My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/07/01
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/07/01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:44 PM
Creation date
8/15/2018 2:19:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/1/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/1/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Option 3: Construct Wall to the East (Mn/DOT built) – City Council Proposal <br />On April 1, 2002, this issue was brought before the Council for discussion. After <br />Discussion of Options 1 and 2, the City Council proposed a third option - Option <br />3. This option would be the same as option 2, with the exception that Mn/DOT <br />would be the project administrator and build the wall according to their <br />specification and at their expense. <br /> <br />This item was placed on the May Work Session Agenda but was later tabled. It <br />was then placed on the June Work Session Agenda, however this meeting was <br />canceled. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Staff suspected legal issues associated with Mn/DOT’s proposal, Option 2, and <br />City Council ‘s proposal, Option 3. The question was, “Can the City enter into an <br />agreement with Mn/DOT to take a noise wall that is required to be in a specified <br />location and move it to a location of the City’s choosing?” Staff discussed this <br />with the City’s legal counsel on April 15th. Staff also presented this legal issue to <br />Mn/DOT representatives. <br /> <br />On May 28th staff and the City’s legal counsel met with Mn/DOT representatives <br />to discuss this issue. In light of the legal issues, Mn/DOT has since revised / <br />clarified their option, Option 2. In addition to the City constructing a noise wall <br />further to the east, their proposal (Option 2) now requires that the City construct a <br />berm in the area where the wall would be constructed under Option 1. Staff legal <br />assumptions were correct. To be compliant with the law, a noise abatement <br />technique must be applied to the Arden Park area. Mn/DOT cannot enter into an <br />agreement with the City unless they address this issue in the agreement. <br /> <br />Under this “New Mn/DOT Proposed Option 2”, all of the requirements of the <br />original Option 2 would hold true. In addition, the City would be required to <br />construct a berm, in Arden Park, meeting Mn/DOT’s specifications, at an <br />estimated cost of $150,000 to $200,000. This berm would be 10 to 15 feet in <br />height and up to 90 feet in width, located mostly on City property. Mn/DOT also <br />estimates that the cost of a 1500-foot long wall to abate the noise in the Laport <br />Drive area would be $450,000, of which Mn/DOT would contribute $300,000. The <br />City’s combined financial liability for this new Option 2 is estimated to be <br />$300,000 to $400,000. <br /> <br />At this time staff is requesting direction from Council on what they actions they <br />prefer in order to seek resolution to this issue. The following is a list of some <br />possible courses of action: <br /> <br />Action A: Staff continues to recommend Option 1. Should Council select this <br />action, staff would contact Mn/DOT in writing requesting them to construct the <br />wall as required by law. The wall would be constructed by MN/DOT during the <br />2004 construction season at no cost to the City. Mn/DOT would construct the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.