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

Home

Councilmember Woestehoff stated the preliminary plat is really just the land boundary designations rather than the site plan itself in terms of its official title. The site plan is different than preliminary plat which is what gives the developer entitlement to that land. City Administrator Hagen replied correct, the details of how the site is going to look. The plat itself is just parcel size, boundaries and things of that nature. Councilmember Woestehoff commented one of the questions he hasn’t been able to get a good answer on or provide input on through the conversations is the .9 acre park dedication. He stated he personally would rather concede the park back to PACT if it means a secondary retention pond or some other use that is more pertinent to that particular location and take the park dedication in fees as opposed to in land. A part of that is that even in looking at the site plan there are indications that they plan to use part of Central Park anyway. He asked for feedback and Council discussion on letting the school keep the .9 acres and use it for other things rather than take it as dedication but then only get to use part of it and have a shared park agreement. Councilmember Riley commented he thought it was a good question because the proposal seems to give it to the City and then use it. He stated he liked Councilmember Woestehoff’s idea. He stated he would like to hear from the developer and Staff about the Variolite access and the idea that Council had come to them before as he thought that was an important part of it and it is no longer there now that it is coming with the actual plan. He wanted to know why it was removed and hear Staff talk about it with turn lanes. Justin Fincher, with JB Vang, the developer, and the owner’s rep for PACT, stated they had SRF as a part of the first Planning Commission hearing. The recommendation was tabled in order for them to look at the condition with the Variolite access and what the outcome of that would be. He stated they worked with SRF Consulting as the traffic engineer. He stated essentially the right in, right out access doesn’t do anything for the project, creates concerns about safety as far as the SRF analysis and from City Staff with the condition of Variolite Street and the rise in grade. st Additionally, what is shown here today with the two accesses off of 161, the traffic memo concluded that even with just two accesses they are operating at what is called a level of service A and B so those are very good levels of service to operate on. That assumes full enrollment which isn’t anticipated for another five years. He stated what also isn’t included in the SRF memo but felt was worth mentioning that they are in conversation with the church, the seller, on a shared use agreement that would include parking and also maneuvering on their site if needed. Councilmember Riley asked if City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby would comment as well. City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby stated this is a higher functioning road and is a major collector road. He stated they try to prevent private accesses or access onto those roads and keep them at prescribed intersections. The other item associated with this is the vertical curve st on Variolite Street, basically the crest of the hill is just north of 161. He stated the access they are thinking would be used, which is where the existing access is about 300 feet north of that intersection so it is fairly close to that intersection and doesn’t allow good site lines or stopping sight distances. Anyone trying to pull out from that intersection would have a hard time seeing City Council /July 12, 2022 Page 10 of 22