be in favor of the 2 one year extensions or the contract amendment to extend the contract for three years but he would like to review cost comparisons. Chris Goodwin stated that Ramsey County has a source for cost comparisons for cities. Councilmember Holden suggested it would be helpful to educate residents about recycling and she suggested that Eureka add info on a regular basis to the City's newsletter. There was a unanimous Council consensus to direct staff to explore extending the contract with Eureka while providing cost comparisons and composting information. 2.D Mn/DOT 1-694 Improvement Project—follow up from public hearing Public Works Director Terry Maurer explained that the City has until October 25 to act on the matter of Municipal Consent. He further explained that the transportation committee can ignore a city's denial of municipal consent and move forward_ He suggested a better scenario would be for the city to deny the consent with conditions. He further explained that he and Civil Engineer Kris Giga had met with Mn/DOT and Shoreview. A letter from Mn/DOT was included in the Council packet. Mayor Harpstead asked if Shoreview has concerns about any of the proposed changes. Public Works Director Terry Maurer stated that Shoreview is relying on Ramsey County to make sure appropriate improvements are made by Mn/DOT so there is no adverse impact to Shoreview roadways. Be added that it is his impression that the County is OK with the current proposal. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION— SEPTEMBER 20,2010 6 Mayor Harpstead pointed out that a recent admin update referred to the Sheriff's concern about losing access to 1694 and asked if that concern has been shared. Public Works Director Terry Maurer responded that issue was not raised by the county at the meeting. _ Councilmember Holden asked about pedestrian movement. Public Works Director Terry Maurer explained that Chris Chromy suggested a task force be created to look at the pedestrian traffic issue. If the Council chooses to deny Mn/DOT's proposal with conditions, the task force could be one of those conditions. Mayor Harpstead referred to the pedestrian movement comment in Mn/DOT's letter which states they're allowing additional width for that. Councilmember Holmes asked if the State had ever explained why they can't keep the Hamline exit open. Mayor Harpstead responded that the State proposal would require two loops for Hwy 10 and 1694 and that would impact the current Hamline ramps. He then commented that in Mn/DOT's 2030 Plan they talked about closing County Road H and taking some access away at Hwy 96 and Hwy 10. That would result in the loss of access to neighborhoods north of Hwy 96. Public Works Director Terry Maurer stated that if the City simply denies the municipal consent they would be on record as denying a project that is being proposed to address safety concerns. Councilmember Holden stated the Council had previously passed two resolutions regarding this issue. Councilmember McClung stated that he sees three basic issues: access for residents north of 1694; noise abatement throughout the corridor; and pedestrian movement. Councilmember Holden stated the resolutions included those issues. Councilmember Grant stated he doesn't think costs should come back to the City. But the City will have to have some investment in the pedestrian movement areas. He isn't comfortable with the City having to widen roads to accommodate changes in traffic resulting from the Mn/DOT project. Public Works Director Terry Maurer stated Mn/DOT will follow current policy for the noise wall. They follow a very specific calculation to determine how much of the cost they will absorb. He then requested each Councilmember submit a list of conditions they would like to see included in a denial with conditions. Mayor Harpstead commented that it is not in the City's best interest to simply deny municipal consent. He asked Terry to formulate six questions for the Council to review and he asked each ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 7 Councilmember to respond to Terry on those six questions. Terry and Kris will also review the previously approved resolutions as a starting point. 2.E Staff Updates: Emergency Management Discussion, Community Development Director Search, and Police Contracted Services Annual _ Performance Review Emergency Management Discussion City Administrator Patrick Klaers stated previously the Public Works Director was responsible for the Emergency Management Program. Since the City has such a small staff and since he is not an expert in emergency management, he decided to investigate how other cities handle this issue. He learned that some municipalities hire an outside company to oversee this program. He then interviewed three individuals from three different companies and has selected the person he believes would be the best fit. He asked the Council to authorize him to request a proposal from Lance Ross, Emergency Preparedness Resource Group LLC. He pointed out there is 510.000 in the 2011 budget for contracted services. He further stated that during emergencies, the residents need for the City is the greatest. Councilmember Holden explained that she has this type of responsibility in her full time position and that it would take a great deal of City Staff time to manage the program. She supported the idea of hiring a contractor. The consensus of the Council was to move forward with the request for a proposal from Lance Ross. Community Development Director Search City Administrator Patrick Klaers stated the Staff committee involved in the interviews unanimously