CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 21,2012 Page 10 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively, that the assumptions about future land use made by the AUAR, and the Comprehensive Plan were comparable and the AUAR not found to be invalid from staffs perspective. Councilmember Pust stated that she was in agreement with a portion of staff's analysis: that the level of use that this particular proposal fits into one of the four(4) scenarios studied by the AUAR. However, Councilmember Pust opined that the traffic data and traffic studies submitted to-date in the current proposal included certain parts of the development area, not all studied in the AUAR. Councilmember Pust noted that the AUAR provided mitigation plans for differ- ent parts of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for increased traffic, some of which were not included in this proposal. City Engineer Debra Bloom responded that the AUAR was a larger study, in- cluding other intersections and roadways from a regional perspective, and using a regional model. Ms. Bloom advised that this included multiple intersections, area freeways, and when the Wal-Mart proposal was reviewed, it was done so in the context of the larger AUAR model and how traffic would flow throughout the area, not just to and from the Wal-Mart site. As part of the review of the City's consulting traffic engineer, SRF, their reports were referenced by staff and included as part of the supporting documentation for staffs report. In re- sponse to Mayor Roe's previous comments, Ms. Bloom clarified and advised that fourteen (14) potential intersection and/or roadway improvements were in- cluded in the AUAR; however, only the ones triggered or having a negative im- pact were listed for City Council awareness and review. Ms. Bloom noted that those were specific to I-35W at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue; and from mitigation perspective, had been included as part of the draft Development Agreement between the City and the Developer that required future mitigation at the developer's expense, as negotiated, triggered by the proposed develop- ment of the Wal-Mart. In an effort to restate and summarize Ms. Bloom's comments and to ensure her understanding, Councilmember Pust stated that, when the AUAR was done five (5) years ago, a broad area of different intersections was reviewed if and when additional traffic would be triggered, based on fourteen (14) different mitiga- tions plans for four (4) potential development scenarios from best to worst case. Councilmember Pust clarified that the proposal currently before the City Coun- cil at this time reviewed all of those fourteen (14) different mitigation and inter- section points; however, only those called out and addressed in the Develop- ment Agreement were problematic specific to this proposed Wal-Mart devel- opment. Ms. Bloom concurred with Councilmember Pust's summarization.