02/24/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003 APROVED . 1 addressed this with State Aid staff and approval by their board is required for the variance. He stated 2 that as part of the variance request, State Aid must receive a resolution from the City requesting the 3 variance, which includes a statement that the City of Lino Lakes holds harmless the State of 4 Minnesota in granting the variance. He noted a copy of the request is attached. 5 6 City Engineer Studenski advised that Staff has had the City Attorney review this and he recommends 7 approval of the request, as does Staff. 8 9 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution 03-30, Requesting Design Element Variance for 10 the Elm Street Reconstruction. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. 11 12 Motion carried unanimously. 13 14 Resolution 03-30 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 15 16 Consideration of Subdivision Regulations 17 18 i) Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance 04-03, Adopting Subdivision 19 Regulations, Jeff Smyser 20 21 City Planner Smyser advised that the City Council approved the first reading of the new subdivision • 22 ordinance on January 27, 2003. He indicated a number of revisions to the 12/19/02 draft were 23 discussed and added to the text of the document. He explained these changes were listed in the 24 February 10 staff report, after which several other text revisions were made by the Council. He 25 indicated that on February 10, 2003 the City Council tabled the second reading of the ordinance in 26 order to further discuss issues regarding impacts on transportation infrastructure. 27 28 City Planner Smyser advised the main issue remained the Level of Service (LOS). He indicated he 29 received an e-mail from Councilmember O'Donnell concerning Item G. He explained that Staff and 30 the City Council had many discussions about the level of service around new plats, but the issue was 31 unresolved at freeways and interchanges. He stated Staff had added new language after many 32 discussions, which the Council discussed at their work session, and based on that last discussion, 33 additional language has been added. He stated that as it reads now, Item G. states: 34 35 The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply to I -35W or I -35E 36 interchanges. Interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and 37 the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine 38 improvements needed to resolve deficiencies. This plan must take into account traffic 39 generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic contributes to the total traffic, and the 40 time frame of the improvements. The plan also must examine financing options, including 41 project contribution and cost sharing among other properties that contribute to traffic at the 42 interchange. 43 10