Agenda - Council - 06/11/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I an evaluation of axisting access conditions and future access needs. A meeting was held on January 17, 199~, to obtain citizen input on the study. He included a draft report which summarizes the m~or concerns expressed at that meeting. Mr. Jankowski proposed that Council accept the draft re@art, make it available at City Hall and the local library for 30 days for public review, notify the'~_ property owners adjacent to the study area of the availability of the report, transmit the reporr'to MnDOT and the Anoka County Highway Department for formal comment, schedule a formal presentation by' the consultant and formal public hearing before the City Council at the March 26, 1~96 meeting, direct any changes as a result of the public hearing and then adopt the corridor study in April 1996. Motion by Council~embe~' Zimmerman and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to accept the draft report on the T.H. g47 corridor study project. This includes making the report available for review and notifying the 'adjacent property-owners of the availability of the report plus transmitting the report to MnDOT and the Anoka County Highway Department for formal comment. Motion carried. VOting Yes: Mayor· Hardin, CoUncilmembers Zimmerman, Beyer and Peterson. Voting No: None.: Absent: Councilmember Beahen. Motion by Counciknember Pet~rS°n and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to schedule the public hearing for March 26, 1996. Motion carried. Voting yes: Mayor Hardin,. C0uncilmembers Peterson,. Beyer and Zimmerman. Voting No: .None. Absent: Councilmember Beahen. Case #10: Adopt Ordinance Amending. Subdivision Ordinance to Require Impact Fees for Arterial Streets ... .- City Engineer jankowski stated that on May 23, 1995, the Road and Bridge Committee presented a recommendation tO implement a transportation .impact fee for developers. The City Council approved that recommendation. This fee 'would.be utilized to offset costs for arterial street improvements including accesses and signalization where necessary that were caused by new development. Tha fee structure was adopted at tha.t May 23 meeting; however, there was not an ordinance in place :that woUld allow such a fee. He continued that on November 14, 1995, an ordinance was pr~ented establishing a developmental assessment fee on all new subdivisions. Council introduce, ct' this ordinance along with a resolution eStablishing a building permit fee on all non-residential building permits and certain residential 'building permits within the City. At the December 12, 1995 meeting, it was intended that Council take final action on the impact fee issue. However, at that meeting, a request was received from the Builders Association 'requesting a discussion prior to adoption of the impact fees'. Staff has since met with representatives of the Builders AssociatiOn to discuss their concerns. As a result of these meetings, there was consensus that an equitable impact'fee would allow a fair distribution of transportation costs among new developing subdivisions and ensure that a particular subdivisionwould not bear an undue cost as a result of an inopportune location. However, there was concern over the amount of the impact fee to ensure that it wa[; bo.th adequate and reasonable2 Mr. Jankowski reviewed his calculations and felt that they justified $500 per unit as a reasonable fee. Councilmember Bayer noted this ordinance would change Chapter 9 in the City Code and inquired if the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing. Staff was not certain'that a public hearing had been held. Councilmember Zimmerman commented that Mr. Jankowski's method of calculation was fair and professional. City Council/February 27, 1996 Page 11 of 13