Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1B, TH10/CR96 Preliminary Design Issues & Positions ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Jim Willis, Interim City Administrator FROM: Stacie Kvilvaog, Project Manager SUBJECT: Position Paper for Roadway Projects At the March 10, 2008, Council meeting, the Council discussed the above referenced draft document. Based upon comments received from the Council, the attached draft has been updated to reflect those comments. Please note the following significaot chaoges with regards to the docnment: 1. Added that the design constraints are not listed in any particular order of priority of the Council 2. Left the Interstate 694 project in the document since the noise study being undertaken by MnDOT does include the grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96 aod future traffic when TCAAP is developed. Also stated that the comments of the City are only in relation to the noise study aod not reflective of comments they may have on the project in its entirety aod that MnDOT is responsible to pay for aoy noise mitigation required by the study. 3. Added noise mitigation as a design constraint under the grade separation of Highway 10 aod County Road 96. 4. Added a new design constraint under grade separation of Highway 10 aod County Road 96 to include safe pedestrian connections to the City's trail system aod any crossing over or under Highway 10 or County Road 96 needs to be wide enough to accommodate such access. 5. Added a new design constraint under preserving full access for residents between Highway 10 and County Road 96 to include review of ao at-grade signalized intersection on a temporary or permanent basis. In addition, added that a costlfinaocial plan needs to be provided to ascertain if phasing is or will be cost effective. Attached to this document is ao aerial map delineating each of the three project areas for quick reference during discussion at the Council work session. Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions. D Arden Hills Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary Design Issues and Position Ther.9J~__~ht'~~__~~~~~~ .~~~,~~~~i~V., "P.~~J~~J~_._!h.Cl~, .~.~_., ~~,j~g _ ~.~~~_~.4 _ r,~., .q~~:, <::.i~Y. ~~,a.\, __have. ,P~!~~~~}_ _n' --- impacts on residents: I. 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 f(-'sidents 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 #2 and #3 above arc intertwined due to issues of continuing to provide local access to residents between two major roadways. In order to progress these two (2) projects further to preliminary design, the City .wantstoprovideguidance.totheapl'ropriatenentities.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 orotect are in no oarticular order of orioritv J:!.nd as suclL'ihm!_hLnQLlL~ cOl}stmcd in that \~'!Y:-.fu addition, the City ,,~ym.u,~)o.~~___~~~,l;l~t:<l t~<lt,~~i~e. jssues~\I>:i}l, l:!~ t:~yi_~~_~4__Ll~<:l_~~!i_g_Llti9~, p!a~~"Pl'~p~~~.~t_~ .~<l-'~res~.~I,l.t~!~~.P1'~Je:c:ts.~ MNDOT PROJECT I. 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 anQ..9..ti persnective noted below DO NCYI" Teneet.the City's comments on the entire proiect since the Citv has not revie\.-ved the proiect in ilS entiretv and on]\, fencer concerns rC!lardin2 increased noise. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1 Review noise impacts to residential areas located south of County Road 96 and provide mitigation options and costs. o CITY PERSPECTIVE The City is concerned that noise levels 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 694 study. The City would like to review mitigation measures to see if noise can be reduced through noise wans, landscaping and/or paving materials. In addition. the City anticipates that -MnDOT \\;ill Dav for anv mitigation that may be reouired as a result of the noise study. 't.. (Dcleted: City has { Deleted: and '-.". .....-......".-......----- ,{ Deleted: wanted r---' --- ------.---~,-------- . t~eleted: wanted ".... "_nM_ -: Deleted: would rD~I~~..Th~"ci~.~d~~~~d; th~;-i-- : the noise levels do not meet MnDOT's I .... i standards for nntJgahon, the Clty would j be financiallyrespoIlsible if they wanted i_!?!~?~!_~e l~~_~~~.:...._________ RAMSEY COUNTY PROJECT DRAFT II. Grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96 The City J:w,4t:r.~~~_q~_ _~~_~~ _~~~ _~~P.~~~.'?~._ ~r~~~~___t_~~_~~~~~~y:~ _1~W5ll?9~$,\L~_'? __~~~!~::>s_ ..._' safety and traffic operational issues. ~_l!~_!9:__!l;t_e:~~_5~l?!"~Y,~!!l:~~~z,.~.o.~~.p_r_'?R~l~~_~':1x._~~. negatively impacted and the City wants to assure that all measures to reduce the impacts are undertaken. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1 ~IjtigfJ.!Sf:J1Qise i mDaclS to rE:~i<k!l!i.!.iI. areas located sQ!lu.LQf CQgn.n~.RQ.9:fL2fL &--.-- .... w CITY PERSPECTIVE Due to grade separation. the eitv is concerned that noise levels may increase for these;: residential areas. -TIle CitY would like to review mitll!ation measures to see if noise can be reduced through noise \\13115. landscaping and/or n3vin2 and viev.'s that cost of noise n1iti.g~,!i~nu$ the"L~l?gn.~ihHi!y_D_LMnPOT.QnQ.Ji__~m~~Y_CQ.!lJJ!Y-, o DESIGN CONSTRAINT 112 . Review need to provide an exit ramOr ~l:>_~_}"]~t:th~olln~__l-1_igh_'?-'lly_lO onto east bound County Road 96. o 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. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #3 --{ Deleted: supports -'--~-_.~_==:----._~= -{ Deleted: However,d -'t~~~~~~~~~~'"~_t,="=~"""",_"_~,__.;;,,~_,, -l~~~__~~_:m~~!!.~~~.~d Numb~~ng - - ----- - {,~~~~~_~_:_~~~~:_8_p~"",,,,,,_,,,,;,,__;";"_,_,_,,,,,_,, __ "-" rF~;:;':;~tt~~.B~~;~~d NU~be~i~~--- ro~leted: I ~- t Deleted: turn lane Minimize impacts to Arden Manor by rrummlzmg median, shoulder, boulevard,,__.____ r-D~I'~t;i;-"-~d side\valk and trail widths on north and south side of County Road 96. o CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to preserve as many homes along County Road 96 as possible and local decisions on medians, shoulders. boulevards. sid.ew,dk anfLtrail widths and )_()~_~!~9_Il__9f trail{s} on one or both sides of the roadway .{i.l.~\':.~~_~_~X~_~9__~~~~~U!!_~_~~_~!!g_!l}_i_~_g5?~J____ The City also understands that appropriate turn lanes, alignmeuts 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. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT II:l Utilize existing southern edge of County Road 9Q.c~~_J~!~~~~~."~~g,e or _~!! jl~t?!_OVements and for future alignment ofInterstate Highway 35 bridge expansion. o 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. _._._._._--~---- t Deleted: possible ; Deleted: are Deleted: DRAFT o DESIGN CONSTRAINT lISu Provide pedestrian crossing over or under County Road 96 between Highwav 10 and th&<-""-- access point east ofNortl1_Heig!n.2l-J!.!h~.m._.Cllill"ch. o CITY PERSPECTIVE City would like to provide safe access to pedestrians to cross over County Road 96 to access trails, etc. L o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #6 :8:QY.Jnigg~.(s) cOI1~mc!ed shoul~Lm:mide s1!ftiedestriall crossinJJ.iaGfess-" >. o CITY PERSPECTIVE Tbe Citv wants to assure there are safe pedestrian connections to its trail system and anv crossing over or under HigJnvav 10 or County Road 96 needs to be wide enomih to accommodate such access. I ,ClTYP.RQJEc:1' I III. 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 .illl~Lbu~iD~~_~y5_between these roadways and access to the TCAAP site from Highway 10. However, the City is of the opinion that the following,l'ouraspects to be further resolved: 1. Can an at-Qrade signalized intersection be constructed on a WlTIDOrarV or permanent basis LNumber of entrance/exit ramps that need to be constructed for the interchange and when ... LHow to provide safe access for Scherer Brothers L Can or should Highway lObe realigned to move the interchange further northeast The City understands that construction of a full LTJ.tercha.llgefinrersecllon will need to be shown on plans hut would like the ability to review timing and phasing options for the project. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1 Review outrun to determine if an at~f!rade sif!:ualized intersection into the TC..\AP site can be constructed.._ . --"- 1 Deleted: =1 I Formatted: Indent: Left: O.7~--- l First line: on . . .. t:;;;~~7~~~~~~d~:~b;;'~~".~ - -l~~.r.~~_~.:"_~~~~:""~ ~t_ ""_~_::~~~~~ i_.~~_~.~.~"~~~,..~.~!.I~~,~.~d Numbering , -' L.~.':~~~.:_~"."._......"".,...,..,_ Deleted: tlnee Formatted: Bullets and - -j FCl!,~atted:.!,ont: 8 pt C~~~~~~::~~!_~~:~~~"N'~~~~'~i'~9-' f at I'lh!hl't'av to.....,.. "1 Formatted: Font: 12pt o CITY PERSPECTIVE Citv is of the opinion that this is a viable ootion as a temoorarv solution and would like to reyiew timiD!! and ohasiu!! ootions. or oermanent..... 1 Formatted: Indent: left: 0.75", lti~~:~~!;"=~~'o=. t Formatted: Font: 12 pt____n ,j .' n _ __._'1 . l!~~~!t~~~~~~9.._) _ ' t Formatted: Indent: left: OS' ',r- " L Form~~~:_!~~~~~.~:.~~_g.75" ._j DRAfT o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #2 Review an phasing options for cost effectiveness. viability. need. etc. to see if all four entrance/exit ramps on a new diamond interchange are needed and provide timing and phasing of project. o 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 plal1 needs to be provided to ascertain if ohasine: is or wi1J be cost effective. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #.3... Review to determine how safe access for Scherer Brothers can be provided in the interim and long-term based upon phasing plan for the interchange. o 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 interchange as far northeast towards the southbound Highway 10 exit ramp as possible. o DESIGN CONSTRAINT 114 . Review costs associated with realigning Highway 10 further northeast. o 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 nortb onto the TCAAP site._.Jt th~....Qtla]in:_J~L.1:1K_T.QI!fL~51j2-j!LPQ9L C0J1~i1i9n an1i!LDced of renlacement. th~rJ., .~h~t, ,~_~?~~ ".~1}_\)~1(~1" ~)_~_ __~~ll?_t.ract~d f~_<:)!~l __!h~ _ T~_,!li,g!l:r!l~_l~ ~ _<?pt~,o,:rJ~, . ~t;,i!l,g considered. ..-,--(~~~~~!~:~~===--~~:~~. Deleted: t Formatted~~ot Hi9.!J.1~~___._ ] ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 8 ayor Harpstead noted that there had ot been a worksession yet to talk about the anization of the City. He also stat at they had agreed to allow the City . trator to fill critical positions sucll the Community Director position current Councilmembe Clung agreed with Mayor Harpste . that down the road this would be a an impo". position but at previous meetin ant to move forwar . h the Deputy Clerk position il after the City 'nistrator position had b lIed. He stated that he is supp 've of this type of p . tion but not supportive of a . sing the position at this time. ~ ~ ber Holmes stated that the f seems to be overloaded WI "'. 11 the responsibili and demands and the City is oming more focused on rec '" ing and communica s. She stated that her prefere would be to hire the positio . MOTION: Council ber Grant moved ncilmember Holden seconded a tion to table item 5E, Motio 0 Approve the Job Description fo uty Clerk and to Authorize to Advertise the Position, until the '!J' Administrator is on board anomes back to the Council with a mmendation to fill this position. he motion passed (3-2, Mayor H ad and Councilmember Holmes.) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. DRAFT 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Resolution No. 2008-020. Approvinl! Preliminary Desil!n Positions For Interstate 694. Hil!hwav 10 and County Road 96 Proiects. 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 Stafflooked 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 or three projects. There are three separate agencies specifically going to be involved in the various tasks that are ultimately arrive at decisions and conclusions as these projects move forward. The first is the Mn/DOT-Interchange project and that is Interstate 694 Study from 35E ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10,2008 DRAFT 9 to 35W and in comments that they made to the Council indicating that they are willing to extend the study area up to 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 they 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 design issues and position. The issue tonight would be to determine if the draft resolution paper clearly and reasonable 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 document was originally drafted by Stacie K vilvang 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. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 DR AET 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 because 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. 10 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 because of the impact that would be caused in terms 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. 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 loose some of the concepts from project #1, 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 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 DRAFT 11 addressed at all, and there were four members of the Council who wanted that included. Councilmember Grant would like to have the first line the document 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 #3 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. 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. