02/24/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003 APROVED III1 Councilmember Carlson stated that part of Item g. says: 2 This plan must take into account traffic generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic 3 contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of the improvements. 4 She stated that the City will not know the cost, but maybe could establish a plan that would determine 5 possibilities. 6 7 Mayor Bergeson indicated he does not think they could do that, because the bridges are within state 8 jurisdiction, and improved with state funds, and he does not believe the City can charge for a state 9 improvement. 10 11 Councilmember Carlson stated she agrees the bridges fall into that category, but other improvements, 12 such as lanes, signals, etc. could be recouped from the developer, but without a plan that specifies 13 this, the City loses the ability to recoup. 14 15 Mayor Bergeson stated they may be talking about a different definition of interchange. He does not 16 know if they can define so it is clear what portion is beyond they City's control. He indicated the 17 bridge is different than the approach to the bridge, and some could be county, some city, and he is not 18 sure how to sort it out. 19 20 Community Development Director Grochala stated he would be concerned about saying too narrowly 21 what the interchange is, since it is usually the bridge and the approach, but could extend further. He • 22 explained what they were trying to do with Item g. is create a means to an end. He indicated you may 23 have two developments in the same location that could have two different results depending on the 24 timing. He indicated the first development might not push down the LOS, but is setting it up for the 25 next development to fail. He stated the intent of Item g. is that when a developer comes in, they will 26 sit down with Mn/DOT and the other concerned agencies to determine what needs to be done, 27 including assessing the costs. He indicated there is nothing to say the city could not improve the 28 interchange, but they cannot afford to and they do not want to put it on one developer either. He 29 recognized there are issues with the interchange, but the question is can we sit down and determine 30 what needs to be done. He added that Marketplace was a good example. They had been hoping for 31 more but achieved a significant amount of improvement with Marketplace. 32 33 Mayor Bergeson noted that a week ago the Council had Items a. through f. quite clear and 34 straightforward, where they could base a decision on them and be on solid ground. He stated that at 35 that point Item g. said none of this applies to the interchange, and Council directed Staff to tighten up 36 Item g. He indicated the new Item g. is not as ironclad as Items a. through f., but is better than it was 37 and gives the Council sound backup to make decisions. 38 39 Councilmember Carlson stated that cost sharing will result in the least cost possible to taxpayers. She 40 noted she is still trying to find a way to not cost the taxpayers a lot of money. 41 42 Councilmember O'Donnell stated he thinks they are trying to over -engineer this. He indicated since it •43 is subjective, can language be added to indicate Council has the prerogative to see that a study takes 44 place, including cost solutions, then the Council could base their decision on findings of fact, with 45 timing and cost solutions included. 15