Agenda - Council - 07/12/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I'. • 1 i; Mr. Fincher commented that they specifically have not reached out to residents but believe they are addressing the concerns to the extent possible through this process. He would welcome further conversation if that were necessary. He commented that part of the Variolite access removal was budget related and in attempt to address resident concerns related to that access. He recognized g p that they will never make all parties happy. Commissioner walker commented that it is obvious there are a few residents spearheading the p g 0 osition and recommended that the applicant work. with those residents to address their pp concerns. Jason Tossey, 14417 Bowers Drive NW, stated that he is a Board member of PACT and also a social studies teacher. He stated that he would like to address information that was brought up that is not as accurate as it was portrayed. He stated that they may need to expand some students 5 p because of higher bond rates,but that would be spread over the t campuses. He stated that this is a much larger facility with more space than the existing facility. g Y stat that the plans have been changed and altered to address the concerns of the residents. ed that the comment todayto add the Variolite entrance back in is frustrating as the change was made to address l: concerns related to the sightline in that area from resi ts. He commented that they are doing everything the can to ensure the concerns of re ai eu bile also meeting all applicable Yt g Y ,. standards from the City, State and watershed He sta d the will be working with the � Y £� LRRwMO to ensure there will not be issue wi floodin Mike Stuedmann, 1478 15 9{h Avenue ' And •, an trustee of the Church of Saint Katharine Drexel stated that he would like t ari o is that were made earlier. He stated that a 3 written comment referenced ho uc church gained b entering into the deal. He stated that g Y g i only versus what could have been ained the resident stated that the c ch a o y g through other options". He s at the urch explored many other options, and this was the option that could move stated that PACT approached the church many years ago and } therefore this is not a eej er ac n. He commented that the email also states that the church "would be willing to anythin to make this happen and sacrifice the wellbeing at any cost". He stated that could not b rom the truth as the church is a good steward. He stated that the shared parking agreement was a suggestion of the church in order to result in a win/win situation where the entities could partner. Ms. Holder commented that she has a copy of the letter from MDE which basically states that the financial information provided means that it would be fiscally responsible to move forward and that the school would need to comply with all other entities and their rules. She stated that the plans have not been reviewed and approved completed. She stated that she does not recall a statement from residents requesting that the Variolite access be removed. She suggested that the Commission watch the School Board video to hear that discussion themselves. Mr. Patrow commented that the reason people were opposed to the Variolite access was that it was proposed to be a parent pick-up/drop-up access that would be used in both directions. He believed that it would be appropriate to have that access be bus access only. Planning Commission/May 26,2022 Page 12 of 20