recommends one candidate. He asked if the Council would like to meet with her prior to the next regular meeting. Mayor Harpstead commented that director level positions bring direction and ideas to the table and that it would be a good idea for the Council to meet with her. City Administrator Patrick Klaers explained that this candidate would be taking a cut in wages and benefits but she is very interested in this opportunity from a professional standpoint. She is concerned about the fact that the City has had four Community Development Directors in the past nine years and she is concerned about her job security. To address that concern, Mr. Klaers has added a severance clause to the employment contract that would allow for six months severance if she is terminated without cause in the first two years; three month's severance if she is terminated without cause in two to four years; and no severance after four years. Mayor Harpstead pointed out that the City hasn't dismissed anyone without cause. -ARQEN HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2008-020 APPROVING PRELIMINARY DESIGN POSITIONS _ FOR INTERSTATE 694, HIGHWAY 10 AND COUNTY ROAD 96 PROJECTS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hilts (the "City'), as follows: WHEREAS, the City is in the process of considering three road improvement projects located in part the City, identified as follows: (a) Interstate 694 from Interstate 35E to 35W, (b) Grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96; and (c) Access between Highway 10 and County 96 after grade separation; (referred to together as the `Road Projects") WHEREAS, the Road Projects are being undertaken primarily by the Minnesota Department of'transportation ("MnDOT"), Ramsey County (the "County") and City of Arden Hills (the "City"'), either in lead or cooperative roles, depending on the project, with input fi'orn the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified various issues and concerns that must be addressed as part of preliminary design work for each of the Road Projects, which concerns are summarized in the document titled "Arden Hills Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 95 Preliminary Design Issues and Position," attached hereto as Exhibit A (the"Position Paper-')_ NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills as follows: 1_ The City approves the Position Paper. 2. City staff, consultants and the Mayor and Jnterim City Administrator are authorized and directed to take all actions and execute any documents necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution, including without limitation delivery of a copy of this resolution to MnDOT and the County. Approved by the City Council of the kClityArden Hill this 3 l 'day of March, 2008. Stanley D. Harpstead,AMyor ATTEST: l�loah A. Simon, Deputy Clerk Arden Hills Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Design Issues and Position There are three separate roadway projects that are being studied in the City that have potential impacts on residents: 1. Interstate 694,35E to 35W—MnDOT Project 2- Grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96-Ramsey County project 3. Preservation of full access for residents and businesses between Highway 10 and County Road 96 through development of an interchange that includes access to TCAAP from Highway 10-City project Projects 42 and #3 above are intertwined due to issues of continuing to provide local access to residents between two major roadways. In order to progress these two (2) projiects further to preliminary design, the City wants to provide guidance to the appropriate entities that are undertaking the design process to assure that the City's issues and concerns are addressed- It should be noted that the design constraints listed under each project are in no particular order of priority and as such should not be construed in that way. In addition,the City wants to be assured that noise issues will be reviewed and mitigation plans prepared to address all lhTcc projects- MNDOT PROJECT 1. INTERSTATE 694-35E TO 35W PROJECT MnDOT is undertaking a study for widening Interstate 694 into a six(6)lane freeway between 35E and 35W. The design constraints and city perspective noted below DO NOT reflect the City's comments on the entire project since the City has not reviewed the project' in its entirety and only reflect concems regarding increased noise, ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT#1 Review noise impacts to residential areas located south of County Road 96 and provide mitigation options and costs. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE The City is concerned that noise levels may increase for these neighborhoods over time. The City understands that MaDOT is undertaking a noise study for this area as an extension of the Interstate 694 study. The City would like to review mitigation measures and costs to see if noise can be reduced through noise walls. landscaping and/or paving materials. In addition,the City anticipates that MnDOT will pay for any mitigationr5quired as a result of the noise study. Deleted: S RAMSEY COUNTY PROJECT II. Grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96 The City understands that grade separation of these two roadways is proposed to address f safety and traffic operational issues. Due to these improvements, some properties may be negatively impacted and the City wants to assure that all measures to reduce the impacts are -- undertaken. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT 41 Mitigate noise impacts to residential areas located south of County Road 96. 