2009_0817_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Willmus expressed concern in balancing the location of the cul-de-sac and inadequacy of the existing parking area; overflow in industrial parking areas to south; accessing park through that industrial area; if at some point this road will connect further to the south and a way to potentially have some sort of access there. Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was a policy question; and that it was a wrong policy decision to build a public road and parking lot, while removing trees and wildlife habitat. Mr. Brokke opined that, from his perspective, the City had one opportunity to make that development work with the park; and noted that it was a destination and community park, with well used fields and drivers coming from other areas of the community, not just the immediate neighborhood. Mayor Klausing opined that the proposed roadway and turnaround were there for a public benefit to provide additional parking to serve the public purpose. Mayor Klausing noted that the applicant was not promoting it, and in their providing a roadway to the park, it creates the necessity for a turnaround to address public safety concerns. Mayor Klausing further opined that, given that background, it makes more sense from his perspective for the turnaround on public land to serve a public, rather than a private purpose. Councilmember Roe expressed appreciation to the developer and staff for their discussion, comments and clarification. Councilmember Roe opined that, related to the turnaround, and intent to connect the road in the future, and also to have the ability to construct and approve a substandard turnaround on a temporary basis pending further development and connections at a cost estimated at $40-$50,000, it made sense to construct the turnaround on public property, with the developer being required to construct the roadway and pay park dedication fees, as developed through compromise with staff. Councilmember Roe suggested that part of the park dedication fees could be applied to the construction costs to the City. Councilmember Willmus opined that if the cul-de-sac was constructed, as part of the cost of the roadway and infrastructure cost of the developer, he did not consider the road for the benefit of the park, but a future benefit to properties to the south; with the roadway benefiting the developer's ingress and egress for their site, one of which happens to be of auxiliary benefit to the park. Councilmember Pust advised that she hadn't changed her mind; while appreciating the developer's willingness to pay the park dedication fee. Councilmember Pust opined that there were too many things being sought to make the development work, and in trying to solve a public problem with too small of a lot at the park Councilmember Pust noted that the park Master Plans were in the process of being reviewed and potentially revised, and observed that it was a long way to the south connection, and may encourage more vehicle traffic, access or different answers may become evident. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of having those discussions; and while opining that it made sense to go forward with the development, it made sense to go forward with future park planning on a separate track Councilmember Pust opined that the cul-de-sac may be needed, but that it should be at the developer's cost on their land; that park dedication fees should be paid as indicated; and that a separate process for Langton Lake shouldn't insist on widening the road for more parking, but that parking needs could be handled in a better way. Discussion ensued regarding the turnaround. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of a turnaround on the developer's property, at their cost, at a size and turn radius indicated as adequate by the City's Public Works Department. Page 6 of 10