The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7B, US 10 Highway 96 Grade Separation Project Environmental Ass� EN HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer Council Meeting Date: December 13, 20I0 US 10/ Highway 96 Grade Separation Project- Environmental Assessment Review Budgeted Annount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $2,500 �2,500 PIR Recommendation: A�thorize staff to submit comments on the US � Q/ Highway 46 Environtnentai Assessm�nt to Itamsey County on behalf of the City of Arden Hills. Supportin� Documents: • Memorandum dated Decem�er 13, 2010 frorn Civil Engineer Kristine Giga • Draft letter to Ramsey County with comments on the 10/96 EA. . Arden Hilts Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Design Issues and Position • Letters firozxa the East Rour�d Lake Homeowners, dated December b, 2010; January 30, 2010; September 23, 2009; August 7, 1999 � EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 13, 2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Cauncil Me�nbers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: US 101 Highway 96 Grade Separatian Praject- Environmental Assessment Review B ack�round/Discussion Ramsey County and Mn/DQT are developing plans to reconstruct the intexsection o� Caunty Highway 96 (CSAH 9b) and U� Highway 10 (TH 10). As a part of this process, the preparation oian Environn�ental Assessnaent {EA) is required. The EA has been corr�pleted and distributed to aIl interested parties, incl�ding the Ciry of Arden Hills. The 30-day corr�ment period began on November 15, 2010, and ends Decernber 15, 2010. Bolton & Menk, Inc., completed a review of the EA on behalf of ihe City. This task was ancluded as a part af their cantract for continued technical support on this project, approved November 9, 2004. Bolton & Menk staff has been involved with this project since 2008, and over the cou�se o�f the project development and a�xieetings with City sta£f, has becozxa.e �az�iliar with the concerns ar residents, staff a�d City Cauncil members. Upon completion of the review of ihe EA, Bolton & Menk drafted ihe attached letter with comments and concerns. On March 31, 200$, the City Council adopted a Position Paper, which cantained several issues and concerns vv�th the 10/96 project. A copy of this docuinent I5 attached for reference. On Septezx�ber 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-021 in suppart af a noise wall to be constructed on Arden Manox as a part a�this project. Residents living zn ather areas near this intersection have a.Iso expressed concerns about noise during the preliminary design proces. A s�ammary of letters sent to the City over the years, mast City Council Meeting 11Metro-inetlardenhi11s1AdminlCouncillAgendas & Packet Information12014112-i3-10 RegularlPacket Information110-961I2- l3-lOMemo 10-9b EAReview.doc � � Page 1 of 2 __ __ __ _.... recently on December 6, 2010, from the East Round Lake Ho�eowz�ers have been attached. The noise analysis completed for the EA indicated that a noise wall wauld reduce noise levels in the southwest c�uadrant of the intersectian, but was not �aund to be cost- effective. The City Council couid request a sirr�ilar negotiation with Ramsey County on this noise wall as with Mn/DOT for the potential noise wall aiong 694. Bolton & Menk reviewed the analysis; the estimated cost for a noise wal� 2,900 feet in length aiong Old Highway 10 is $900,000. If the County agreed ta contributing up to $3,250 per decibel reduction per residence (similar to Mn/DOT's offer on 694), the City contrii�utian is estimated at $300,000. A resident on Lakeshore Place provided sozne corn�x�ents directly io City staff during the EA comment periad. As part of the project, Lakeshore Place will be reconfigured, and will be accessible to vehicular traffic only f�om the southern entrance. The concern ex�ressed was the configuration of a turnaround at