3 ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE Due to grade separation,the City is concerned that noise levels may increase for these residential areas. The City would like to review mitigation measures and costs to see if noise can be reduced through noise walls,landscaping and/or paving and views that cost of noise mitigation is the responsibility of MnDOT and Ramsey County_ to DESIGN CONSTRAINT#2 Review need to provide an exit ramp from north bound Highway 10 onto east bound County Road 96. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to provide better local access onto County Road 96.if it makes financial sense,due to the proposed elimination of Interstate 694 exit onto Hamline Avenue. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT#3 Minimize impacts to Arden Manor by consideri minimizing median, shoulder. boulevard,sidewalk and trail widths on north and south side of County Road 96. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE -- City would like to preserve as many homes along County Road 96 as possible and local decisions on medians, shoulders, boulevards, sidewalk and trail widths and location of trail(s)on one or both sides of the roadway may be ways to assist in meeting this goal. The City also understands that appropriate turn lanes,alignments with bridges and other traffic flow and safety issues need to be adequately addressed in the design and may dictate certain elements of the road layout. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT 94 Utilize existing southern edge of County Road 96 as future edge of all improvements and for future alignment of Interstate Highway 35 bridge expansion. i ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to preserve as many homes along County Road 96 as possible and if the alignment can meet engineering standards by having County Road 96 located as far south as possible,that would be preferred. j y e EI 1 3 j * DESIGN CONSTRAINT#5 Provide pedestrian crossing over or under County Road 96 between Highway 10 and the access point cast of North Heights Lutheran Church. * CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to provide safe access to pedestrians to cross County Road 96 to access i Deleted:over trails,etc_ 3 * DESIGN CONSTRAINT#6 Any bridge(s)constructed should provide safe pedestrian crossing/access. * CITY PERSPECTIVE The City wants to assure there are safe pedestrian connections to its trail system and any crossing over or under Highway 10 or County Road 96 needs to be wide enough to accommodate such access, CITY PROJECT 7' 111. Preserve full access for residents and businesses between Highway 10 and County Road 96 through development of an interchange that includes access to TCAAP from Highway 10 The City supports providing full access for residents and businesses between these roadways and access to the TCAAP site from Highway 10. However.the City is of the opinion that the following four aspects need to be further resolved- 1. Deter-mine itan at-grade signalized,intersection can be constructed to provide access to Detated:r.. --------------- the TCAAP site on a temporary or permanent basis 2. Number of entrance/exit ramps that need to be constructed for the interchange and when 3. How to provide safe access for Scherer Brothers 4. Can or should Highway 10 be realigned to move the interchange further northeast The City understands that construction of a full interchange/intersection will need to be shown on the plans but would like the ability to review timing and phasing options for the project. 1• DESIGN CONSTRAINT#1 Deleted.option Formatted-Font:Not Bold,No ,Review MnEL0 .gd_pl to determine if an at-grade signalized intersection at Highway underline 10 into the TCAAP site can be constructed. Formatted:Fort:NaBold,No underline • CITY PERSPECTIVE formatted:Fom Not BoW,No underline Zld'W.' ,Pity is of the opinion that this is a viable option as a temporary or permanent.solution ndedineFormatted,Font.,Not and would like to review timing phasing options�and c s. Deleted:and 1 FGjrmatted!Font:Not Sold,No I Formatted;Font-Not Bold,No underline a --DESIGN CONSTRAINT#2 - Review all phasing options for cost effectiveness, viability, need. etc. to see if all tour entrance/cxit ramps on a new diamond interchange are needed and provide timing and phasing of project. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to preserve local access for residents while minimizing impacts to the residential and business community located within the"triangle"area. The City would like to review timing of when the south bound Highway 10 exit ramp into TCAAP would be needed, if at all. In addition, a cost/financial plan needs to be provided to ascertain if phasing is or will be cost effective. a DESIGN CONSTRAINT#3 t Review to determine how safe access for Scherer Brothers can be pro.ided in the interim y and long-term based upon phasing plan for the interchange. a CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to provide safe access while minimizing impacts to Arden Manor. This could include interim solution of direct access until the exit ramp is possibly needed (right in,right out),moving the access road closer to Highway 10 if the south bound exit ramp is not needed initially and moving the access road which leads onto the new diamond 3 interchange as far northeast towards the southbound Highway 10 exit ramp as possible. