02/10/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 City Planner Smyser stated he believes that request would have been approved prior to the ordinance 2 taking effect, but now the application has been pulled, and it is a new situation. Councilmember 3 Carlson stated her point is she wants to be consistent. 4 5 Mayor Bergeson indicated they may need the guidance of the attorney for these issues. He indicated 6 requests were bound to come in during the process of changing the ordinances, and they would need 7 to ask for guidance in handling. 8 9 Motion carried unanimously. 10 11 Resolution 03-17 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 12 13 Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-03, Subdivision Ordinance, Jeff Smyser 14 - City Planner Smyser distributed a new cover page for the ordinance, indicating the new page has 15 the ordinance number and a more formal introduction. He also noted it is Chapter 1001, not 1000. 16 17 City Planner Smyser advised this is the second reading of this ordinance, with the first reading having 18 taken place on January 27. He stated there were a number of things done in the interim, including 19 reconciling the definitions with the draft of the new zoning ordinance, which represents the bulk of 20 the new draft Council received. He stated the rest of the items changed were suggestions from the 21 first reading, which have been incorporated into this document, reflected in the updated pages 22 Council received and are bulleted on the summary report. He stated definitions for Level of Service 23 have been added, represented by sections A through F on the last few pages. .24 25 Councilmember Carlson indicated she had three points to cover. She stated on page 1002.4, she 26 remembers Council making comments in two areas that have been addressed, but she is wondering 27 who suggested item g. She asked for clarification on the point and requested to know who on the 28 Council made it. 29 30 City Planner Smyser stated that section had been rewritten by staff, as a question came up regarding 31 what would happen if the existing level of service(LOS) is A or B and the ordinance says you cannot 32 reduce; if you have an A, can it reduce to a B. 33 34 Councilmember Carlson stated she has no problem with the first two points in this section, her 35 question is on item g., which states The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply 36 to I -35W or I -35E interchanges. Interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka 37 County and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.' She stated this was not in the first two draft, and 38 the way she reads this it would be acceptable to have a LOS F if the money is not available to 39 improve, and LOS F is not acceptable. 40 41 Mayor Bergeson stated he wonders if the question is not in jurisdiction, indicating you cannot require 42 improvements if funding is not available. 43 44 City Planner Smyser stated they were touching on the problem. He indicated the City does not have 45 the ability to say you cannot put in a development if LOS is lower than D and the City does not have 46 the authority to make improvements. He stated the way it was written before, saying no one could • 47 develop if LOS was D or lower, could mean that we shut down economic development in the City 48 because just about anything by those interchanges would bring in enough traffic to be a problem. He 13