the �orth end, and how this configuration will accornmodaie City mainte�az�ce and ennergency vehicles {fire trucks). City staff expressed �kis concez-ra� with fihe County, and will continue to work with the County during final design ta ensure adequate access for all vehicles along Lakeshore Place. Council Action Re ues�ed AutY�orize staff to subrriit camments on the US 10/ Highway 96 Envzroz�xn.ental Assessment to Ramsey Caunty on hehaif o�the C�ty of Arde�n Hills. City Cauncil Meeting 11Meiro-inetlardenhi11s1AdminlCauncillAgendas & Packet Information124101I2-13-10 RegularlPacket Information110-96112- 13-1�Meznio 10-9b EAReview.doc � Page 2 o f 2 _ _ _ __ Decernber 14, 2Q10 Mr. James 7olaas, �.E. Ramsey County Public Works 1411, Kirkwooc! Dri�e Arden Hills, MN 55112 Re: City of Arden Hifls' Com�'nents Regarding CSAH 96/US 10 Grade Separation Project En�iranmental AssesSment tEAj Dear Mr. Tolaas, Thank you for the opport�nity to review the CSAH 96/U5 10 Grade 5eparation Project En�ironmental Assessment (EAj. This is an important project that will pro�ide significant impro�ements to safety and mobility for �ehicles, pedestriar�s and bicyclists along CSAH 96. In addition, it will improve traffic flow and safety through the C5AH 96 and l3S 10 intersec#ion and along US 1a. �'hese safety, capacity and mobility irttpro�err�ents wiil benefit the residents and businesses of Arden Hills. The foflowing summarizes requested additions/corrections to the EA text and other i#ems of note from the city into the EA pubEic comment record. Z. Requested Addi#ions/Correttions ta E,4'�ext: a. Traffic i. Include a discussion in Section 4.3, under Alternative Anafysis, on the need/benefit of interirr► ramps at CSAM 96/i!S 10 and under wha# conciitions they would continue at this location in the future or canversely, under what conditions they would be removed. ii. Item #5.2Z (Trafficj — Prv�ide a cliscussion on why ramps are noi being constructed far all mo�em�nts. How will th� other moverr�ents Snorth to east and west to south) �e addressed? iii. Etem #5.2� (Noisej —The noise analysis appears to adequately address highway noise issues immediately adjacent to the project area. Highway noise from US 10 continues to be a concern for area residents along iH 10 between CSAH 96 and I-694. Pro�ide reference to previous noise study completed in March ZDOS and camment on its applicability with the changes in access and capacity at CSAH 96/TH 10. Provide discussion on potent3al cumulati�e impacts of the I- 694/TH 51 project on highway noise along TH 10. __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ____ iv. Item #5.29 (Cumulative Impactsj — Provide a distussian on the potential cumulative impacts o# the I-694/TH 51 project. More specifically address the cumu�ative impact on accessibifity for Arden Hills at TH 10/96, TH 694/Hamiline, and I-fi94/Lexington. v, ftem #5.29 (Curr�ulativ� irnpactsj --The third paragraph states, "if the full TCAAP cfevelopment were to occur a full interchange would be canstructed north of the new CSAH 96 o�erpass....remo�ing the ramps to U5 �.0". This would imply the lotal attess interchange is appro�ed and a requirement of the TCAAP de�elopment. Perhaps rewording "would be" with "may be" or "would be considered" is more appropriate. �i. Item #5.29 (Cumulative impacts) - Expand on the discussian af po#ential future I-35W/CSAH 96 improvements icfentified in the last paragraph ur�der Anticipated Future Actions. What is the improvement, when is it anticipated and whai is dri�ing the need? Be specific in this section that bofih the future developrnent of the TCAAP site and the f-35W/CSAH 96 project will be evaluated through separate en�iranmental analyses if they are pursued in the future. Please add a conclusion statement to this section specifying the law potential far adverse cumulati�e impa�ts ta resourGes directly or inc�irectly affected by th� project. b. Land Use