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT#4 Review costs associated with realigning Highway 10 and the interchange ,further Formatted:indent:test 0.75", northeast. First line: Q ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to minimize impacts to Arden Manor,but needs to be assured project solution is cost effective_ City would like to review costs of realignment,beginning and terminus of realignment, impacts to property further south of County Road 96 and quality of existing roads to determine if they are in need of replacement. Realignment could include a few options such as moving the south lane further north, moving both lanes further north(but within MnDOT ROW)or moving both lanes further north onto `. the TCAAP site. If the quality of the road bed is in poor condition and in need of replacement, then that cost should be subtracted from the realignment options being considered. tt Y [ 1 0 � Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District fiOK7RPN�C 1500 West County Road g 2 _ Roseville,MN 55113 Date: September 14, 2010 Ms. Kristine Giga City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743 RE: State Project 6285-135: 1-694 Improvement Project(Lexington Avenue to west of CSAH 76) Dear Ms. Giga: On August 9, 2010, the City of Arden Hills held a Public Hearing for municipal consent of the layout for 1-694 at TH 511TH 101Hamline Ave. At that meeting, issues were raised by the residents of Arden Hills and the City Council asked several questions regarding effects on traffic, noise levels, and pedestrian accomodations. In addition, MnIDOT met with city staff and staff from Ramsey County to discuss aspects of the.layout and how Mn/DOT may be able to work with the City to obtain municipal consent of the layout. The following discussion will address the comments that appear to be the biggest concerns. Traffic Forecast Numbers There are some 2030 traffic numbers not on the layout on the east side of Lexington Avenue. I have looked into these numbers and the westbound exit ramp to Lexington Avenue will carry approximately 4800 vehicles per day. The eastbound entrance ramp to 1-694 will carry approximately 7400 vehicles per day. Lexington Avenue north of County Road F is projected to carry approximately 9,000 vehicles per day. Some traffic numbers on the current layout on Hamline Avenue south of County Road F seemed odd. These numbers have been checked and the existing traffic counts as well as the projected day of opening forecasts are incorrect. The correct present counts for southbound Hamline Avenue should be roughly 6,000 vehicles per day and the day of opening forecasts are expected to be less than 7,000 vehicles per day. This information has been corrected and will be included on an updated layout. An Equal Opportunity Employer i 'xi'+.,.r ,srum '^.•'F7'Sx',r' yr ':r.... .,: ,u ^— v's 5� �% .... '/rya r r` :U �� f�«b,5,.., ` " 'r. ',,s.! 5 �� 2i L h i f S_t .�uti}o- '•a'Y�•n��i�' .... s r ! r ri {6nMX n n W+r�x�� . �',}, � <A' ^yt. .. �• � 13 i� s7.*� f 3� � 'Y'F•r . su�}1�'s�,. ��:r !' r ti - 'l '+s .Y r Y�' t 57 F • • �;�r �,` 1 c�E7fkh ' �ts:,s I•�� b� . i�'yti�e i nt s Y'a�.� �yZa9�', ;�e y.,�°� �'.whi`r'j"�''r,: r,z.�7 ��.�`5` s'srp �F._`�i?r• �i:-'k 1a^ dY'' �rn � ?ncrK.-b:7.q� c � 'y1Y.. _ _._ !^a,�__,;v� !9'a i:r�J,.c ..Nc. .. ..:iv .�+. :..c. —�•a ...Jn.: fi.-o«...,..r .«.L. �o:....� Lexington Avenue Intersection Improvements At the Pubic Hearing, there were questions asked regarding the impacts at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road F. After that meeting, Mn/DOT and Ramsey County met to discuss this intersection and any changes that could be made. The traffic projections were looked at along with the existing problems. Potential opportunities were looked at and some possible changes were discussed. The opportunity to modify the intersection to allow for a northbound to westbound double left turn and an eastbound to northbound double left seemed to be the biggest changes needed. There was also discussion about the opportunity to interconnect the signals along Lexington Avenue to obtain better signal operation through the area. Both Ramsey County and Mn/DOT agreed that Ramsey County will take an in-depth look at the intersections and work with Mn/DOT on obtaining funding to make the changes deemed necessary to improve this area of Lexington Avenue. Potential funding through Mn/DOT's Cooperative Agreement program may be available as early as July 2012 for these improvements. The existing geometrics of the Lexington Avenue bridge over 1-694 do cause some increased intersection delay due to the lack of storage for the left turning movements. Mn/DOT has looked at the bridge and the full width of the bridge is 75' 10". This width may allow for some future modifications to the existing geometrics. Mn/DOT will work with Ramsey County on making some changes to aid in the improvement of the intersections and their operation upon completion of the Final Design of the 1-694 improvement project. Other Traffic Impacts in the Area At the Public Hearing, there were questions asked regarding how some of the local roads (County Road 96, County Road F, Hamline Ave, Lexington Ave and County Road E)will be affected by the proposed project. Mn/DOT responded that with improvements to 1-694, some regional traffic will be taken off of the local system and returned to the interstate. This will allow the traffic on the local roadways to be reduced upon the completion of construction. Traffic on County Road 96,from east of Lexington Avenue to west of Hamline Avenue, is projected to be reduced by approximately 10%. Lexington Avenue just north of County Road F, it is estimated that traffic in this area will be reduced by about 5%. Traffic on Hamline Avenue north of County Road F is estimated to be reduced by roughly 15%. Traffic on County Road F is projected to have an increase of somewhere between 0- An Equal Opportunity Employer >rr�o1 �. , ._,vy.•r.•,,•.c.•�J-r p�p"w:_`� ,;typ; ✓ rvF""ar.+-+! .#7 r;;•4`r r rJ.,:�v.:„As .Yi-n c?r. zr,4� ;?y a`"";�:."-tom-:-,,: ;.,-^ -ram - Sr 4r " i .� ' v�. �N :plF -r5' �'' 'F1 [•d 4a • S.� f4'�1�, ^_.. l� r`k r� r ��n.Gv'��' �.�tT.'R 71�' �� `�-}'` `i'a'., �� A•' 4,1'� .�il.'•Y: 'y�r;.,.r•�r.. s 6� • ,,i��y .� .1y ~ra '�`•rii.c+1'r • 'arat` ffi r,��."Y l YS�i7'�'" �'' x;Y'i •., 'ri-,"�-0 Lr7 ,, '� �r A v tfaa/` '^•;. 4r, rS+. s� • • l �� 4 u �s �Fi• �r �st t;sa .�: '"+�-`a�sr�" �.fi.�Sfr�� `�i'�,'o5�c1"iYr ,... ..ohs 'C ��` ;:�hfS;r�s �, ii;.��;�}%YS+F'r.Ln��c?"dN',,*rC,.�r=`�'�::_�?��l��s•� :.s;�:_•:••._.,'h$?f��r�...�,......... c.-.:.._:.._...a.,?rr.'.-..�;�-.e:.r...�Ls..�....,,.rm.,.��r.�:_1�..,. ._..:._.ka.._:... :...._,rP-• ..s?..a., .....,..,_�:... ....�..� • 25% depending on which end of County Road F you look at. And finally, County Road E is estimated to maintain the same traffic volumes upon the conclusion of construction. Pedestrian Movements The City has talked with Mn/DOT regarding pedestrian access throughout the project area. In addition, the Council did pass a resolution supporting the inclusion of pedestrian safe infrastructure as a part of the project. Mn1DOT has taken a proactive approach in trying to address the pedestrian issue in this area. The design, as it exists today, does not preclude any pedestrian options through the area for recreational use. The users out there today will still have the ability to maneuver through the area in the future. Northbound TH 51 will have a 10' shoulder on the outside, and southbound Hamline Avenue will have 24' of pavement width which is sufficient for one vehicle traffic lane and commuter bicycle use of the shoulder. After meeting with Ramsey County and Arden Hills staff, Mn/DOT is working on creating a bike/pedestrian study group that should be created within four to six months. This group will look at the bike and pedestrian facilities and the crossings of 1-•694 from 1-35W to I-35E. The group could include but is not limited to Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County, Arden Hills and Shoreview. Ramsey County Parks took an initial look at the crossings in this corridor and feels that crossings at approximately 1 mile spacing is a reasonable expectation. This concept will need to be looked at as a part of the study, but the end result should be a mutually agreed upon plan for the corridor. The current project does not preclude the addition of grade separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including expansion of TH 51/Hamline Avenue bridges. As CSAH 761old TH 10/old Snelling Avenue is slated for a future trail, Mn/DOT will work with the city on the typical section for CSAH 76 from the end of the slope paving to the back of the curb for a trail on the west side. And, there will be a shoulder on both sides of the roadway for bicyclists to use. The City would like to participate in the construction of a segment of sidewalk from Floral Drive to County Road F. Mn1DOT is willing to work with the City on the construction of this sidewalk as long as no right of wary is required as a part of the construction. Mn/DOT will work with city staff in designing a sidewalk that will be included in the construction plans. An Equal Opportunity Employer M...,ysk c .r 2.`"T(7R" ,. ,;.p1'`,)}',S' :.. rc.gp,,.,,.,�.,tr i x,1�^+•..,,z./w'. '�:":, �rZ+�w'��, y:4;r,'4, ...n'�i.''"'Sr:;',T.".'r;',iN,y:'y,"^_.�,yr. cr:..: �i �;?7''�. 'y ✓k� f fps.,a�"" '�ri�'cS'fry' �a3M n Yl' r ;r2r/,.a >v, %;�ilu r ar'�''' 1'hr' !r s:; ��w s :5,,.{ri^;l ,h's•s�:b"�' n " r�k ?:`"� * '�7s} N`�,�r �,'rr��`1,;� � ,�r�`F,r g.:2;��:>;('�p � �`� ,��,�;4 u"l� WSJ, � !f,-- -!^,.+p�e 7�: ��j-y� ��"f"f�,.� .4�✓n:'f:C' "+r � �i��h �}, �4��' �..`,1.-1 '�5..i •S.�" k J = r..5 _'4 * ' 7 F >,"lys, �.`U'"i.'. �,� "z '.�ti��:=1:;"9,-. •_ f,"M 3'a„ .a�...fi�-rF�d- �„r_"�,,�,.5^z nlatrf� � �.�y g µ._ , Y'`�,hk 7��':i!'�1__,�;.+'�,'�T'"�.:fa,.,.,e Mil '.7�,�dlyt.,`''`4'-,..,:.w....,,.,..,._...� The pedestrian crossing location will need to be looked at carefully due to the proposed northbound free right turn movement to County.Road F that will conflict with the pedestrian crossing. - Noise As a part of the Noise Advisory Committee (NAC), Mn/DOT analyzed the noise walls for the entire project. While some walls were determined to be reasonable (reduce the noise by a minimum of 5dBA), no walls were determined to be cost effective. The City is interested in the consideration of a 20' high noise barrier along the north side of the west bound C/D road. The total cost of this wall is approximately $1,525,000. Mn/DOT is _ willing to participate up to $3250 per decibel per benefiting property. This means that the City could request that Mn/DOT construct this wall. In doing so, Mn/DOT would contribute approximately$1,050,000 and the City would be required to pay the remaining cost, approximately$475,000. These costs are based on the most cost effective wall construction_ No costs associated with design or construction would be attributed to the city. Landscape Plan Mn/DOT is working on establishing a landscape plan for the project area. The landscaping would occur a couple of years after the completion of the roadway construction. Proiect Benefits • Public Safety: In the last 3 years, there have been 426 crashes on 1-694 from Lexington Avenue to TH 10, including 3 fatalities/serious injury crashes and 423 injury and personal damage crashes. • With the proposed project, the traveling public, including Arden Hills residents and employers in Arden Hills can expect: o A reduction in the crash rate (number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVM))from the existing level of 4.5 to a typical freeway section in the metro area of 1.0. Reduction in crashes will reduce traffic volumes using local streets during these events o A reduction in the severity rate (number of crashes, weighted according to their injury type per MVM)from the existing level of 5.6 to a typical freeway section in the metro area of 1.2. An Equal Opportunity Emptoyer _ rwf�'Y. FU ',4� n,,::`a'�'b?:: r r rr -�- ' T r Ri'Y. i '• ltr.,.r.