2011-02-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 02, 2011 Page 7 1001 – Introduction (Attachment A) 307 Mr. Lloyd noted that several sections had proven redundant, and were thus 308 recommended for revisions as indicated. 309 1002 – Administration and Enforcement (Attachment B) 310 Mr. Lloyd noted the addition of a section related to Development Agreements between 311 the City and Developer for more substantial projects and/or those requiring additional 312 formal environmental review. Mr. Lloyd noted that this addition was prompted by the 313 recently proposed asphalt plant during 2010 to ensure specific steps were followed. 314 Discussion included Section 1002.03.B and pending determination of where best in City 315 Code to address the process and would be finalized prior to presentation to the City 316 Council; and intended infrastructure cost recovery for development in the Twin Lakes 317 Redevelopment Area now that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is no longer 318 in effect, while noting that until completion of the Regulating Map and Plan, any further 319 development in the Twin Lakes area was on hold. 320 Mr. Paschke noted that, when the zoning code was created and the Commercial Mixed 321 Use District was established, staff was aware that some form of agreement would be 322 needed, whether in a specific chapter or a separate product contained within a portion of 323 the Plan and Regulating Map. After adoption of the Zoning Code, Mr. Paschke advised 324 that staff had concluded that it should be addressed as a separate and distinct section, 325 and not specific to one area, such as Twin Lakes, since it had the potential for required 326 application in other situations as well in the future. Mr. Paschke noted that requiring such 327 environmental review was not something new, but had been under discussion for some 328 time, but until the Zoning Code rewrite was undertaken, there was no need to address it 329 formally. 330 Further discussion included how cost allocations would be distributed, based on minimum 331 and maximum thresholds for mitigation requirements and mechanisms available for the 332 immediate development site as well as the broader, more regional, area in the Alternative 333 Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) area and related proportional costs impacting utilities, 334 roadways, based on traffic generated studies, and storm water management; how costs 335 were calculated for the recently-constructed Metropolitan Transit Park and Ride Facility 336 and comparisons with the proposed Development Agreement and previous PUD 337 Agreement requirements with documentation in place specifically describing the 338 calculation rationale. 339 Additional discussion included sufficient guidance in other Roseville locations beyond the 340 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area that provided that methodology for developments; 341 additional mitigation provided by further environmental review; typical use of vehicles per 342 day traffic studies to determine the proportion of mitigation for each development; and the 343 process of and situations or trigger mechanisms where further environmental review is 344 indicated. 345 Staff provided several past examples of major developments and the process that would 346 be implemented under the new zoning code requirements. 347 Consensus of Commissioners was that these new requirements no create further delays 348 or undue burdens on potential developers as long as there were no obvious negative 349 impacts to the health, safety and welfare of citizens and their properties. 350 Mr. Paschke advised that, in order for a project to be approved now or in the past, the 351 City required that the development complete a Public Improvement Project Agreement, 352 whether additional environmental review was indicated or not; and clarified that the 353 proposed Development Agreement covered something much broader than the Public 354 Improvement Agreement and should address all situations where public improvements 355 and/or other types of area improvements are necessary. 356