i. Item #5.9 (Land Usej — Please provide mor� details on existing land use surrounding the praposed project to gi�e con#ext to the reader. The current text identifies public/institutiona! property in the sautheast quadrant and the TCAAP site in the northeast c�uadrant of the CSAH 96/US 10 inters�ction. Please spet[fy the residential praperty in the northwest quadrant is a manufactured home park. Also, add text to describe existing land uses in the sauthwest quadrant. ii. Iterr� #5.25 {Nearl�y Resourcesj —This sectian should inciude a discussion of the Highway 96 Regional Trail. iii. Please include a copy of the City of Arden Nills' Future Land Use Plan in Appendix D— Additional Maps and make reference to it in Item #5.27 (Compatibility with plans and land use regulations). �'here is a difFerence between the existing zaning map and future land use plan for th� TCAAP area. The reasan for this difference should be discusset! in this se�tion. iv. [tem #6.3. (Social ImpactsJ states "there are c�rrently vacant lots within Arden Manor for the residents of this �acquiredj par�el to utilixe so that the residents can remain iR ihe park." The acquisition ancf relocation af property due to the proposed projecf wil{ need to be tandutted in accardance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended by the 5urface Transpartation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24, and effecti�e April 1989 trevised January 20�5j. Please revise the text in this section to incfude reference ta the Uniform Reiocatian Act. Per this Act, relocatian assistance cannot dictate where residents must relocate (i.e., within the existing park�. Please modify this text accarcfingly as well. Please also make this change to text in ftern #6.4. c. Other i. Itern #5.�.9 lGeala�ic hazards and Soil Conditions] —There is a typo in the first sentence. Round Lake and wetlar�ds adjacent to the corridor represent the 70 feet to ground water (not O feet as the text currently states). ii. Item #5.22 (Air Qualitvl — Q�aiitative analysis was nat conducted for US �.0 since the prajected AADT is below the benchmark for a four lane freeway. While the praject does remove the only traffic signal on the US 10 diagonal, it does not can�ert it to a freeway. Qualitati�e analysis wauld be required if a four lane arteria[ roadway benchmark is used. Th� following summarizes aspects of the proposed project that the City would like to re[ognize and acknowledge, �ut has n4 specific requested additions ar carrections to the text of the EA. 2. Other Items of fVote for tf�e City of Arden Hills a. ltem #5.6 (Descriptionl—The project will grade separate the CSAH 96 and U510 intersection. Interim ramps wifl be constructed to pro�ide local access. The projeci will also reconstruct CSAH 96 frorn [-35W ramps to future Rice Creek Parkway as a four-lane divided roadway, with intersection impro�ements and a bike trail (sauth side of CSAH 96) and sidewalk (north side of CSAN 96y along the entire corridor. Figure 3 shows the proposed projett. b. Item #5.1.3 (Water Use1— Due to t�e deep cut being made ta lower CSAH 96 beneath US 10, this project will require the relocation of an existing watermain. No disruption to water senrice is expected and no permanent changes to #he public water suppfy are anticipatecf. c. Item #5.17 (Water qualitv: surface water runoff� — No water quality treatment is current�y pro�ided under existing cor�ditians for the road runoff. The project will include construction of a new storm sewer system that routes runoff from tf�e iwo roadway law points ta the proposed water quality ponds. The water quality ponds are to be canstructed in the northwest quadrarot of CSAF� 96 and US 10. _ __ _ __ _ _ ...... d. Item #5.29 (Cumulative Impactsl — I� the fufl TCAAP de�efopment were �o occur a fulf interchange would be cansidered north of the new CSAH 9� averpass to accammadate the increased traffic. The preferr�d alternative discussed in this proj�ct woufd accammodate this r�ew interchange by removing the ramps to US 1a. The praposed C5HA 96 and US 10 grade separation pro}ect will not implement, encourage, }�romote or preclude the future development of the TCAAP site. e. Item #5.31 (Summary of Issues) — i. Round Lake and the TCAAP site are known to be contaminated. No impacts to Round Lake and minimaE impacts to the TCAAP site are anticipated. 