CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 9 Road C and up to County Road D. Mr. Adams noted this presentation and public hearing were the first steps, with the next step for those benefitting property own- ers to vote on the noise wall in that area. Mr. Adams displayed a photo of the cur- rent noise wall prototype used by MnDOT, constructed of brown wood with pine tree motifs and tan colored concrete posts. Mr. Adams noted the noise wall loca- tion was proposed from north of the County Road C interchange up to County Road D at the Roseville border. Mr. Adams reviewed one of three triggers allowing far Municipal Consent, in ac- cordance with MN Statute 16116, as detailed in the RCA. With the increased capacity for the I-35W freeway, Mr. Adams advised that triggered the municipal consent clause. Mr. Adams advised that at this point there was no cost to the city for the project, with funding entirely by the state or federal governments. However, Mr. Adams noted that at this time, there was a funding gap for the proj ect, that would impact the actual start date (2018 or 2019) and the project itself. However, Mr. Adams advised that MnDOT staff is currently working with Mr. Culver and Roseville Public Works/Engineering staff on possibly addressing a larger sanitary sewer and storm sewer issue at the County Road C interchange to see if there was a clever solution to tie into the MnDOT project. While there was no final verdict at this time, Mr. Adams advised that that potential work would not be contingent upon building the proposed NIN PASS lane, in case no solution could be found. Mr. Adams advised that work would continue on a potential solution for the utility is- sue if and when necessary; and an update would be provided at that point. As noted in the RCA, Mr. Culver noted once the MnDOT project goes into final design, any additional stormwater improvements above and beyond the scope of the MnDOT project itself or any other possible cooperative project with Ramsey County (e.g. improved intersections or signal upgrades) may involve some cost participation for the city. However, before the project went to bid, Mr. Culver clarified that a cooperative maintenance agreement would be negotiated between all parties at which point city costs would be clearly identified. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Adams and Mr. Culver reviewed the location of the four proposed bridge replacements; and addressed her observa- tion that some recent bridge reconstruction projects provided nicer finishes — as well as noise walls — than done in the past. Councilmember McGehee suggested these bridges and noise walls receive similar aesthetic improvements as well. Specifically, Councilmember McGehee noted the unappealing nature of the cur- rent noise wall along Highway 36. At the request of Councilmember Etten, provided they get voted in by benefitting property owners, Mr. Adams confirmed that noise walls were part of the current