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 34 <br /> thod was needed to allow that infrastructure to develop. Mr. Bartholdi referenced <br /> Chapter 1022,.03, Section E of the DRAFT ordinance, and base network trip as <br /> previously discussed; and allowances if the property owner came in with a devel- <br /> opment at that level or less, not paying any fee. However, if they came in with a <br /> development in excess of the base line network trips, then a proportionate fee <br /> would apply. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the purpose of the ordinance was to mi- <br /> tigate and carry forth those procedures as detailed. <br /> Mr. Bartholdi noted that Chapter 1022.05 picked up other items as set forth in the <br /> AUAR for general requirements and standards; with the AUAR having an exten- <br /> sive list of mitigation factors and the intent of the ordinance to incorporate all of <br /> those mitigation standards. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Bartholdi advised that there were <br /> currently no other districts in the City with such fee structures; however, he noted <br /> that the Cities of Minnetonka and Rochester had successfully implemented similar <br /> structures. <br /> Councilmember Johnson questioned why only some environmental issues were <br /> specified, and not others; and whether it was thought that those contaminants <br /> were isolated to one particular area. <br /> City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the AUAR had been created indicating that <br /> certain environmental issues were evident in the area and that this created the <br /> needed infrastructure unique to this area. <br /> Councilmember McGehee reiterated her concerns that there would be no problem <br /> if specific uses for the area were addressed; particularly those uses already devel- <br /> oped and included in the original Twin Lakes Master Plan. <br /> When Mayor Roe questioned if that was a correct characterization, Council- <br /> member McGehee responded that the original Master Plan guided keeping trip le- <br /> vels down by designating certain types of high trip generators. <br /> Mayor Roe asked for staff confirmation that the AUAR analysis scenarios were <br /> based on the original Twin Lakes Master Plan. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that they were; and that the AUAR was driving this doc- <br /> ument as well as the allocation plan; with all three (3) of the development scena- <br /> rios based on that original Master Plan process; and predicated on development <br /> scenarios as part of the AUAR. Mr. Trudgeon advised that if the AUAR levels <br /> were changed, this proposed ordinance would also need to be changed; and un- <br /> derstanding that the AUAR was based on the original and previously-created <br /> Twin Lakes Master Plan was a reflection of that. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.