2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 14 another “hoop” or not, Mr. Paschke advised that accomplishing such a massive 658 redevelopment of this area required time. 659 Tony Dorso 660 Mr. Dorso opined that if the developer was required to pay for street infrastructure costs, 661 he would pay that much less for the property. Mr. Dorso stated that he had paid a “ton of 662 taxes” in Roseville over the years, and now would be forced to pay yet again. Mr. Dorso 663 reiterated his preference for a normal assessment approach, for which he and other 664 property owners would have been duly noticed for planned infrastructure improvement 665 projects rather than having no chance to respond. Mr. Dorso opined that the City had 666 already committed itself on how to allocate fees without allowing property owners and/or 667 developers a chance to respond before now. Mr. Dorso noted the numerous changes 668 enacted by various City Councils, whether through the master developer proposal, or 669 other method. Mr. Dorso advised that he had received no prior notice of the trip charge 670 formula now being proposed, nor had he been allowed any opportunity for input. Mr. 671 Dorso further opined that it appeared that the Planning Commission was being asked to 672 provide their authority to the City for something that had already been committed to. 673 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:16 p.m. 674 Commission/Staff Discussion 675 Member Boguszewski sought clarification of a response by City Attorney Bartholdi to a 676 speaker during public comment suggesting that you could lower your allocation by having 677 less development; and questioned if such a formula by its very nature was not counter- 678 productive to achieving redevelopment in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. 679 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the intent of the formula was to allocate a fair and 680 equitable share to everyone based on the type and intensity of their development. 681 Member Boguszewski concurred that this appeared a valid approach as it addressed the 682 intensity of a development; however, he opined that this overall allocation methodology 683 and its calculation process appeared to discourage larger developments. 684 City Planner Paschke opined that it provided for huge projects significantly impacting 685 infrastructure needs to pay their fair share. 686 Member Gisselquist suggested that it would be more prudent for a developer to consider 687 their project on a block that provided more “wiggle room” such as Block 1.a versus Block 688 13 on the map); and questioned if the allocation methodology was encouraging the 689 greatest use of the land, or if there were unintended consequences that may occur as 690 developers sought to reduce their development costs by locating on a block that had 691 fewer network trips projected. 692 Chair Boerigter clarified that the allocation formulas took into consideration the entire 693 Twin Lakes roadway improvement costs, which were updated annually, and questioned 694 the status of those updates at this time. 695 City Planner Paschke advised that the City’s Engineering Department was in the process 696 of updating the allocations for presentation in the near future to the City Council. 697 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the City’s Engineering Department would need to 698 provide that update once the actual figures are available. 699 Chair Boerigter referenced the comments of Ms. Steinwall on environmental issues and 700 the 2004 study related to aquifer and the interplay between AUAR updates; and asked for 701 City Attorney and/or staff comment on that specific item. 702 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that it could be researched and a response prepared 703 once it was determined if it had been addressed. 704 Chair Boerigter asked that staff and the City Attorney’s office review that information and 705 make any revisions between tonight’s Planning Commission and the City Council 706 meeting when it would be addressed. 707