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

Home

Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied there was as a traffic study completed by Swing Line as a part of the EAW required under State statute because of the size of the project. The study was reviewed by WSB, Bolton and Menk, Inc., and City Staff. They didn’t find any issues with the traffic study, although they are open to doing another one if it is deemed appropriate. Staff would recommend that is at the cost of the City because the applicant has already had the study reviewed by two firms. Landform, the planning and engineering firm on Northbrook, also reviewed the study as a part of their project. They could look at doing another study at a different time of year which may reveal something if the Council wanted different items looked at that were included in the traffic study. In terms of multiple studies, one was completed as a part of the EAW, and there was a traffic component with the infrastructure study as well that solidified the EAW findings but was not a stand-alone traffic study. Councilmember Howell asked Senior Planner McGuire Brigl if they were to conduct their own, more thorough, traffic study, could it require that the findings and recommendations be implemented in moving forward with the development rather than the findings from the developer’s traffic study. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied that could be a contingency but deferred to the City Attorney. She explained the City typically adds contingencies to Preliminary Plat approvals and a contingency could be added that a traffic study be completed at City cost to be reviewed by City Staff as well and the findings to be implemented as a part of the Preliminary Plat. The findings would also be reviewed by the Council. City Attorney Knaak replied that their comfort level was the bottom line. If the Council felt they were not provided with enough information, the Council could request more before making a final decision. The Council would need to do that within the 60 plus day period of time. The Council could rely on the new study if they find it is more accurate and the Council is not required to rely on the information from the developer. Councilmember Howell referenced the concerns of residents and would like to come up with creative solutions to the situation. She will be voting against the project because she has concerns about it as well. If there is a majority vote from the Council to move the project forward, she wants to know that the City is doing due diligence to keep the roads safe. This is a primary concern for rd her. With the traffic study, she would like to see if they could study 173 and Variolite Street, rdth Alpine and Variolite, 173 and County Road 5, 167 and County Road 5 and Ramsey Boulevard so they could get a good picture for the residents and how this is going to improve safety with so many homes coming in. Mayor Kuzma expressed concern there has already been two traffic studies done and two of the top engineering firms have reviewed the results. He doesn’t know that they are going to get a different take on it so he is concerned about spending the additional money on it and doesn’t feel it is necessary. Councilmember Howell pointed out that at the last Council meeting, they approved a traffic study for a flashing yellow light at the request of the Planning Commission member and the cost to the City was $1,800. Based on what the City Engineer said, it’s possible that the County may come City Council / November 9, 2021 Page 5 of 26