02/24/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003 APROVED 1111 1 Councilmember O'Donnell stated that his comment in his e-mail was that when he reads the new 2 language it is a vast improvement, however he feels there needs to be a trigger to initiate the process 3 to begin work. 4 5 City Planner Smyser stated that the intent is that this plan would have to be completed before 6 approval by the City. Councilmember O'Donnell stated he understands the development would not 7 go through without this plan, but asked what would trigger the process to start working with the 8 proper government agencies to initiate improvements. 9 10 City Planner Smyser stated that the intent was not to get into a LOS survey at all, and whether the 11 LOS was degraded would not be something used to judge the project. He indicated how it would be 12 decided is that the Council could see from the plan how a proposed project would affect the 13 interchange, and the point is to have the plan finished before the City Council approves a project. He 14 added that when improvements on the interchange will be started is very difficult to say. He indicated 15 that he anticipates it would be larger projects that would be deemed to have an effect on the 16 interchange, so they have to be treated differently than regular intersections. 17 18 Councilmember Reinert indicated he was not sure this answers Councilmember O'Donnell's question, 19 which he is questioning as well, which is when do you do the study and when improvements will be 20 made. He stated it is fine to do the study, but if there is no plan as to when improvements will be 21 made, another project will come along and a study will be done, and it will be determined that the • 22 improvements are needed more now, but nothing will be done about it. He indicated he wants to 23 know what the trigger is, when the improvements will be made after the study is completed, and at 24 what point based on the study does the Council say no to a project based on the level of service. 25 26 City Planner Smyser indicated the exact trigger depends on the project. Councilmember Reinert 27 indicated it was then subjective. City Planner Smyser stated it would be somewhat subjective, but not 28 arbitrary. He gave an example that a development five miles away would add traffic through the 29 interchange, but whether it would have a negative impact on the level of service would depend on the 30 project. If it was a Minnesota Vikings stadium, it would, whereas a 10 unit housing development 31 probably would not. He stated that Lino Lakes and individual developers have no control and little 32 influence on when an interchange is improved. He stated the whole point to this recommendation is 33 that we would have to look and say in 2006 or 2010, this improvement is proposed, and this 34 development will be okay until then. What we are trying not to say is if the bridge is not built, we can 35 have no development in the city, because it would shut the city down. He indicated the timing of the 36 improvements would have to be determined as part of the plan, meaning the plan could say five years 37 from now, because that is when Mn/DOT plans to improve. He stated the whole idea of this is that 38 the interchanges have to be treated differently because of the scope of the improvements required. 39 40 City Planner Smyser stated that Councilmember Reinert's third question is when does the Council say 41 no to a project, which would also be determined after the study was done. He indicated the problem 42 is it is impossible to say when a highway improvement will be done, and if we treat them the same as •43 local roads, we would be shutting down development in Lino Lakes. Councilmember Reinert agreed 44 that was the problem. He stated one concern he has is needing to leave it arbitrary to be able to allow 45 development, when on the other hand they could create a monster with developer after developer 11