2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 9 does Langton Lake Park actually get used today, and how much will it cost for the City’s 413 vision goal and preferred increased activity in the park, and will it actually happen. Mr. 414 Dorso opined that that has yet to be defined; and further opined that it would more of a 415 win-win for both the City and landowners to encourage development now; but if the City 416 applied more regulations, it would decrease that possibility. 417 Vice Chair Gisselquist questioned Mr. Dorso’s reference to a $2.5 million development 418 fee. 419 Mr. Paschke advised that Mr. Dorso was referencing the allocation study estimate 420 created as part of the AUAR for projected traffic impacts and redevelopment within the 421 overall Twin Lakes area; opining that the allocation study was a separate and distinct 422 issue beyond tonight’s discussion and that redevelopment fees and traffic 423 impacts/mitigations were not part of Commissioner decision-making for land uses. 424 Vice Chair Gisselquist sought further information as to whether all property owners in the 425 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area were assigned such a fee. 426 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively, advising that the allotment was part of a calculation 427 formulated on the number of trips generated and that the fee was for the purpose of 428 reimbursing the City for upfront public infrastructure costs needed to mitigate those future 429 traffic impacts. 430 Member Wozniak noted that, depending on the type of development, the fee allotment 431 could be reduced or increased accordingly; and further noted that the fee allocation 432 would happen regardless of the Map. 433 Member Boguszewski suggested that was the rationale in Mr. Paschke’s comment that 434 the fee did not need to be part of the Commission’s consideration of the Map as it related 435 to land use. 436 Mr. Paschke advised that the soil conditions may be a consideration in creating a more 437 flexible approach. 438 Member Boguszewski noted that the Greenway frontage designation could create further 439 build-to line issues if a structure was placed on the corner. 440 Mr. Paschke concurred with Member Boguszewski’s observation, noting that such 441 placement may require a higher degree of soil correction than for a parking lot. 442 Member Boguszewski suggested that, costs for soil correction, may in fact be a 443 consideration for making further adjustments for that particular parcel in terms of being 444 more flexible. 445 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively. 446 Mr. Dorso respectfully disagreed with Mr. Paschke in his comments about the 447 Commission not needing to consider development fees, opining that each individual 448 action of the City was cumulative to a landowner; and while he had been previously told 449 by City staff that the development fee allocation may be more or may be less, he had to 450 get the land successfully sold first. Mr. Dorso opined that as individual parcels in Twin 451 Lakes developed, if the City had not collected a sufficient amount of that total amount 452 allocated, the last guys selling would pay a larger share. Mr. Dorso opined that there 453 should be an across-the-board consistent allocation, not based on potential traffic 454 mitigation; and further opined that he did not want more cost loaded onto his property 455 making it work even less. 456 Ms. Lee Schreurs, 3058 Wilder Street N 457 Ms. Schreurs referenced the flexible plan displayed, and questioned if the 10% 458 undeveloped in that area was part of the greenways or if there would be any allowance 459 for open space in each parcel or how that would be addressed. 460 Mr. Paschke advised that most of the area would be developed under urban standards 461 with 80-90% buildings or paved surfaces; however, he noted that there is not yet a 462