Laserfiche WebLink
<br />is proposing to deed all of the historic homesteads on the site and the barn buildings to the City for <br />a future large regional public park. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl highlighted Parcel D for a rezoning and amended comprehensive <br />plan request. This parcel includes 7 subject lots on the South West parcel of the property. Senior <br />Planner McGuire Brigl reviewed Staff comments on the project regarding specifics. She also <br />reviewed a summary of the comments from residents from the Public Hearing at the Planning <br />Commission meeting, Open House, and written communication. Residents expressed concerns <br />about the notification process and the project itself. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff referenced Resolution #21-239, the additional traffic study included <br />in the case, and asked for clarification on the purpose and outline. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied it was added to the case in the event the Council wanted to go <br />forward with an additional traffic study. A quote was obtained from another traffic contractor if <br />the Council felt it was necessary to conduct an independent traffic study to fill a gap in the review <br />process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell referenced an email she’d sent to City Administrator Ulrich requesting a <br />moratorium on the development until they had completed their own traffic study which may <br />influence plans they would put in place for the road. She asked if that would be an option for the <br />Council. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied that in regard to the traffic study, the City still has a timeframe <br />for review. It can extend 60 days during which time they can request a traffic study and more <br />information on the project. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied that a moratorium would be allowed if there is a pending proposal. <br />There is a question if the Council would be buying any time by doing that because the moratorium <br />can be by project. The one provision that the statute does indicate is that no time would be saved <br />under 1599. If there is a 60-day deadline, that doesn’t get delayed even though they are <br />undertaking a study and a moratorium. It could be done, but the moratorium would only be <br />allowed to last 60 days. He advised the statute would supersede the Charter so the City wouldn’t <br />have to hold two kinds of hearings that would normally be done through ordinance. He explained <br />the bottom line is that nothing would be gained through a moratorium even if the Council were to <br />adopt one. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked where they are in the timeframe. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied they are nearing the end of the first 60 days and the City <br />would likely need to extend if it goes past the second meeting in November. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma asked if they had already completed two traffic studies and if there was a problem <br />with what has been done. <br /> <br />City Council / November 9, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 26 <br /> <br />