- 2A^' '"�Pl %p ,,, Vf .,•' ,.;,,.,.( _.'3,- ",: r} 1, g h''"". t 15 r, ,�'�'.•Y` kra+�wY-'r�' r. � _L' u.� i r•l�+Y'x,.. '�"�7,�'j i l �i" �r� n x r�cs _ � a r� �re '� " q �' �� .�;l.,.rstir..t s^ r� �•',� f`. w%� �t fufg r� err j (�} fyr iss.i''e2x `f' ifj;^o +� rn ti rug yb�"A,y' i ��, '# � ��'"�•;. - l � r�:l.;•,"� f ,.��,. d-.y :7 " � `°,car' y�r�g'rr, � .>v,�� ,r"�{ s f}•,tr,}m `J'•��'�d W''''i+}tcz�� gay �if; � � •'F',', a� a�:�r��'�t..;• r.r,crhhr; 3. ,¢r..,.$r4pv`' — >S`;.,ti?.:r."�4„u. �;xm;�4' �„� :�}rc,:,:; r!�':r�'y,+�-m;p, q{�s EH,ye'�. • Reduced Traffic Congestion: Presently there are up to 5 hours of congestion in the area during weekday peak hours on this segment of freeway. With the proposed project, the traveling public, including Arden Hills residents and employers in Arden = Hills can expect: o Regional trips will be reallocated to 1-694 from the local roadway system o An increase in AM peak period speeds between Lexington Ave and TH 10 from <50mph to >60 mph. o An increase in PM peak period speeds from <20mph to >55 mph. o Reduced variability in travel times and increased reliability of trip times. o A reduction of at least 780 hours of congestion per year. • Project benefits not only affect commuters on the freeway system, it also affects the efficiency of freight movement in the Twin Cities, efficiency of emergency services, and reliability of transit services. Mn/DOT appreciates the City of Arden Hills commitment to improve safety and reduce congestion on 1-694, TH 96 and the local roadway system within the City of Arden Hills. The improvements shown on the layout will allow for the traffic in this region to experience improved travel time reliability as well as prepare for future expansion of mainline 1-694 to the east. If you have any additional questions or if you need any further explanation of these issues ahead of the council work-session on September 20, 2010, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ark J. Lindelberg North Area Engineer cc: Wayne Norris An Equal Opportunity Employer z. Y°3-,. W r,ti,� r��S°`� • r'� ''.±,pM10-' ,� � v..� 1�'� ��"' � r x • • ,hYl�' � r`�v �Xi�¢S��r ` ro Y � r� +h '. e% c? �5, _� �r�i HPDP/Scoping/Subject Guidance Minnesota Department of Transportation Municipal Consent Contact - Steve Ryan, P. E. steve.ryan(a)state.mn.us Project and Process Guidance Engineer Office of Technical Support 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 676 St. Paul, MN 55155 (651) 366-4675 Forms For a generic layout-approval resolution for use by a municipality, see Sample Resolution in the Appendix. Threshold Criteria Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required. When Required Municipal approval is required for any trunk highway project that results in any of the following within a municipality: • Alters access, • Increases or reduces traffic capacity, or • Requires acquisition of permanent right-of-way. • (Changing capacity means adding or reducing the number of through lanes. For example, adding auxiliary lanes is not a change in capacity). Exceptions Municipal consent is NOT required (regardless of impacts to access, capacity, or R/W) for projects needed for any of the following: • Regulate traffic, or • Install traffic control devices, or • Other safety measures • The term `other safety measures" refers to traffic safety measures. For example, the addition of a turn lane is a traffic safety measure; the replacement of a structurally-deficient or fracture-critical bridge is not. 1 of 5 Municipal Consent HPDP/Scoping!Subject Guidance Mn/DOT Also, maintenance activities do not trigger the need for municipal consent. Examples Permanent Easements (such as Drainage Easements) require municipal consent (because they take permanent right-of-way). Roundabouts are used for traffic regulation and as a safety measure, and thus are exceptions that do not require Municipal Consent even if they involve permanent right-of-way taking. Roles and Procedures Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required. (See Threshold Criteria above). Sometimes a city may choose to waive municipal consent on a specific project. In that case the city council must pass a resolution clearly identifying the project and waiving its right to municipal consent for that project. However, the typical municipal consent process is as outlined below. Procedure (for obtaining municipal consent) 1. Mn/DOT (District) submits to the city the final layout with a letter requesting city approval_ The letter includes a good faith cost estimate of the city's share of the project's cost and the following (either in the letter or in an attached report): • project purpose • route location • short description of the proposed design of the highway • any additional supporting data 2. City schedules and holds public hearing (within 60 days of submittal). City must schedule within 15 days of receiving Mn/DOTs request for approval and must give 30 days public notice. 3. City passes resolution approving /disapproving (within 90 days of public hearing). After 90 from the date of the public hearing, if the city has not passed a resolution disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved. 2 of 5 Municipal Consent HPDP/Scoping 1 Subject Guidance Mn/DOT 4_ If city disapproves, MWDOT decides whether to: a. Meet city's condition(s), assuming city approved with conditions: _- Mn/DOT writes city a letter indicating this and attaches revised layout with change(s). This ends the MC process. b. Go to the appeal process. c_ Stop the project (do not build the project, or scale project down so that municipal consent is no longer required). 5. If in the final plan Mn/DOT alters access, capacity or RIW, Mn/DOT must re-submit changed portion of plan for city's approval. (The city is not required to hold another public hearing and has 60 days to approve or disapprove). City Approval The city can approve either by a formal approval resolution (see generic resolution in Appendix), or by not passing a resolution disapproving the layout within 90 days of the public hearing. The city's review—with regards to layout approval— is limited to the project elements in the final layout that are within the boundaries of that city_ A city cannot impose a condition on its approval that is outside of the city's boundaries. The process allows the city one opportunity to exercise approval or disapproval of the final layout (unless Mn/DOT alters the plan with regards to access, capacity, or right-of-way). Once a city approves the layout, it cannot rescind its approval later. If a city disapproves with conditions, and if Mn/DOT agrees to meet those conditions—and notifies the city in writing (including copy of revised layout)—then municipal consent has been obtained_ The municipal consent statute applies to changes on "any route on the trunk highway system lying within any municipality_" If a T_H. borders a city and no section of the T.H. is completely within the city limits, municipal consent is still required for any of the designated changes(access, capacity, or right-of-way) that do occur within that city. However, if the changes triggering the municipal consent process are on the other side of the T_H. —and thus outside the city's limits—then municipal consent is not required from that city and is not requested from that city. 3of5 Municipal Consent HPDP 1 Scoping/Subject Guidance MnIDOT City Disapproval If a city disapproves the final layout, MnIDOT can stop the project(or scale it back so that municipal consent is no longer required), or Mn/DOT can take the project to the appeal process. If the city disapproves—but includes condition(s) for approval, MnIDOT has the above options plus the option of meeting the city's condition(s), and thus obtaining the city's approval. To do this, MnIDOT sends the city a letter to that effect with the layout attached (revised to show the change(s)). This completes the municipal consent process; Mn/DOT then has the city's approval_ (Sending the letter and revised layout is NOT a resubmittal for further consideration by the city). Appeal Process The appeal process is the same for interstate and non-interstate projects. However, the MnIDOT Commissioner is not bound by the recommendations of the appeal board with respect to interstate highways. If MnIDOT decides to go to the appeal process, the first step is to establish an Appeal Board of three members: one member appointed by the Commissioner, one member appointed by the City Council,and a third member agreed upon by both the Commissioner and the City Council. (If a third member cannot be agreed upon, the Commissioner refers the selection to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who then has 14 days to appoint the third member). After the appeal board is established, the Commissioner refers the final layout to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board then has 30 days to hold a hearing at which the Commissioner and the City Council may present their cases for or against approval of the layout. Within 60 days after the hearing, the Appeal Board must make its recommendation regarding the final layout. The recommendation can be: • for approval, or • for approval with modifications, or • for disapproval. The board can also make additional recommendations consistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate. The board must submit a written report with its findings and recommendations to the Commissioner and the City Council. 4 of 5 Municipal Consent HPDP/Scoping 1 Subject Guidance MnIDOT Legal Basis The Minnesota municipal consent statutes (see links below)were revised in the 2001 legislative session. State Municipal Consent Statutes - Definitions MN Statute 161.162 Highway Project Review MN Statute 161.163 Final Layout Approval Process MN Statute 161.164 Commissioner Action; Interstate Highways MN Statute 161.165 Commissioner Action; Other Highways MN Statute 161.166 Reimbursement of Expenses MN Statute 161.167 (for Appeal Board Members) Helpful Links MnIDOT Public Involvement Glossary Municipality: A statutory or home rule charter city. Municipal Consent: A municipality's approval of Mn/DOT's final layout for a project on a Trunk Highway when such approval is required by State Statute—see Threshold Criteria below. (Approval is by a resolution passed by the elected council of the municipality—the City Council). Appendix Municipal Consent Process Sample City Resolution 5of5 Municipal Consent Process Mn/DOT—HPDPIScoping Basic Process 1_ Mn/DOT submits the final layout to the City with a letter requesting City approval of the layout. 