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 DRAFT 12 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 can 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 MnJDOT, not the City, and he would like to see the final sentence in this 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 MnJDOT 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 MnlDOT and a noise abatement study. They may come in and do a study then make a change and not do additional studies after the change has occurred. He suggested the City should request the standards or guidelines that MnlDOT 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 MnlDOT 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 DR AFT 13 Mayor Harpstead noted that the 694 review was an ongoing process and that this is not the whole element of that review. Councilmember Grant stated that the concept of noise rmtIgation 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, McCormick 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 MnJDOT 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 along 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. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10, 2008 DRAEJ 14 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 ofBriarlmoll, McCormack, and Snelling, 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 was 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 #2, 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 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10,2008 DRAFT 15 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 to 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. Councilmernber 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 Harpstead 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 utilizing County Road 96 and having it approach Round Lake as opposed to really emphasizing the future ali~~~~~:;~t~ the Highway 35 bridge expansion be added to Design Constraint #3. (j1'\I~fl,mNl'~:<i~~ h~~~::\.'Y4:\.'Y(}~~~lg;) Councilmember Grant stated that Design Constraint #4 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 10 and County Road 96. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10,2008 DRAFT 16 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 ofthe 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 #4 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 crossmg on any bridges that may be built. It was the consensus of the City Council to add two additional Design Constraints to the Ramsey County Project, Section II, 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. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10,2008 DRAFT 17 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. 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 fmancial plan needs to go along with this. Councilmember Holden stated that MnJDOT was not plauning 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. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 10,2008 DRAFT 18 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 W orksession 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. A royal of Res Amendment to the RRLD, LLC. Administrator Willis stated the ex . g preliminary agreement with RRLD, LL ires at the end of March. The agre ent was approved last year with the expecta that the process would move forw ore rapidly. He stated that it was proposed tend the agreement for an addition ear. The budget that was originally set up this project still has approxima half the funds remaining so there would be need to amend the budget at this t there may be before the end of the next twelv nths. Councilmember Holde seconded a motion to appro Second Amendment to the Preli D,LLC. oved and Councilmember rant esolution No. 2008-021, Appr . ary Development Agreement Councilmembe olden asked if there was a clause i e agreement that allowed the City to negotiat . there is a shortage of funding. Interim City Administr r Willis stated that if there was a ed for additional funding then both parties h the opportunity and obligation to t together and discuss it. There will be a nee discuss a budget amendment in th ture and the developer is aware if this. tion carried unanimously (5-0). Assistant City Ad istrator Simon stated that the 'ry had received a letter from one of the partners 0 e Super 8 Motel requesting e City to opt out of the ~:. ,t:,.r....c~ :;,;....'4' ~.' -' ,~,. ~-t.....<,.-. ~,<;J:.' r " ./ ~ , rJ). , ::c \ E-< .'w " Z ' '" r.il ~ r./J .-/< >r.il O~ g::< ;:;S;:'-'OO ......Clo Z::;Jo OE-<N ~ r./J ~ ~....:l~ E-<fS::r: ~Z() Or.il~ fu;:;s< Zz;:;S ~o 0 . ~~ ! E-<...... "i:; ....:l> .ti <Z ',"" ,':; Zr.il 'cO'. . ~ 0 ...... , l.r.l 0 0 ~ '"'~ ,. " , ., ;': .,. ,. ; C , i > 11: , I;... ,..... ::v " "1" '0 }':' ,'. ,. ,. t.: '?; f.. ~,~~~, . 'L~-V~:~. ,{,f. .. :::"!.-'y~<,;':':' '\ ~~ 1 J ~ .,. P;l~; !j".~~f4~~..b,~~,,~_' & ~lt :.. ~~r~~~~$~~',..~ .~-; r.\.,' '''''''~'''~ir:. <i.~....~t;;"'~' ."';;'" ;~".\lp:r . . .'. ...",,,,,,,,,-&hh' "'. ~.,,::2'''''''' -lo:'_..-v-~~ . -:...P''fo~r:rrk~"l' ,-'I.;...,;. ,:,,,,,,,,>.'It.t..:. ,,<:i,,; $t>k;~~,~~~!..~C :<--c ~.Y.'V~~:\:L:~ k~*f:i~"_~*""'}:,-~: .if ,~ .L . '- ..~. .,~: ~'.,.:. i h-;;~ m "'-~~I J L../ 'I .' , -;:,,'!{~.l \ .'. ::f~;