Laserfiche WebLink
Q. To Staff - Who will be responsible for the snow removal on the pedestrian path up to the <br />Rec Center parking lot? <br />A. The City would be responsible for maintenance of the soft trail area through the tennis court <br />area. <br />Q. Is that something the City is accustomed to doing? <br />A. No it is not. I'm not sure how that is going to be handled. <br />Commissioner Renfrew - As a recommendation, it would not take a whole lot to have that path <br />way paved. That way it would be a more workable surface for snow removal. <br />Paul Wood - The reason for the soft surface design was to limit use by skateboards and bicycles. <br />It will be hard pack, and I think it can be maintained. The bike and the soft surface trail are not <br />the primary ADA approved access to the Rec Center. <br />Q. It would seem to me that we have been setting a standard of 16 feet for the light poles. <br />What would be your position on that height? <br />A. I think the only concern would be that we get adequate coverage from the 16 foot poles <br />across the lots. <br />Q. To Staff - This initially came forward as a Special Review Use? <br />A. Paul Wood - Yes. <br />Q. What happens if something goes wrong, or we are unhappy about something, what happens <br />to this facility? <br />A. Paul Wood - We have both a PUD Development Plan and the Special Review Use. They <br />have related criteria in terms of the review. In terms of the Special Review items, the things <br />that would effect the neighbors would be the traffic and the lighting. Special Review Use <br />can be called up to review those types of items. Any type of private or public recreation <br />facility is required as a Special Review Use. Technically this is a residential use zone. <br />Q. We could then force them to extend the parking based on some demonstrated need? <br />A. Generally they would be used as an enforcement mechanism if there is a problem. If some <br />agreement could be reached in the lease agreement that would trigger that provision with an <br />enforcement type of mechanism I think that would be preferable. <br />Q. To Staff - In visiting the site it would appear that a retaining wall might be necessary in <br />order to construct the soft surface path? <br />A. Paul Wood - That is currently at a 25% grade. That is going to be rerouted to a lesser <br />grade, somewhere in the area of 8%. I do not know if the 8% grade will require a retaining <br />wall. <br />Applicant's Summary - John Knapp, I would just like to thank the Commission for letting us <br />have the opportunity for our presentation. <br />Staff S»mmary and Recommendation - Staff is recommending the approval of the Final PUD <br />Development Plan subject to the eight conditions provided for in the Resolution. <br />5 <br />