09/09/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 Councilmember Carlson indicated she was requesting a two-week continuance of this item because the City sent a letter to Anoka County in July 2002 and has not yet heard a response to this letter. She felt it would be appropriate for the City to receive that response prior to taking action on the proposed Resolution. Councilmember Carlson noted there had been a great deal of effort by the City and its residents put into this project and she expressed her appreciation to those individuals. She noted meetings had been held with the affected residents, who have made a number of compromises regarding this improvement project, and she thanked them for that. Councilmember Carlson stated she was not comfortable with passing the proposed Resolution without further discussion on the proposed project. Councilmember Carlson stated a revised plan had been presented to Anoka County, however, no one on the committee supported that proposal. Councilmember O'Donnell stated, while he agreed with Councilmember Carlson's remarks, he was concerned about a suggestion to delay this decision for two weeks, followed by a comment that the City should do some re -visioning. He did not feel there was enough time for the City to do this. He agreed that a large number of individuals have put a great deal of effort into this project and he was concerned about putting that work and the funding at risk. He felt this would be irresponsible of the City Council and he did not support tabling consideration of Resolution No. 02-95. Mayor Bergeson felt the City Council should not delay action on this item since he did not see how this would accomplish anything. He felt that Anoka County has made it very clear that their proposed design will not change and he did not believe any additional discussion will change that fact. He acknowledged there is some frustration regarding this entire process, but he felt there were other ways to communicate that frustration other than delaying action on the proposed Resolution. He felt the City Council should follow-up its letter sent to the County in July with a motion approving the proposed Resolution. Councilmember Reinert stated if the City Council votes in favor of the proposed Resolution this evening, they will have then agreed to a four -lane divided highway for Highway 49, which will eventually cause Lake Drive to become a four -lane divided highway. He stated he does not agree with this concept and felt there was a better design option available. He felt Anoka County has played a lot of games throughout this process and he did not support what he felt was being rammed down the City Council's throats. Councilmember O'Donnell noted the original proposal by Anoka County has changed and it was his understanding that Highway 49 would not be a four -lane divided highway between County Road J and Lake Drive. Rather, he understood the current proposal involved a 100 -foot right-of-way divided roadway north of Birch Street to Lake Drive, providing the roadway can be posted for 45 miles per hour speed limit He felt the County was being truthful in that this was the bottom line. He noted if there was a risk of these funds going elsewhere and this project not being completed, the intersection and bridge would be reconstructed to the four -lane divided highway specifications, with a two-lane roadway in the middle, which he felt would be a nightmare for traffic to navigate. Councilmember Dahl concurred with Councilmembers Reinert and Carlson. She felt there is a better design option and she too would prefer to hear a response back from Anoka County on the July 2002 letter from the City Council. She felt the proposed Resolution would be redundant, considering the 5