My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-08-03_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-08-03_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2011 2:30:57 PM
Creation date
12/20/2011 2:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/3/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 <br />Page 12 <br />significantly alter Mr. Dorso’s $2.5 million estimation, opining that the situation must have <br />558 <br />changed since those original projections by staff. <br />559 <br />City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the reason for the reduction was that the City was <br />560 <br />picking up the base amount and traffic from outside sources; and that initial quotes <br />561 <br />several years ago from staff to property owners included the cost of everything. <br />562 <br />With City Attorney Bartholdi’s concurrence, and qualification that it would be limited to the <br />563 <br />amount of development, Member Boguszewski noted that if the allocation was done at <br />564 <br />this time equally for every development proposal and estimating all of their network trips <br />565 <br />under or at the allocated amount, the City would receive no money toward that $10 <br />566 <br />million gap. <br />567 <br />At the request of Member Wozniak, City Planner Paschke reiterated that infrastructure <br />568 <br />impacts were anticipated and addressed as part of the AUAR, and this ordinance was to <br />569 <br />address those allocation costs through an enforcement mechanism. <br />570 <br />Mark Rancone, Roseville Properties (Parcel 4 on Allocation Agreement map) <br />571 <br />Mr. Rancone referenced Mr. Dorso’s statement about the projected $25 million in <br />572 <br />developer costs; noting that Parcel 4 would have been charged with approximately $4 <br />573 <br />million for contemplated improvements. Mr. Rancone sought to clarify that that original <br />574 <br />price tag had now been reduced to approximately $10 million for the total infrastructure <br />575 <br />package that would include completion of Twin Lakes Parkway and other infrastructure <br />576 <br />improvements up to Snelling Avenue. <br />577 <br />City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that the $24 million total cost remained the same, and <br />578 <br />that only the amount allocated to property owners had been reduced to about $10 million. <br />579 <br />Mr. Rancone asked how much of the $10 million had been spent to-date on completion of <br />580 <br />County Road C-2 and Twin Lakes Parkway. <br />581 <br />City Attorney Bartholdi and City Planner Paschke advised that the City’s Engineering staff <br />582 <br />would have that information, but that it was not available tonight. <br />583 <br />Mr. Rancone advised that his subject property was surrounded by completed <br />584 <br />infrastructure, and that a potential user had been sitting on the sidelines for over a year, <br />585 <br />in addition to his attempts to develop that corner property for almost a decade. Mr. <br />586 <br />Rancone opined that there was always one more hoop to jump through or one more <br />587 <br />roadblock put into place by the City of Roseville. Mr. Rancone asked rhetorically if the <br />588 <br />City of Roseville was trying to develop this area or continue to put obstacles in the way of <br />589 <br />that development. Mr. Rancone opined that the situation had developed in part from past <br />590 <br />City Council’s choosing to make the area a political issue versus what was good for the <br />591 <br />Roseville public at large. <br />592 <br />Mr. Rancone asked that staff be directed to provide accurate figures on what had been <br />593 <br />spent to-date on completed infrastructure at a future meeting, once those numbers had <br />594 <br />been reviewed. <br />595 <br />Mr. Rancone asked if there was an alternative to a trip charge allocation; or alternative <br />596 <br />negotiation with staff versus the trip charge allocation. <br />597 <br />City Attorney Bartholdi advised that, unless Mr. Rancone was referring to some other <br />598 <br />arrangement or negotiation, the trip charge would remain in place to fund infrastructure <br />599 <br />improvements. <br />600 <br />Mr. Rancone suggested that it would seem prudent or the City to negotiate those trip <br />601 <br />charge allocations; and while willing to pay something, he questioned what a fair amount <br />602 <br />was, further suggesting an alternative to the trip charge. If no alternative was possible, <br />603 <br />Mr. Rancone suggested that Chapter 1022.07, Section D (lines 323 – 238) be rewritten <br />604 <br />accordingly to remove language indicating such possible negotiations. <br />605 <br />City Attorney Bartholdi advised Mr. Rancone that certain developments and/or the <br />606 <br />amount of development may indicate reduced trips. <br />607 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.