Minutes - Council - 11/09/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and smaller lots on the inside, which was the original concept. At that time, it was not something the Planning Commission or Council wanted so they were told it needed to meet the zoning requirements, which is what they did. He stated they are not against creativity to address constituent concerns but had done what they were told. He noted if another traffic study is deemed necessary, they understand that, but a traffic study was done and paid for as a part of the EAW process. The scope of that study was approved by the City and the City Engineer. That study was done to satisfy the environmental worksheet and once done, became part of the EAW, and went out to a variety of constituents including the County Engineer so they have a chance to review and comment. Mr. Schmidt didn’t know of any comments from the County Engineer. He wanted to set the record straight that a satisfactory study was done with proper scope and review and he would cooperate if another study was deemed necessary. Councilmember Howell asked the developer, Mr. Schmidt, if there was flexibility in changing the outer and inner ring of the project. Mr. Schmidt replied that based on comments, they are not going to put a plan together that is going to be satisfactory. He stated what he means, is that if he is asked for 80-foot lots, he is going to have to put in 50-foot lots, which may not be agreeable. He would need to have clear direction that 50-foot lots are okay because he was told that isn’t the case. City Attorney Knaak asked Mr. Schmidt about the discussion of the 60-day rule. He asked, if it were part of the plan to do an additional study, would he be agreeable to some extension of time. Mr. Schmidt replied they would certainly be agreeable although he has concerns about extensions with more and more time being requested, which he has had experience with. If it is deemed that the traffic engineer comes back and says there is no way to get it done in the timeframe but they can get it done 10 days later, they are reasonable people and have a good reputation with cities for being reasonable. He won’t say absolutely yes and go along with the extension but he can be reasonable. City Attorney Knaak asked if there were a time period perhaps less than 30 days the developer would be willing to extend it. Mr. Schmidt replied they would certainly be willing to consider that, yes. Councilmember Musgrove asked for the Council’s opinion on fencing in some of areas, potentially along Variolite Street and the properties in the northwestern areas where they closely abut some of the other properties as far as a condition for the preliminary plat. Councilmember Heineman asked for clarification on the areas. Councilmember Musgrove referenced the map and stated it’s the houses that line Variolite Street and then east on the northern portion of the properties. She noted the wetlands give a barrier and then the street as well. She wasn’t sure where the Hunt project ends along the houses that are 50 to 61. City Council / November 9, 2021 Page 11 of 26