7he iCAAP site is eligible for the Nationaf Register of Historic Places. However, the State Historic Preservation Office #ound the proposed project has minimal impacts ta this site and therefore will ha�e "No Adverse Effect". ii. 0.6 acres of wetlands will be affected. Impacts will be mitigated using wetland credits from the Board of Water and 5oil Resources �BWSRj roadway �ank credits. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please cantact me. Sincerely, CITY QF ARDEN HILLS Terry Maurer, P.E. City Engineer/Director of P�blic Wor[cs cc. Kristine Giga, City of Arden Hills RAMSEY COUNTY PROJECT ��, G�rade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96 The City understands that grade separatior� of these two roadways is proposed to address safety and traffic operational issues. Due to these irnprovements, sorn� prop�rties may be negatively irnpacted and the City wants to assure that all measures ta reduce tne impacts are undertaken. a DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1 Mitigate noise im�acts to residential areas located south of County Road 96. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE Due to grade separatian, the City is concerned that noise levels may increase for these residential areas. The City would like to review mitigation measures and casts to see if naise can be reduced thraugh noise watis, landscaping andlor pavzng and v�ews that cost af noise mitigation is the responsibility of MnDOT and Ramsey County. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRA�NT #2 Review need to provide an exit ramp from north bound Highway 10 onto east bound County Road 96. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would Iike to provide better lvcal access onto County Road 96, if it anakes financial sense, due to the �roposed elimination of Interstate 694 exit onto Hamline Avenue. a DESIGN CONSTRAINT #3 Minirnize impacts to Arden Manor by considering minitnizing median, shoulder, boulevard, sidewalk and trail widths on north and south side oi 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, bau�evards, sidewalk and trail widths and location of trail(s) on one or both sides o£ the roadway rnay be ways to assist in meeting this goal. The City also �nderstands that appropriate turn lanes, alignrx�ents with bridg�s and ath�r traffic flow and sa%ty issues need to be adequately addressed in the design and may dictate certain elements of the road layout. ❑ DESIGN C�NSTRAINT #4 Utilize existing southern edge of County Road 96 as futur� �dge of all improvements and far future atignnnent af Intexstate Highway 35 bridge expansxon. o CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to pzeserve as znany hannes along County Road 96 as possible and i� the alignment can meet engineering standards by naving County Road 96 located as far south as possible, t�iat would be preferred. I-694 and Highway 10 and County Road 96 Prelitninary Design Pasition Paper 2 _ _ _ _ ... ..... ❑ DE$IGN CONSTRAINT #S Pravide pedesir�an crossing aver ar under Co�xnty Road 96 between Hzghway 10 and the access point east of North Heights Lu�eran Cnurch. a C�TY PERSPECT�'VE City would like to provide safe access to pedestrians to cross Co�nty Road 96 to access trails, etc. ca DESIGN CONSTRAINT #6 Any bridge{s) constructec� should provide safe pedestrian crossing/access. a CITY PERSPECTIVE The City wants io assvre there are safe pedestrian connections to iis trail system and any crossing over or under Highway 10 or