Laserfiche WebLink
<br />someone coming over the hill and vice versa, if someone were to try to go around there would be <br />very little reaction time so it is a safety concern. He asked if a turn lane could be considered and <br />answered they could but as noted in the memo from SRF they would have to try to provide left <br />turn movements into that site as well which are really dangerous movements. He stated those are <br />difficult to build and enforce. He stated for those reasons Staff has concerns about an access at <br />that point. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if there is a risk or perpetuation by not having that access off <br />st <br />of Variolite Street and pushing it up to 161 because that is a fairly difficult intersection as it is <br />because of the hill and now all of the traffic would be put there as opposed to spreading it out onto <br />the Variolite side. He stated it is a no-win situation either way but asked for feedback from the <br />st <br />survey on having all of the traffic coming off 161 and will they see more accidents or the same <br />amount. <br /> <br />City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby replied anytime traffic is added to an <br />intersection, typically it decreases traffic operations and safety at that intersection. There is a risk <br />of more accidents but the intersection is designed for those movements and as noted in SRF’s study <br />and follow-up memo the level of service is still acceptable even after full build out and full use of <br />that site. He stated he has to rely on the SRF engineer in doing a good job, they are a reputable <br />firm and he doesn’t have any reason to not believe the results of their memo and study which seem <br />reasonable. He stated the traffic counts seem reasonable and compare favorably to the Trout Brook <br />North studies that were completed. He stated they haven’t gotten a lot of information on where <br />the students are coming from so they don’t know how many busses and cars are coming from each <br />direction but that will change over time so even if that was given today it would be different in <br />time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht asked for feedback from PACT about the parcel of land dedicated for <br />Central Park. <br /> <br />Mr. Fincher replied Councilmember Woestehoff had a very intriguing comment and he thought <br />that would be something they could look into. He stated some sketching would have to be done <br />to ensure that moving that back over would adequately allow for more trees to be preserved on the <br />site. He would be interested in looking at that with the project team and PACT. He commented <br />that one of the suggested approvals was to put this on hold until a more refined set of plans have <br />been developed. He stated he thought great progress has been made on the plans and he would <br />hate to delay the schedule any further than it is but if there is a way to consider the move with <br />removing the park dedicated land they would love to look at it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if he was reading the site plan correctly that the field area will <br />be fenced in. <br /> <br />Mr. Fincher replied that is the intent and the plans of how PACT would like to program that field <br />from site security, access, ticketing and things of that nature for sporting events. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if there is any way to entertain it to stretch all the way to the <br />Central Park boundary. He stated part of his concern if they go the shared park route then he <br />City Council /July 12, 2022 <br />Page 11 of 22 <br /> <br />