09-12-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES August 22, 2016 DRAFT 5 call for the traffic changes; based on its own criteria the city doesn’t have any bearing or rationale to call 171 for the developer to fund changes. Council Member Maher suggested that in her view the goals of the 172 city’s comprehensive plan (that calls for connectivity) isn’t met with this development. Ms. Larsen 173 explained that connectivity is a basic part of planning and is always a consideration. Pedestrian 174 connectivity is included in the plans for this development and that has been a major requirement included 175 in the plans. The roadway changes could be the next phase of this development, based upon the 176 comments of the county. 177 Ms. Larsen continued her presentation by reviewing the variance request. It relates to the length of the 178 cul-de-sac and the city requirements on length relate to access to emergency services. That concern is 179 mitigated in the plans by requiring the special emergency access trail. Council Member Maher asked if 180 the mitigation of the cul-de-sac situation is related to the development directly; she doesn’t necessarily 181 support continuing the practice of granting a variance for a lengthy cul-de-sac. Further economic 182 consideration so that a developer can include more lots shouldn’t be a part of variance consideration. 183 Mayor Reinert suggested that the right in/right out is driving the issue. 184 Mayor Reinert opened the floor for resident comment. 185 David Parent, 6629 Sioux Lane, concurs with the right in/right out being the heart of the issue. He has a 186 family and children on this street. The question of 1,000 trips comes to mind and is 1001 different. He 187 feels that the traffic study numbers are relative to such thing as time of year – trips can vary. He 188 appreciates that the council is taking the matter seriously and looking at how it will impact the 189 neighborhood. 190 Melissa Manthey, 6606 Sioux Lane, agrees with Mr. Parent’s comments about the timing of a traffic 191 study. There are more trips at different times of the year. She hears about walkability being a 192 consideration but she feels this takes away that ability from the existing neighborhood. She would like 193 the council to consider a development that meets the needs of the area. More options are available for 194 development that will fit better. 195 City Engineer Hankee noted that the trip generation data was actually developed with factoring in times 196 of the year. The WSB and Associates traffic engineer added that the traffic counts were done in early 197 May and that data is adjusted. 198 Colleen Brewster, 6591 Hokah Drive, noted that Hokah Drive wasn’t intended to be so long for such an 199 extended period. Other access was planned but didn’t happen. She goes through Spirit Hills because 200 she doesn’t like to make a left hand turn onto Hokah. So she does add to traffic in the neighborhood but 201 she respects the area by keeping her speed low and driving safely. She requests that the council not base 202 the decision on Hokah Drive. 203 Jeremy Stimson, 6621 Sioux Lane, used the presentation materials to point out an option that would 204 improve traffic for his street. Residents are looking to move away from the 1,000 trips per day. It’s too 205 many when you’re living on that street with children. Most people are traveling within a few hours each 206 day so that’s a lot during peak periods. He asks the council to be mindful of the issues surrounding this 207 and of the city charter. He feels the city could require more through the variance. 208 Mayor Reinert noted that his philosophy on development in the city is based on liberty – but that means 209 consideration on both sides of the discussion. One person lives there and another person owns the land. 210 The addition of tax base for the city is the last thing on his mind. He isn’t against development but is 211