Laserfiche WebLink
City Administrator Norman suggested a compromise of removing Section 2 ag well ag d) under <br />traffic generation analysis. <br /> <br />Councihnelnber Hendriksen replied that Subdivision 4 was already a compromise. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that the idea of new development is to funnel traffic onto <br />collector streets so she did not understand why they would include the language. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the Charter states that if traffic is going to be funneled <br />through an existing neighborhood than the density should be the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Bakken recommended eliminating paragraphs one and two from Section 2, leaving <br />paragraph three. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen replied that he would agree with paragraphs one and two being <br />removed from Section 2. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak replied that she would not agree with that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen noted that he would prefer that the word "impractical" be changed to <br />something else in paragraph 3 of Section 2. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson noted that the word "impractical" was added because the alternative <br />was impossible, which would imply some other things. <br /> <br />Mr. Bakken inquired as to what the Council was willing to agree on. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak stated that she felt that Section 4, d, should be removed because she does <br />not think it was good planning to not connect neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that the document presented was largely different than what <br />he would have written so he did not know how much further they had to give. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she would agree with removing Section 2 completely as well <br />as removing Section 4, d. If the Council so chooses she would agree with leaving paragraph 3 <br />under Section 2. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that Section 4, d is a reflection of what is stated in the Charter <br />Amendment. He felt that the language should be stronger in the ordinance to state that if a <br />development is going to use non-arterial streets they should have to limit density or direct traffic <br />to arterial streets. He noted that he would agree with removing paragraphs one and two from <br />Section 2 <br /> <br />City Council/November 26, 2001 <br /> Page 3 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />