2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 6 Chair Boerigter reviewed Section F (Appeal of Network Trips) and the process set forth; 250 with City Attorney Bartholdi clarifying that network trips as defined in the ordinance were 251 intended to be based on the total network trips at this time; but could also be applied to 252 base network trips. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the calculations were based on two things: 253 base network trips and allocations in the study, to determine assumed total network costs 254 after development. 255 Member Boerigter sought clarification, and City Attorney Bartholdi confirmed that the 256 network trips detailed in the table in Section E (Allocation of Network Trips) were the 257 current base line trip assumptions. Mr. Bartholdi advised that an updated allocation study 258 would be completed annually with allocation costs adjusted based on development of the 259 parcel. 260 Chair Boerigter reviewed requirements for a voluntary development agreement, or other 261 arrangements satisfactory to the City (Chapter 1022.07, Section D) and the criteria or 262 standards staff would apply to determine whether a development agreement was 263 warranted, and when the developer met other satisfactory arrangements. 264 City Attorney Bartholdi revised the purpose of the development agreement to address 265 items typically done within such an agreement; noting that a development agreement can 266 only be required by the City when a subdivision or tax increment financing (TIF) is used. 267 While there were many other occasions when a development agreement could not be 268 mandated as necessary, Mr. Bartholdi advised that a voluntary development agreement 269 would be prudent and address those items typically included in agreements, in addition to 270 allocation costs attributable to the specific parcel(s) being developed. For the developer 271 to make other arrangements satisfactory to the City to assure requirements of the 272 ordinance were carried out, City Attorney Bartholdi suggested examples: the developer 273 built the roadway themselves or installation of a sidewalk on their private property; 274 however, he clarified that whether through a development agreement or other means, 275 they would need approval by staff prior to issuance of a building permit for a 276 development. 277 Chair Boerigter sought clarification on how a developer would be assured of fair 278 treatment for their development in an objective, rather than subjective way, without 279 standard criteria in place, based on the Regulating Map and ordinances, or approval by 280 staff of a development agreement or “other satisfactory arrangements” before they 281 approved issuance of a building permit. 282 City Planner Paschke noted that, at this adequate infrastructure was not in place; and 283 those mitigations would be needed as outlined in the AUAR; however, he advised that 284 each development would not be mitigated to the same magnitude, depending on their 285 location, the studies, environmental contamination and other parcel-specific issues. Mr. 286 Paschke advised that, without a development agreement in place, there was currently no 287 mechanism in place to ensure development adhered to the mitigation requirements 288 outlined in the AUAR. Mr. Paschke noted that this was addressed in the proposed 289 ordinance’s initial purpose statement (Chapter 1022.01: Intent and Purpose). 290 City Attorney Bartholdi reviewed the purpose of a development agreement to review and 291 update allocation costs for the benefit of the developer and City; and to address other 292 mitigation items designated in the AUAR, most of which were listed in Chapter 1022.04 of 293 the proposed ordinance. 294 Chair Boerigter sought further clarification on the language of the ordinance stating that 295 the development had to meet all of those AUAR mitigation items and how that 296 requirement compared to the purpose of the development agreement, and whether the 297 standard of the City was to say all had been met, or if the City could impose additional 298 obligations for the developer based on political bias with a particular development. 299 City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that the City could only enforce what was in their 300 ordinances and codes; and a development agreement would accommodate a developer 301 in developing their property now, even though current infrastructure was inadequate. Mr. 302