2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 7 Bartholdi noted that without a development agreement, if infrastructure was deemed 303 inadequate, the City could deny the project. However, if the developer met AUAR 304 mitigations as outlined, and complied with all ordinances in place, Mr. Bartholdi advised 305 that the City would have no other choice than to approve the development. At the request 306 of Member Wozniak, Mr. Bartholdi confirmed that the purpose of the development 307 agreement was to outline AUAR mitigation required; and that the agreement did not give 308 the City an “out,” but provided the developer the “ability” to do their project in a more 309 time-sensitive manner. 310 Related to the language of Chapter 1022.07, Section E, Member Boguszewski opined 311 that the wording implied that the City Council had the ability to deny a development 312 project, even if the developer had met all obvious requirements. 313 City Attorney Bartholdi reiterated that, if all prior provisions and requirements were met, 314 the City had no other recourse than to approve the project. 315 Member Wozniak questioned if findings for denial would be required based on this 316 ordinance. 317 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that, if the developer was found to not be in compliance 318 with one or more of its provisions or conditions, findings specifying that noncompliance 319 would be required as part of the City’s action for denial. 320 Since, if passed, the whole premise of the ordinance was to implement the AUAR, 321 Member Strohmeier questioned if the ordinance would essentially serve as the only 322 environmental review required of the developer, or if it precluded the City from requiring 323 an Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) for individual land use decisions going 324 forward. 325 City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that this would address environmental remediation 326 required in City rights-of-way; but that other remediation was promulgated by Minnesota 327 Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) rules. 328 Member Strohmeier expressed concern that the ordinance may confuse the development 329 framework and cost allocations; and questioned if assigning cost allocations was a 330 common occurrence addressed by ordinance. 331 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that other cities have used similar methods to set up 332 allocation costs: the Cities of Rochester and Minnetonka, MN. 333 Member Boguszewski questioned whether the City of Roseville wanted to emulate those 334 cities for its development efforts. 335 Member Strohmeier suggested it may be worth exploring the City’s creation of incentives 336 to encourage additional green space, forest preservation efforts, clean-up of heavily 337 contaminated soils and other positive things, by offering a reduction in allocation costs or 338 offering extra financial assistance if they made those efforts. 339 Member Boguszewski sought clarification if Member Strohmeier’s intent was to provide a 340 break or alteration of the allocation formula for developers who made those efforts, above 341 and beyond AUAR enforcement and mitigation requirements. 342 Member Strohmeier responded affirmatively as to his intent; suggesting a cooperative 343 effort by the City and developer(s) to explore incentives to address environmental issues 344 that would prove beneficial to the overall community. 345 Member Strohmeier questioned to what extent the 2000 Twin Lakes Master Plan figured 346 into this ordinance. 347 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that, it was his understanding that the AUAR mitigation 348 plan incorporated provisions of the Master Plan. 349 Member Boguszewski expressed his confusion between the AUAR and the cost 350 allocation; and whether not having the ordinance in place allowed developers more 351