County Road 95 needs to be wide enougn to accommodate such access, CITY PROJECT iII. Preserve full access for residents and businesses between Highway 10 and County Road 96 through developmen� of an in�erchange that includes access to TCAAP from Highway 10 The City supports providing f�ull access for residenfis and businesses between these roadways and access to the TCAAP site from Highway 1D. However, the City is oi the opinion that the following four aspects need to be �urther resolved: 1. Determine ii an at-grade signalized intersection can be constructed to provide access to the TCAAP site an 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 const�ction of a full interchangeliniersection will need to be shown on the plans but would like the ability to review timing and phasing option.s for the projecc. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1 Review MnDOT �nodel to determine if an at-grade signa�ized in;tersection at Highway 10 into Che TCAAP site can be constructed. p CTTY PERSPECT�VE City is of the opinion Chat this is a viable option as a te�nporary or permanent solution and would like to review timing, phasing options and costs. I-694 and Highway 10 and County Road 96 �raIiminary Design Position Faper � ___ _ ...... ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT #2 Review atl phasing optians %r cost effectiveness, viability, need, etc. to see if all four entrance/exit ramps on a new diarnond interchange are needed and provide Ciming and phasing of project. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to preserve local access for residents while �ninimizing impacts to the residential and business community located within t�e "triangle" area. The City would like to review timing of vvhen the sauth bound Highway 10 exit ram�p in.to TCAAP would be needed, if at all. In addition, a cos�lfinancial plan needs to be provided to ascertain if phasing is or will be cost effective. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #3 Review to dete�-mine how safe access for Scherer Brothers can be provided in the interim and long-tezxn based upon phasing plan for the interchange. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE City would iike to provide safe access while minimizing ir�pacts to Arden Manor. This cauld include inter�m solution of direct access until the exit ramp is possibly needed (right in, righC out), moving the access road closer ta Highway l0 z� the south bound exit ramp is not needed ini�ially and �oving the access roaci which leads onto the new diarnond interchange as far northeast towards khe southbound Highway 10 exit ramp as possible. ❑ DESIGN CONSTRAINT #4 Review costs associated with realignit�g Highway 1D and the interchange further northeast. ❑ CITY PERSPECT�VE City would like to �ninimize impacts to Arden Manor, but needs to be assured project salution is cost effecti�e. City would like to review costs of reaiignment, beginning and terminus of realignrnent, impacts to property further soutl� of County Road 96 and quatity of existing roads to determine if they are in need of replacement. Realignment could include a few options such as moving tYze south lane further north, moving both lanes further north (b�tt within MnDOT ROW) or maving bath lanes further north onto the TCAAP site. If the quality of the road bed is �n poor condition and in need of repXacezxient, then that cost should �e subtracted from the realignm�nt options being considered. I-694 and Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Design Position Paper 4 1861 West Highway 96 Arden HiIls, MN 55112 December �i, 2010 .�<k:Terry��l�iTafirer; Public Works DirectorlCiry Engineer ..��.