2. The City holds public hearing within 60 days of Mn/DOT's submittal 60 days J. and gives a 30-day(minimum) public notice of the hearing. Mn/DOT presents the layout at the public hearing -- 3. The City Council passes a resolution approving!disapproving the layout (within 90 days of public hearing). If after 90 days from the public hearing the City has not passed a 90 days resolution disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved 4. If the City approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project. 5. If the City disapproves, Mn/DOT'S options are- * Make the changes requested by the City(if any) a Refer the layout to an Appeal Board o Stop the project a Modify the project so municipal consent is not required o Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning Before Appeal: Total Maximum time = 150 days Appeal Process 1. Mn/DOT notifies the City that it is appealing. 2. An Appeal Board of three persons is established- * Mn/DOT appoints a member Undefined time to o The City appoints a member establish appeal board o Third member selected by mutual agreement between the City& MnIDOT. If they cannot agree, MnIDOT requests the MN Chief.justice to select. The Chief Justice appoints third member within 14 days of Mn/DOT's request. 14 days 3. Mn/DOT refers the final layout to the Appeal Board. Undefined time 4. The Appeal Board holds a hearing (within 30 days of receiving final layout from Mn/DOT). The City and Mn/DOT each present their case 30 days 5. The Appeal Board makes its recommendation(within 60 days of the hearing): 60 days o Approval, or o Approval with modifications, or o Disapproval of the final layout Maximum for Appeal Process = 104 days+ (plus time to establish appeal board,etc.) 6. If the Board approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project. 7. if the Board disapproves, or approves with modifications, Mn/DOT's options are: o Make recommended modifications (if any), and proceed with the project o Stop the project o Modify the project so municipal consent is not required o Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning o If it is an Interstate Highway project, Mn/DOT may proceed with the project using the layout that was not approved(and sends a report to the City and the Appeal Board stating the reasons for doing so). TOTAL Possible Time = 254 days+ NOTE: If final construction plans contain changes to access, capacity, or right-of-way from the layout approved by the City, Mn/DOT resubmits the changed portion of the plans to the City for approval. (City has 60 days to approve).This holds whether municipal consent was obtained through the basic MC process or through the appeal process. Sample City Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL At a Meeting of the City Council of the City of held on the day of 200_,the following Resolution was offered by and seconded by to wit: WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the improvement of within the City of from to and seeks the approval thereof_ and WHEREAS, said final layouts are on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation office, Minnesota, being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. S.P. from R.P. to ; and WHEREAS, improvements to city streets and appurtenances have been included in the said final layouts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layouts for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved"_ Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members voted in favor of the Resolution: The following Council Members voted against its adoption: ATTEST: Mayor Dated 200 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CITY OF I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Minnesota at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 200 as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (SEAL) City Clerk Possible Conditions for a Municipal Consent Resolution for the I694/TH51 Project 1. The City understands MnDOT's policy regarding cost participation in the construction of noise walls. However, the City would like more information on _ the $3250 per decibel per benefiting property. How was this dollar amount determined? When was the last time the dollar amount was increased? How often is the $3250 rate reviewed? 2. The City would like MnDOT to provide documentation that the traffic modeling for the 1694/TH5I improvement considered the entire region and the effect the proposed grade separated intersection of TH10/CR96 with the loss of some movements will have on the entire transportation system 3. The City requests that MnDOT commit that there are no city costs associated with the proposed improvements necessary on interstate, county or local system to construct the I694/TH51 interchange shown on the approved layout with the exception of noise walls. 4. The City requests that MnDOT change the layout as necessary to provide the required spacing for a 10 foot wide bituminous trail on the west side of old Snelling Avenue/old TH 10 as it passes under 1694. 5. The City requests that MnDOT show on the approved layout a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of Hamline Avenue from Floral Drive to County Road F and on the south side of County Road F towards Lexington Avenue to the sidewalk to be built as part of the Arden Village Development 6. The City requests that the revise traffic data outlined in the MnDOT letter dated September 14. 2010 be added to the approved layout. 7. The City request that MnDOT clearly state that the proposed bridge structure will not preclude the attachment of a pedestrian facility at any time in the future. 8. The City requests the MnDOT clearly state that the existing area on Trunk Highway 51 available for pedestrian movements will not be lessened in the future with the proposed improvements.