2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 13 Member Boguszewski questioned what other municipalities had used for their 608 methodology, if something other than trip allocations. 609 Chair Boerigter opined that the allocation needed to be based on net trips and 610 alternatives for construction of the roadway; and further opined that the allocation not be 611 open to negotiation or unique negotiations; and opined that a consistent method was 612 needed across the board. 613 Member Boguszewski concurred with Chair Boerigter; however, he questioned whether 614 other methodologies should be considered. 615 City Planner Paschke advised that other methods were analyzed, but this appeared to be 616 the best recommendation for use by the City of Roseville. 617 City Attorney Bartholdi noted that this method considered the number of peak afternoon 618 trips; with a network trip determined as the number of improvements that trip traveled 619 through; with those peak network trips confined to one trip versus 3-5 trips. 620 Chair Boerigter noted that statement referred back to the suggestion made by Mr. 621 Schwanke for revising the definition of network trips. 622 Mr. Rancone suggested that the language address infrastructure completed to-date or 623 allocation, assuming that a particular use generated a certain number of trips. 624 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that this would not be appropriate for the City, as it 625 needed to address the entire development area for those parcels building later. 626 Mr. Rancone noted his parcel’s direct access to I-35W at a freeway exit on Cleveland 627 Avenue and onto County Road C and questioned what benefit Twin Lakes Parkway had 628 for his parcel. Mr. Rancone advised that, as a developer, his firm was willing to pay its fair 629 share to develop Twin Lakes and the city; however, he questioned the benefit of what 630 had been completed to-date. While the Commission was indicating that there was no 631 other alternative, Mr. Rancone opined that the City needed to decide if they wanted to put 632 up more obstacles or wanted development. Mr. Rancone, noted that the area had not 633 had any redevelopment occurring for almost two (2) decades, and questioned if the City 634 wanted that situation to change or not. 635 Mr. Rancone suggested that he may be in part somewhat responsible for the allocation 636 study, and was willing to share costs for remediation. Mr. Rancone reviewed past 637 possibilities in the area that hadn’t been realized for one reason or another, and his firm’s 638 frustration in attempting to redevelop the area. Mr. Rancone suggested that that past 639 development potential under a master developer had gotten into the mindset of the City 640 Council, creating this proposed ordinance versus a typical assessment based on the 641 actual benefit to a parcel. 642 Mr. Rancone opined that existing City Code and ordinances in place provided enough 643 regulation, in addition to requirements of other agencies and government entities, and 644 would address green space, parking, storm water management; and provided many more 645 controls for the City than were in place ten (10) years ago. However, Mr. Rancone noted 646 that they also created more cost for development; and any additional dollars required to 647 be expended created yet another hoop or another detriment for developing the area. Mr. 648 Rancone opined that he at least sensed a more enlightened view by this Planning 649 Commission to get something accomplished in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. 650 At the request of Member Wozniak, City Planner Paschke reviewed prepping this next 651 step (ordinance) for the Commission earlier in the process, as elimination of the Planned 652 Unit Development (PUD) process took place keying implementation of this step. Mr. 653 Paschke clarified that, it was not a question of whether or not the City wanted to develop 654 the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, but was a situation of seeking good development 655 for that area and the broader community, opining that this was staff’s intent and direction 656 received from the City Council to-date. Whether potential developers considered this yet 657