The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2B, US 10 - Highway 96 Interchange Improvements - Municipal Co EN HILLS Request for Council Review 2B Prepared By: Terry Maurer,Public Works Director Work Session Date: September 19, 2011 US 10/Hwy 96 Interchange Improvements Municipal Consent Discussion Topic: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on whether they would like to: • Adopt a Resolution approving the Final Layout and providing Municipal Consent, • Deny the Final Layout and deny Municipal Consent, or • Adopt a Resolution disapproving the Final Layout with conditions required for approval Supporting Documents: 1. Memorandum dated September 19,2011, from Terry Maurer,Public Works Director. 2. Letter dated September S,2011, addressed to David Cmiel from Joseph Lux,Planning Specialist. 3. Hamlin Avenue Traffic Analysis by Ramsey County Public Works EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19,2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator 1 FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: US 10/11wy 96 Interchange Improvements Municipal Consent Background At the April 25, 2011 work session representatives of Ramsey County presented and discussed the proposed US 10/Highway 96 grade separation project. Since the proposed project alters access, it does require Municipal Consent from the City. The City Council held the required Public Hearing for Municipal Consent on July 11, 2011. According to the Municipal Consent process the City has 90 days from the Public Hearing to take action to approve, deny, or disapprove with conditions. The last City Council meeting within this 90-day window will be the September 26, 2011 regular meeting. If the City Council takes no action, Municipal Consent is considered granted. The City Council discussed the Municipal Consent action at the August 15. 2011 work session but gave no direction as representatives of Ramsey County attending the work session indicated they would take a closer look at traffic counts relative to movement loss in both the I-694 project and the proposed 10/96 project. They have completed further analysis and attached is a small report on their findings. Representatives from Ramsey County will again be present at the work session to discuss these findings. If the City Council is considering a Resolution disapproving the final layout with conditions required for approval there seems to be three main issues. These are: 1. The northbound US 10 access to eastbound Hwy 96. City Council Meeting CAUserslterry.maurer\Desktopl9-19-1 1 Hwy 10-96.doc Page 1 of 2 2. The neighborhood requested a noise wall for the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Mr. Dave Cmiel has suggested that the noise analysis could be looked at in a different manner which will make it entirely fundable by the project. Ramsey County has reviewed Mr. Cmiel's analysis and responded with the attached letter indicating the noise wall is still not entirely fundable. 3. Timing of the projects is important as Mn/DOT has suggested the US 10/Hwy 96 project could be constructed in 2012 along with the 1-694 improvements. If this were to occur the Hamline/Snelling crossing of I-694 would be closed at the same time Hwy 96 is closed due to the lowering of the roadway 22 feet. This would force all trips from north to south Arden Hills including Public Works and Sheriff to use Lexington Avenue which will also have bridge widening work happening in 2012. Council Action Requested Staff is looking for direction as to how the City Council would like to proceed. The three options for the Council are: • Adopt a Resolution approving the Final Layout and providing Municipal Consent. • Adopt a Resolution denying approval of the Final Layout and denying Municipal Consent. • Adopt a Resolution disapproving the Final Layout with conditions required for approval. Once the conditions are met by Mn/DOT and/or Ramsey County the Final Layout and Municipal Consent are deemed to be approved (If the City Council chooses this option, staff is looking for conditions that need to be included in the Resolution.). City Council Meeting C_lUserslterry.maurer\Desktopl9-19-1 1 Hwy l 0-96.doc Page 2 of 2 Department of Public Works James E. Tolaas, P.E., Director and County Engineer 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933 •(651)266-7100• Fax(651)266-7110 7AWMS NTY E-mail:Public.►141orks@co.ramsey.mn.us September 8, 2011 David Cmiel 1861 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 NOISE ABATEMENT FOR HIGHWAY 10/HIGHWAY 96 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION Dear Mr. Cmiel: I apologize that it has taken so long to reply to your request for a review of the noise analysis for the Lakeshore Place homeowners. We took a look at the calculations of the Environmental Assessment(EA)that was done for the project and compared it to the noise analysis that was done when the Ryan Companies were planning to develop the TCAAP site and came to the following conclusions: ➢ Your letter of July 181h to Arden Hills City Public Works Director Terry Maurer and Chris Chromy, of Bolton &Menk refers to a wall 1,450-1,500 feet long and 20' high and the accompanying drawing shows a wall 1,500 feet long, so we used the 1,500' length to calculate a costldba reduction/home along Lakeshore Place. For these calculations we assumed that this wall would provide the same noise reduction of 6.2 dba(not necessarily a correct assumption)that the modeled wall showed, and using the EA cost of$15.00/square foot_ The cost of this wall would be$450,000 (1,500 linear feet X 20 feet high=30,000 square feet X$15.00=$450,000), While the regulations in place at the time the EA was done do not require us to include all platted lots, we calculated the cost using all 13 piatted and buildable lots on Lakeshore Place. The cost per dba of noise reduction per home would be $5,583($450,000/(13 homes X 6.2 decibel reduction]= $5,583). If we simply apply the Bonestroo cost of the wall per home for 13, rather than 10 homes, the cost is very close, $5,867/homeldba reduction. In either case the cost per decibel reduction per home is significantly over the threshold of $3,250 which is considered reasonable for construction a noise wall. The packet you provided us included a letter from Terry Maurer that discussed the City paying for walls that are not deemed reasonable based on the$3,250/dba/home formula, but it is our understanding that this is no longer being considered. ➢ We've discussed the retaining wall along Lakeshore Place a bit and, due to its height, it will require a fence or railing at its top. During the final design phase of the project, we will work to identify what type of fence is appropriate to give the best screening from the road and will present some options to homeowners that we hope will help mitigate the loss of vegetation_ We appreciate your involvement in the project development process and look forward to continuing to work with you as the design progresses. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. I can be reached at 651-266-7114 or by e-mail at'ose h.lux co.ramse .mn_us. Sincerely, oseph LUX Planning Specialist C: Terry Maurer,Arden Hills Director of Public Works