� Patrick K�aers, City Administrator Cxty o�Arden Hills 1245 V��st Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Terry asid Patrick: Froi�z our prior canversaiions an� abserving your interactions wi.th City Council and Siaff, i� ifla�Cs like �ou both are great add'ztians to our City. Since both af you are r�latively new to the City, I�wanted to gxve yau an update af prio�r cotn.m�ication. over tk�e y�ars rega.z�diz�g noise ahatement issues as it reIates to oeir area west of Highway 10 due to the Highway 10/96 reconstruetion. This anaIysis deenonstrates that ik�e greatest benefit far noise abate�ent re�ates ta our z�eighborhood and that tbe majority oFthe funding for this nozse al�aternEnt will be ca�ered b� Mr�/Dofi zxzinim�m crrteria with o�1y a sa�aaall amount of funding from tk�e Cily. P�ease re�ievu this information an� incorporate it into the noise abatement discussian at this time. We reali.ze that a f�nc�ing �equest has been made by MnCDot and should also inc]ude any potentiat fundin� �hortfall for the West side o� Highway 1 Q{Easi Round Lake neighUo�rnood) wk�ich is most affected froin this road reconstruction. Ttie Mn/Dot Noise Study aetailed in �the April :14, 2Q08 Councii packet 7B is tl�e refere�ce point for our concerns for the Eas# Round Lake neigl�borhQod. The enclosed analysis supports that the great�st need for noise abatement is the area clasest to this neigI�bor�-�aod and financial support should be a.ddressec� by Yhe CouneiI as an integral part of an}� funding requests ny MnDot for noise abaternent. Ws trust that this xnforxz�atzon will be shared wi�th th� Mayar and City CoUncil becaUse Council decisions are forth.coming regaxding funding far n.oise abatement in the area. Feel free to cantact �xze by enaail at c�fe�niel cr,ya�oo.eom or at 651-SQ$-8237. Respectfully yours, East Round Lake Homeowners , �� r Davi� F. Cmiel Enclosure r .� � 186I Wesi Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 January 3�, 2Q10 Kristine Giga, PE Civil Engineer City af Arden Hil�s I245 West Highvsray 96 Arden I�IIs, MN 55112 Christopher C�raz�n�y, P.E., P.T.P.C3.E, Sen,ior �'rat�sparta#aon Engineer Bolton & Mer�k, Inc. , 12224 Nicol�et Avenue Bur�nsvi�le, MN 5533fi Dear Kris�ine an,d Churistopher: Tl�e Gzty will be continuing it's vngoi.ng discussion of ttie issue of noise abatement due to the grade sep�ration of Highwa.y 9b/US �0 af an upcorning Cpunci] 'VUarksessian in F�bnxary 2010. Please co�zsider the added :facts noted b�iow in addition ta my Ietter with supporting documen#s Q� Ssptember 23, 2009 addressed to the Mayor, City, and Councii Members (copy enclosed). The Ci�y d'zscuss�d the issue a#'noisa abatement a� its Council Sessxon of April 14, 2QOS ��te�n 7$). At �at tim.e �e MN/DOT Noise Study o�Highway 10 alignrnezct, which included the TH 10 Barrier Stndy o�March l�, 2Q08, vvas reviewed, � Using #�s as a basis and the MNIDOT-�ES1Sec. 772 Noise Abatemeni Polzcy, TH 10 Barrier Study (SEH), and Round Lake No�se Barriers ! and 2 discusses various options for abatement. The nozse rec�ptors I& J in See. 3.1 shaw only 5 pratected reside�ces when actualIy 6 should have Ueen used (adding I$61 W. Hwy 9G}. This addition will chan�e the attenuat�on com.pu�ai�an/decibel reductian factor from 44.7Q ta 53.40 (at 8.70 @ 20' barrier/stat), Secondly, recepto�s B through H in Sec, 3.2 Izave �.n. attenuation computa�i.on/decib�� reduction factoar total of 108.1 �. There axe an acidition 3 to 4 residen��ome Iots that are adjacent to receptor H. Based on fi�s the aitentiation wich 20' �arrier data of 11.5 per protected properties, the corrected tota! far reaeptors B through H snou�d be 154.10 and the adjusted decibel re.