Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017 <br />APPROVED <br />46 and staff intends that there will be more information and discussion in the future with <br />47 resident involvement included. <br />48 <br />49 The council expressed their support for strong neighborhood involvement. The residents <br />50 would be directly affected by additional traffic control (or no additional traffic control) <br />51 and should have their voices heard. City Engineer Hankee explained that staff is still <br />52 looking at the validity of the stop sign request from an engineering perspective. Staff <br />53 could provide notice to the area residents at any time with council direction. Council <br />54 Member Kusterman pondered the council's authority if it comes to overruling a staff <br />55 recommendation. Ms. Hankee explained that safety is the number one priority and so a <br />56 recommendation would be based first on that consideration. If the addition of a stop sign <br />57 isn't the right action, there could be other traffic calming recommendations. <br />59 Council Member Rafferty asked if a traffic study and the work occurring on this situation <br />60 is a standard response to a resident's request and staff confinned that they review several <br />61 requests each year as part of their normal work load. <br />62 <br />63 3. Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study — Public Services Director <br />64 DeGardner introduced Quinn Hutson (Principal Architect) and Jessica Johnson <br />65 (Architectural Designer) representing CNH Architects, to present their report. <br />66 <br />67 Mayor Reinert noted that he believes the council requested an option of fixing the current <br />68 facility but that doesn't seem to be included in the analysis. Mr. Hutson said that Option <br />69 One includes renovating the current facility with a building expansion. <br />70 <br />71 Jessica Johnson and Quinn Hutson, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that included <br />72 information on: <br />73 - Overview of analysis they have completed; <br />74 - Public Works site options map (site options are the existing site as Option A, or <br />75 site adjacent to fire station #2 as Option B); <br />76 - Space needs for the city's public works program: office, vehicle storage, vehicle <br />77 maintenance, and departmental shops; <br />78 - Growth consideration for the next 20 years; <br />79 - A comparison with other public works facilities in cities in the area and with <br />80 similar population; <br />81 - Layout options (two at site one and one at site two); <br />82 - Sanitary and water service addition would be required at current site; there would <br />83 be some disruption of services at current facilities (Council Members expressed <br />84 concern about losing the baseball field and suggested that should not be <br />85 necessary); <br />86 - Site Option B advantages were noted (sewer and water hookup;, etc); the site is <br />87 sufficient to meet the needs of both Phase 1 and 2; <br />88 - An architectural review of the current facilities; accessibility and code review <br />89 (several issues noted); mechanical systems review; <br />2 <br />