My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/11/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2014
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/11/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 3:19:01 PM
Creation date
3/4/2014 4:10:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
02/11/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Backous asked if the current Council would also need a super majority to enact <br />this franchise fee ordinance. <br />Mayor Strommen stated the same requirement could be made of this consideration. She stated <br />the Council is trying to be responsive to the issues that have come up and it could enact the <br />ordinance now without any protection within the Charter. However, the issue is now how to <br />reach agreement with the Charter Commission in going forward. <br />Councilmember Kuzma stated even if there is a super majority requirement, he is not sure <br />whether the Charter. Commission will support it. <br />Councilmember Riley stated he thinks it is a very reasonable option to consider. <br />The consensus of the Council was to ask staff to prepare and present language before the Charter <br />Commission to instead require a super majority to enact a franchise fee ordinance and /or extend <br />a franchise fee ordinance after sunset. <br />2.05: Consider Visual Quality Options for Design Options of the Future Armstrong <br />Interchange <br />City Engineer Westby stated the purpose of this case is to review general policy direction to <br />assist the Anoka County Highway Department, through SRF Consulting Group, complete final <br />design of the Armstrong Interchange as it relates to the final aesthetics and finishes of the <br />improvement project design. He reviewed the staff report and asked the Council to provide <br />general direction on the level of desired aesthetic treatment of bridge sections, retaining walls, <br />landscaping, and lighting so more detailed final designs can be completed. City Engineer <br />Westby also presented three options, each with a varying level of aesthetics, and recommended <br />consideration of a mid -level option. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated staff supports a concrete bridge structure rather than having a <br />more expensive aesthetic brick treatment as traffic travels by quickly and to instead focus funds <br />on street aesthetics in areas of lower traffic speeds. <br />Mayor Strommen supported functional buffering, such as to buffer headlights during evening <br />hours, and to consider long -term maintenance costs in addition to installation to assure the <br />project continues to look nice. <br />Councilmember Riley asked what a formliner is. <br />City Engineer Westby explained it is a flat concrete form without texturing or stamping or <br />aesthetic treatment to the face of the concrete. He noted traffic drives by at 70 miles per hour so <br />aesthetics is not as apparent. <br />The consensus of the Council was to support staff's recommendation for Option 2, mid -level <br />option with partial enhancements. <br />City Council Work Session / February 11, 2014 <br />Page 8 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.