�.uction total for rece�tors B thi'ough 7 wouId be a corr�cted attenuation total of 207.50. Considerxng a 20' noise barrier cost criterion and the 207.50 aitenuatian, the 2fl' wall o�appmxirn�te 2,250' will meet #he �N/DOT minim�n criterion of $3,25� uer pro�rty. V /�". Please consider thi� ixxfazmat�on as you m.ove fa�ward in your ar�alysis af the noise abaternent issues. This �a, West of THII 0, is truly in need 4� noise abater�ent and shows tha� it is a cost �ffective use of S�ate/Federal func�ing whether in tatal or tkarnu$h sorne srn�all amot�nt of Cit�r cost s�Z�ring. FeeI free to conta.ct me by emai� at dfcmie� ,�,vahao,,.,com ar at 651-8f}8-8237. Respecfful�y yaurs, East RQund Lake Homeownexs David F. Cmiel Enciosure c� i 8G 1 West Highway 96 Azden Hills, MN 55112 s�� 2�, zaa9 Mayor Stan Harpstead . Ron Moa�se, City Administratox David Grant, Councii Member . � Brenda Halden, Councit Member Fran Holmes, Cauncil Men�ber Dave McClung, Ci�y Cau�cil M�rnber Dear N[ayar, City Administratar, Co�ncil Mem�ers: The city is c�zrrently discussing the issue af noise abatement due ta the �ade separation oiHighway 9�/US l0 and the related increase in noise levels. For yo� consideration, please review the City Council Ager�da packet item 7B oFApril 14, 2Q0$. Cii.y staff present�d a MN/DOT Nois� Barr�er Study p£TH 10 of Mazch 18, 2�08. In �this study abaterne�t czit��a identiiied that the study axea west of TH 10 (East Round Lake hameawners) woutd be �nost benefited by the canstrr�ction of a noise barr�erlsound wall. � The MN1�OI�E modeling noise criteria noted "Substan�al" is define�. as a SdBA or greater inc�rease. As detaiied in t�e s�udy the Rvund Lake axea noted levefs up to 11.5 dBA in greater noise levels �'iat can be reduced by a. 2Q' barri�r. This stuc�y goes on, to discuss the area east af Highway l 0 ar�d notes.that no substantial reductian i� noise (>SdBA} woutd t�e achie�ed hy any noisa walis or berms in this area. We fee� t,�at �� City sho�d first consider sieps tp financially suppart the Easi Routzd L,ake r�exghborh�ad. The noise and safety �ssues on the upgza.de of TH10 and re�ated 96/10 grade separation have been an ongoi�g xssue o� concern for our neighborhoad. This is cl.ernanstrated by c��ar letter of petition dated Augr�st 7, 1999 (capy enclased�. Over 10 years ago we addressed these issues and #he recent noise barrier sound wall study supports our contentian. Pleas� cansider this reques� for fnancia� support fo an area of our city that can tr�ly benefi� in noise abatement a�d �.creased safeiy in this �eighbarhoad. Respectfi�lly yaurs, �ast Rou�ed Lalce Homeowne�s David F. Czniel cc: Krisiine G�ga, �zviJ Engineer Deb $loom, City Engineer Gr�� Hoag, Public W�rks Di�ector Chris fo�her Chromy, BoZton & Menk (Eng. Consultant �or A/H} � ��- August 7, 1999 Mr Der�nt5 f'rob�t, Mayor Mr, 6rtan FritSinger, City Adrrrinl�trator M5. Bever�y Ap[fkow5kl, Council Memi�er Mr. Gregg �ar5nn, CauncEl Member Mr. Pau( Malone, Ca�nci� Member M�. Loi� IZem, Council Member City of Arcfen Hfli� 4364 West Ror�nd Lake I�oad ArcEen M1f15, MN 55112 Dear Mayor, Clty Admini5�rator, �ounci! Member.�: Subject: H�g�way 96/US Hlghway 1Q I�econ�ir�cClan A� �he IZam��y County'e recent public in�orma-�1ona[ meeting he[d at the Arden HilfS Glty Hall, varlou� a�crnattve plans �or the r�cor�struction aF Hfghway 96/US Highway 90 twere �re5ented by the I2am�ey County proJect Mar�ager, It 1� our under5tanding that ths C(ty 15 reuLueSting c�tizen lnput from pro��rGy owner5 flving within the direc'�Iy a�Fected recons�ructi�n area. A� a s-tep fn hel�ing the Ci-!.y reach an approved -�na! cfe5ign for -Che Highway 96/�S 10 recon�truction, the encfo5ed f15� af praperty owner5 livlhg ad�acent zo �he recan5tructior� project are r�questing �t}�e Ci-�y ta rec�uire, a� a condi�lan a�F approving any flnaf p(an, tha� ths project ir�clude �the con5trucCion af a Ci�y-a}�praved �arrler/walf alang �the we�t �id� of Highway 10. Th(� rec�ue�� !� ba�e,d on �afety a5 welf a5 the i��ue af aliowing �Che afFected area �to retaln �the re5fdentfal character aEong �Che east 5hor-e of 12aunc� Lake. 7he recan5-truction projec�C w([I Increa5e traffic along U5 Highway 10. ThfS barrier wiEE af5o re5trlct pede5trfan acce�� o Highway 10. 