2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 11 Steinwall opined that it appears to apply to buildings on a lot, not roadways, suggesting 505 that it be further clarified. 506 Steve Schwanke, with RLK 507 Mr. Schwanke stated that he had worked extensively with Ms. Steinwall and concurred 508 with her comments. As a consultant working with property owners and potential 509 developers in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for a number of years, Mr. Schwanke 510 suggested further review of the proposed definition of “network trips.” With all due 511 respect, Mr. Schwanke advised that, in his long-term professional experience, he had not 512 seen that definition before, and questioned if it actually addressed the type of trips the 513 City wanted to monitor; and suggested that City staff ask its traffic engineers for a more 514 precise definition. 515 With Mr. Schwanke’s concurrence, Member Boguszewski clarified that he was referring 516 to Chapter 1022.02 (Definitions – line 64). 517 Mr. Schwanke opined that, if he charged a member of his transportation staff to perform 518 such a study as proscribed, he wouldn’t be sure of what the City’s intent was, whether 519 interior trips, exterior trips or other variables. Ms. Schwanke recognized that the City had 520 consulted with several very good traffic engineers on this to-date, but further opined that 521 this definition was too broad and generic as currently stated; and suggested that the 522 traffic consultants could provide a much more clear definition of the types of trip 523 information being sought. 524 Mr. Schwanke advised that these types of ordinances provide for traffic demand 525 management systems or methods, and ways to reduce traffic; however, he noted that he 526 didn’t see that referenced in the proposed ordinance language. Mr. Schwanke noted that 527 the Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis had ordinances that could be referenced for model 528 language, and included provisions for credits as applicable, that may have been 529 anticipated originally in the AUAR. 530 With the concurrence of Mr. Schwanke, Member Boguszewski referenced Chapter 531 1022.04, Sections C and D (lines 275 and 281), encouraging such credits. 532 Tony Dorso, Owner of 10.29 acres at 2814 Cleveland Avenue 533 Mr. Dorso thanked the Planning Commission for their diligence in this Twin Lakes matter; 534 and opined that the Planning Commission was being asked to clean up a Plan that was 535 not originally properly executed. With the understanding that developer fees were a 536 normal undertaking, Mr. Dorso suggested that, in going back several years, a decision 537 had been made to charge for improvements based on developer fees for utility 538 connections, not for design and construction of streets throughout the entire Twin Lakes 539 Redevelopment Area. 540 In testimony at previous meetings, Mr. Dorso noted his reference for the Commission of 541 staff’s statement that he would be assessed a developer fee of $2.5 million. Mr. Dorso 542 noted that, in today’s market that would be the approximate value of the entire 10 plus 543 acre parcel. Mr. Dorso opined that the process to-date had not been done correctly; 544 further opining that the Commission was being asked to recommend for approval 545 enforcement of an earlier decision to not do this on a normal assessment basis. Mr. 546 Dorso noted law requiring that a property owner could not be assessed more than the 547 improvements would add value to and benefit the property. Mr. Dorso alluded to the 548 references of a similar attempt by the City of Rochester, MN by City Attorney Bartholdi, 549 and subsequent litigation and loss of the case by the City. While understanding that there 550 would always be some disagreement, Mr. Dorso opined that if the City was to enact this 551 ordinance and use this approach, they would ensure that litigation would follow. 552 With concurrence by City Attorney Bartholdi, Member Boguszewski clarified City Attorney 553 Bartholdi’s previous statement that of the total original amount of money required for 554 infrastructure completion in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, the gap between that 555 and what the City was paying was approximately $10 million. Member Boguszewski 556 noted that this $10 million would be allocated among all parcel owners; and that would 557