2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 4 Chair Boerigter questioned if the City would need to upfront infrastructure monies for 148 invoicing to and reimbursement by developers at a later date. 149 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the City anticipated that no infrastructure work would 150 be done until payment had been received. 151 Chair Boerigter questioned the proposed formula for developers and any direct 152 correlation for infrastructure needs depending on their particular development; however, 153 he questioned how that related to their specific use and daily network trips for parcels 154 abutting Parcel 5. Chair Boerigter questioned if network trips may not actually correlate to 155 the road adjacent to the parcel or infrastructure needs specific to that parcel. 156 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that developers would pay based on their network trips; 157 and if the lot developed, they would pay more based on updated traffic studies for those 158 network trips. Mr. Bartholdi clarified that any development would impact other 159 improvements in that area. 160 Chair Boerigter sought clarification on those parcels developing initially, and the formula 161 for allocating costs based on network trips at that time, and if at a later date it was 162 determined that Twin Lakes Parkway needed expanding, whether the City would then be 163 required to complete the Parkway at its expense. 164 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that each development project would be reviewed 165 individually; and that the only remaining roadway infrastructure to complete was the 166 extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, with the other road improvements consisting of turn 167 lanes or traffic control measures (e.g. signals) throughout the area. Mr. Bartholdi noted 168 that the only amount of impact in a particular area would be where improvements would 169 be built to facilitate development; with the options for the City to deny the application at 170 that time, or approve it and stage improvements until another developer came in. 171 Under the Block 18 scenario, Chair Boerigter questioned if the City could accept money 172 from the original developer or if it had to wait until other parcels developed. 173 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that this could happen; however, it was not anticipated 174 and it was hoped that infrastructure improvements could be staged as developers came 175 in for their benefit as well as that of the City’s transportation system. 176 At the request of Chair Boerigter, City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the allocation 177 formula for network trips were calculated by the City’s Engineering Department based on 178 the Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review’s (AUAR’s) identification of anticipated 179 development based on land use in the area as guided by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 180 Chair Boerigter noted that the Planning Commission had just completed its 181 recommendation to the City Council on the Regulating Plan and Map for the Twin Lakes 182 Redevelopment Area, and asked if that had been taken into consideration when this 183 allocation formula was developed. 184 City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that the Regulating Map didn’t have that much impact on 185 this ordinance, other than establishing setbacks and other design standards; and advised 186 that the AUAR allotment calculations did not change during that process. Mr. Bartholdi 187 clarified that the City Code handles uses as development comes in; and that each 188 updated traffic study for those specific developments would identify the particular parcel 189 and the number of network trips generated. 190 Chair Boerigter clarified that it was taken into consideration, but no change was indicated. 191 City Planner Thomas Paschke further clarified that the Regulating Plan was not a use- 192 based document, but simply applied design standards for form-based zoning and for the 193 placement of buildings within particular zoning districts. 194 Chair Boerigter opined that the base number was important since it set how much a 195 developer had to pay; but clarified, based on his understanding, that when a developer 196 came forward in the future, an updated traffic study would be required based on their 197