0!d Hfghway 10 rur�5 paraflel wtth L!S H1ghw�y 10, and the barrier wiI! allow the nece55ary protectlan fi-o�rr oncaming tra-FFic for both 5outh bour�d �rafiffc on U5 Highway 10 a5 well as -�ra�FFlc traveling narth on 0[d Highway 1p, Driver5 o�F vehicle5 cannot readify determ�na oncoming tra-FFic location, which can be considerecE a� �e1ng �n -Ghe1r traf�ic .fane. 7hf5 barrier w1I� el�minaie thi5 potential tr�f'ftc hazard. please gfve tF�iS rec��est your �eriou5 con�fdera�ion before arr�ving at your deci5lon a5 to �he best pfan far aur Ci-�y. A5 we can �ee from ��e ongoing Highway 96 recon5tr€ac�Cian, �Che 5tate a�d County have accornmodated -Ghe needs anc# irrtere5t5 of the affec�Ced cammuhitles along each portlon of -�h15 project. We tr�s� that like con�lderation �vilf be g€ven to th15 recon�truc�tton, �ar tki5 �ea5an, we feef 1t 15 �mportant tha� you addre55 thi� rec��e�t aa a nece5�ary Iinfc ta the comp�etton of th15� project a5 1�C affects o�r communt�y. I�eSpect-Fu![y Yaur�, � {�aee encfose,r� list) � . � Highway 9611JS Hfghway 90 ReconStruction E reo�ue5t that the Ci�y o�F Arden HillS rec�uire that a barrier wafl be constructed a5 a conditiov� o� approval o�F �the Highu+ay 9FIU8 Highway 10 12econ5�ruction F'roject. Prfr�t f'ro erG Owner Name Address Si natur �s�v�w�- , � � 0 V F� ?/t'c' P/ � � �� oY�� G — ar+�r�r��r��: ��.t.,li�il�sll�t'�'��l+l�>LLL�l7 � ��,►�1ri.a�e�i��'7)i,r . ''' ` i� j►'r 4 . i 1,r.i r ►� l�i� I, ! . � �� 'I � _ u�� __- _ -___ !' . f �L f � ,/ � ._ � �. . r � � Highway 961U�� Highw�y 90 i�ecan��n.�c�t�on l reque5t that �he C�ty of Arden Hilf� rec�,uire t}�at a barrier wal[ be cons�Cruc�ec! a� a condition aF a}�proval of the Highwvay 96/�!a f�ighway 10 i:econ5truction t'rafect. � � � �/i�'i✓�� .��-�J� ��r�.� �- �.wia ��-�. � �g6[ �f,� ��-'� �s�� x o.� ��d 5��'xx oc.,o �y �o � � G�� ,� c� ��._ � � ; ; } �__ ` � 4-~ � �L + � .s.. r ,�/ � !� 7,��'��L��r:t � �i'.�! J Arden Hills In�erstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Des�gn Issues and Position There are three separate roadway projects tnat are being studied in the City that have potential irnpacts on residents: �. 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 tb:�rough �evelopznent of an interchange that includes access to TCAAP frarn Highway 10 - CiCy project Projects #2 and #3 above are zntertwined due to zssues af continuing to provzde Iocal access ta residents between two rna�or roadways. In Qrder to progress these two (2) projects further to preliminary design, the City wants ta provide guidar�ce to the appropriate entities that are undertaking the deszgn process to assu�re that the Ciry's issues and concez�ns are add�ressed. It should be noted that the design constraints listed under each project are in no particular order of priority and as such should nat be construed in that way, In addition, the City wants to be assured that noise issues will be reeiewet� and rnitigation plans prepared to address all ihree projects. MNDOT PROJECT I, I�T�E1t5�A�E 694 - 35� �� 35W PR�JEC'� MnDOT is undertaking a study far widening Interstate fi94 into a six (6) lane freeway betw�en 35E and 35W. Th� design constraints and city perspective noted below DO NOT reflect the City's coxnr►�ents on the entire project since the City has not reviewed the project in its entirety and only reflect concerns regarding increased noise. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1 Review noise iznpacts ta residential. aceas located south of County Road 46 and provide mitigation options and costs. ❑ CITY PERSPECTIVE The City is concerned that noise Xevels may increase for these neighborhoods over time. The City understands that MnDOT is undertaking a noise study for this area as an extension of the Interstate 69� study. The City would like to r�view MnDOT's z�aitigation measuz'es and costs to see if noise can be reduced t�irough noise walls, landscaping and/or paving mater�als. In addition, the Czty anticipates thai MnDOT wili pay for any mitigation required as a result of the noise study. I-694 and Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Design Posztion �aper 1