Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fincher commented that they have not specifically reached out to residents but believe they <br /> are addressing the concerns to the extent possible through this process. He would welcome further <br /> conversation if that were necessary. He commented that part of the Variolite access removal was <br /> budget related and in attempt to address resident concerns related to that access. He recognized <br /> that they will never make all parties happy. <br /> Commissioner Walker commented that it is obvious there are a few residents spearheading the <br /> opposition and recommended that the applicant work with those residents to address their <br /> concerns. <br /> Jason Tossey, 14417 Bowers Drive NW, stated that he is a Board member of PACT and also a <br /> social studies teacher. He stated that he would like to address information that was brought up that <br /> is not as accurate as it was portrayed. He stated that they may need to expand some students <br /> because of higher bond rates,but that would be spread over the two campuses. He stated that this <br /> is a much larger facility with more space than the existing facility. He stated that the plans have <br /> been changed and altered to address the concerns of the residents. He stated that the comment <br /> today to add the Variolite entrance back in is frustrating as the change was made to address <br /> concerns related to the sightline in that area from residents. He commented that they are doing <br /> everything they can to ensure the concerns of residents are met while also meeting all applicable <br /> standards from the City, State, and watershed. He stated that they will be working with the <br /> LRRWMO to ensure there will not be issues with flooding. <br /> Mike Stuedmann, 1478 159th Avenue in Andover, and trustee of the Church of Saint Katharine <br /> Drexel stated that he would like to clarify comments that were made earlier. He stated that a <br /> written comment referenced how much the church gained by entering into the deal. He stated that <br /> the resident stated that the church "gained only $400,000 versus what could have been gained <br /> k <br /> through other options". He stated that the church explored many other options, and this was the <br /> option that could move forward. He stated that PACT approached the church many years ago and <br /> E <br /> therefore this is not a kneejerk reaction. He commented that the email also states that the church <br /> "would be willing to do anything to make this happen and sacrifice the wellbeing at any cost". He <br /> stated that could not be further from the truth as the church is a good steward. He stated that the <br /> shared parking agreement was a suggestion of the church in order to result in a win/win situation <br /> where the entities could partner. <br /> Ms. Holder commented that she has a copy of the letter from MDE which basically states that the <br /> financial information provided means that it would be fiscally responsible to move forward and <br /> that the school would need to comply with all other entities and their rules. She stated that the <br /> plans have not been reviewed and approved completed. She stated that she does not recall a <br /> statement from residents requesting that the Variolite access be removed. She suggested that the <br /> Commission watch the School Board video to hear that discussion themselves. <br /> i <br /> Mr. Patrow commented that the reason people were opposed to the Variolite access was that it was <br /> proposed to be a parent pick-up/drop-up access that would be used in both directions. He believed <br /> that it would be appropriate to have that access be bus access only. <br /> Planning Commission/May 26,2022 <br /> Page 12 of 20 <br />