02/24/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003 APROVED • 1 coming with projects and the situation just gets worse and worse. He is afraid this leaves the door 2 open to have a big mess. He stated the two concerns come together with a fine line, and he does not 3 see the line identified well enough to be able to develop and still control the flow of traffic impacting 4 the interchange. 5 6 Mayor Bergeson suggested an additional requirement be added to the plan that it would quantify the 7 impact to the interchange, whether with number of trips or level of service or something that would 8 give the Council an idea of the impact proposed. He added that while they cannot know for certain 9 when improvements will happen, it is important to get the best estimate from the state for the report. 10 He recognized that the state is not bound by the dates they provide but it would give the Council 11 guidance so they would know if a development would have a temporary impact, a long-term impact 12 or a permanent impact. 13 14 Councilmember Carlson stated one concern she has is the costs for improvements. She indicated the 15 Comprehensive Plan states developers should pay for necessary road improvements. She used City 16 Planner Smyser's example of whether a development five miles away should help pay for 17 improvements. She stated that maybe it should not be based on the 10 -unit housing development, but 18 there is past history of projects helping to pay for improvement to intersections. She stated this needs 19 to be addressed so the cost is not back on the taxpayers. She believes in situations when there is a 20 decrease in the LOS, the cost should be assessed to the developer. She added that she does not think 21 Items d. and e. address this, and would propose adding the words "and intersections" so they read as • 22 follows: 23 d. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections providing access to 24 the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must 25 provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to ensure a level of service 26 D or better. 27 e. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the subdivision must have the 28 structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the 29 developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies. 30 She added that for Item g. she would like it to say I -35W and Lake Drive or I -35E and Main Street, 31 for clarification, since these are the two the City has now and is discussing. 32 33 Councilmember Carlson stated she has two more concerns. The first is that the acceptable level of 34 service is moving from C to D, although she did say she would compromise on that point. She 35 indicated she would like to offer Item h., which would say 36 The City does not relinquish any rights of local determination. 37 38 Councilmember Reinert asked for Staff's comments on this. Councilmember Dahl stated she had 39 requested a corrected, clean copy of the subdivision ordinance, but did not receive one. She added 40 that she would like to know why items e, f and g were added, to see how much teeth they have. 41 42 Mayor Bergeson suggested the Council respond to Councilmember Carlson's suggested changes and 43 asked for comments. Councilmember Dahl indicated the changes are fine with her. . 44 12