My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2011 11:42:01 AM
Creation date
10/11/2011 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 12, 2011 <br /> Page 31 <br /> ment addressed that payment option through a volunteer Development Agreement <br /> and other AUAR item mitigations or waiting until the infrastructure is in place. <br /> However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the infrastructure improvements would most <br /> likely not take place without developer contributions to those improvements. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Johnson related to staff's development of crite- <br /> ria to determine infrastructure costs, Ms. Bloom advised that developers would <br /> come forward with their estimated costs. <br /> For the viewing audience, Councilmember Johnson asked that Ms. Bloom reite- <br /> rate what is being asked of developers. <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that as each new development proposal was submitted for re- <br /> view, it would be run through a model for distribution of network trips and im- <br /> provements indicated; then a review would be performed to develop actual net- <br /> work trips and the larger table for impacts on other improvements; with network <br /> trips assigned a cost, whether more or less intense than the base line. Ms. Bloom <br /> used the most recent development in Twin Lakes, the Metropolitan Transportation <br /> Park and Ride facility as an example; and referenced the traffic study done for <br /> that project, summarizing the process. Ms. Bloom noted that it was the intent to <br /> be as transparent as possible in providing trip costs and expected models for dis- <br /> tribution. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon noted that Councilmember Johnson raised a good point, that this <br /> was a lot of information to absorb, and while staff was attempting to do outreach <br /> with landowners throughout the process to keep them aware of these proposals, he <br /> recognized the need to continue that outreach; and encouraged questions as they <br /> came up. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Johnson on the general consensus of property <br /> owners, Mr. Trudgeon noted that property owners and developers had been wait- <br /> ing a long time, but continued to be concerned about any costs attributable to <br /> them, preferring no costs. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that most of the proper- <br /> ty owners and developers recognized the big picture; and assured all that given <br /> today's market, every attempt was being made to minimize their costs; and ad- <br /> vised that this new methodology lowered their allotted costs from that of last year, <br /> opining that this was a step in the right direction from their point of view. <br /> In response to Councilmember Johnson's comments, Councilmember Pust recog- <br /> nized that, while property owners would prefer to pay nothing, the first in/last out <br /> scenario created a problem too. However, Councilmember Pust opined that this <br /> allocation methodology provided a benefit across the entire area with all realizing <br /> that benefit and creating a positive environment for them. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that, while all parcels benefited from public improvements, they <br /> also contributed to their wear and tear; and this allocation attempted to address <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.