CC MinutesCity Council Minutes – September 12, 2022
3
Mayor Ryan asked during awareness month in October as well as throughout the year, in
addition to financial donations, are there certain items the agency looks for or collects.
Ms. Larson replied they provide a number of personal care items to victims, especially if they are
fleeing a situation with nothing, including toothpaste, toothbrushes, shampoo, conditioner,
diapers (especially the larger sizes), and other personal care products.
Mayor Ryan asked to learn more about the partnership with the County.
Ms. Larson noted the previous year the agency received a grant through the Office for Justice
programs to implement a legality assessment program which is an 11-question screen officers are
doing on the scene of domestic violence calls. The screen shows which victims are most likely to
be victims of homicide or very severe violence; if the screen scores high the police immediately
call a Southern Valley advocate from the scene and connect the victim with that advocate to
begin the safety planning process. It is shown that it can reduce up to 60% of domestic violence
homicides by using that screen and connecting with an advocate. All police departments in the
two counties have implemented the screening and over the last two months of implementation
they are seeing a 20% increase in the ability to connect with the victim.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Ordinance 695: RSI Marine, 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard: Consider a
Request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development with Site Plan, Consolidation of
Lots, and Variances
Community Development Director Aanenson gave an update noting RSI Marine is requesting
rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Site Plan approval for four boat storage
buildings and initial concept does not need all public services. The site is guided for mixed use,
the acreage is 8.33, and the proposed use is warehousing. Rezoning to the PUD allows some
flexibility in exchange for higher quality and sensitive development. The proposed buildings will
be for boat storage, allow for future redevelopment, and allow for transition between Highway
101 and the high-density residential to the east. Ms. Aanenson noted the use is to bring the boats
in once per year and out once per year. She spoke about architectural compliance, landscaping,
and a variance request regarding landscape islands which is supported by Staff. She shared about
public utilities including fire suppression, and that sanitary services are not required at this time.
She noted if a property to the east wanted to extend municipal services, this property owner
would need to agree to pay those assessments. Ms. Aanenson shared that the County was
provided the conceptual PUD and commented, there are no wetlands on the site, the lack of a
bluff on site, grading, and stormwater. Staff recommends approval.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Rehm seconded that the City Council
approve the rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD), site plan, and variances subject
to the conditions of approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and
City Council Minutes – September 12, 2022
4
Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3
to 0.
2. Ordinance 696: Avienda-Consider a Request to Amend Planned Unit Development-
Regional Commercial
Ms. Aanenson reminded everyone that the original Environmental Assessment document was
done in 2005 and most of the property was developed except for the last segment. If a property is
inactive for a number of years, they must update those environmental documents. The Applicant
is requesting an amendment to the 2020 approved PUD regional commercial zoning district
based on looking at adding a movie theater, moving some office around, and the Applicant noted
some of the uses in that district no longer met their marketing needs. Today they have approved
outlots for all properties and have a preliminary plat on outlot C and a portion of outlot A. A
neighborhood meeting was held on August 6, 2022 and combined with email concerns included
the percentage of housing; Ms. Aanenson shared that the housing calculation does not exceed
what was originally put into the PUD, and the Applicant has taken the opportunity to maximize
all of those units. She spoke about access onto Lyman Boulevard, Mills Street, and the
townhouse connection for fire access safety. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of the PUD amendment and encouraged the City Council to fully consider the value, size,
location, and configuration of a gathering place as an integral part of the project. Ms. Aanenson
spoke about the large usage area noting the Planning Commission and Staff would like to see a
mixed use of 10 acres or approximately 60% of District 3 developed as amusement, recreation,
or entertainment use which could include a golf course, hockey rinks, indoor amusement arcades,
and a convention/performance center, and should be constructed prior to approval of some of the
other subsidies to ensure that it happens. Ms. Aanenson showed slides from the developer on
screen of potential recreational uses as well as a slide showing potential new changes to the site.
All of the uses have been combined into the District Master Plan which is part of the PUD; in
each district those uses are described with updates/changes. Ms. Aanenson shared about the PUD
ordinance which has all design standards, the five districts, engineering conditions, and traffic
modeling. She clarified each project must come through for a public hearing and site plan review
and will be measured against the PUD standards. Staff believes this is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the PUD ordinance and adoption of the
Findings of Fact.
Councilwoman Rehm received an email from someone living on Powers Boulevard who was
concerned about increased traffic from Avienda. Ms. Aanenson stated there will be less and
asked to hear more about that.
City Engineer Howley noted the statement about less traffic is based on the currently approved
PUD, the zoning and uses of what currently is approved to be built compared to what they are
proposing with this amendment, the projected traffic volumes are less. Not meaning that when
the project is fully built out the traffic will be less than today, just comparing the approved
project versus the proposed amended PUD, the traffic would be less.