2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 8 freedom to develop their parcels without an enforcement mechanism, allowing other 352 agencies of government bodies that enforcement; whether this created another 353 enforcement hoop above and beyond those required by those other agencies; and if not 354 having such a mechanism in place put the City at a higher liability risk. 355 City Attorney Bartholdi noted that both the AUAR and allocation study had been adopted 356 by the City Council; however, there was no enforcement mechanism in place to enforce 357 the provisions outlined in the AUAR or allocation study unless such provisions happened 358 to be incorporated in another existing City ordinance. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the next 359 step in the process was to put those provisions into an ordinance that could be enforced. 360 Member Boguszewski asked if it was fair to say that the passage of such an ordinance 361 was a necessary step; and the only considerations should be the actual wording context, 362 latitude and structure of the ordinance. 363 City Attorney concurred that an ordinance needed to be adopted; and while there may be 364 language revisions, this was the next step following the City Council’s adoption of the 365 AUAR and allocation study; presuming that both of those documents are positive points 366 that the City wanted to implement, requiring this mechanism to do so. 367 Member Boguszewski advised that he was not challenging that necessity; however, he 368 opined that it the ordinance attempted to weaken the AUAR mandates, it would be wrong 369 and advised that he now understood the intent of this step. Member Boguszewski 370 advised that his overall concern was to ensure that the ordinance and/or related 371 documents or agreements, not further detract or hinder developers from the Twin Lakes 372 Redevelopment Area to retain as much interest as possible to accomplish good for the 373 entire community. 374 Member Wozniak clarified for his understanding that developers would be required to pay 375 for infrastructure improvements regardless; and that this ordinance with base line trips 376 and updated studies would determine if they paid more or less, depending on how those 377 trips compared. 378 City Attorney Bartholdi concurred; clarifying that if the property owner developed their 379 property at equal to or below the base line trips, there would be no infrastructure payment 380 beyond that in place in 2006. 381 With City Planner Paschke’s concurrence, Chair Boerigter clarified that City Attorney 382 Bartholdi’s comment was specific to infrastructure, not remediation costs. Chair Boerigter 383 opined that it would be difficult to determine who paid for infrastructure costs (and how 384 much) or how to assess costs across all parcels, without such an ordinance in place. 385 Member Boguszewski reiterated his concern with the apparent disparity he addressed 386 earlier in this discussion; opining that the allowable network trips seemed at odds with 387 some of the adjacent parcels. 388 City Planner Paschke clarified that those base line trips were based on 2006 figures 389 when the allocation study was developed. 390 Member Boguszewski advised that this was causing his concern that the base line was 391 established on 2006 land use, but then could be applied to future uses that may or may 392 not be related to that particular use. Member Boguszewski opined that, if he was one of 393 the parcel owners with lower allowable trips, he would feel that the system was arbitrary. 394 Public Comment 395 Terry Foster, Parcel 5 396 Mr. Foster advised that he was putting together a pending development proposal on this 397 parcel for phased construction, and that the owner was deceased. Mr. Foster expressed 398 his appreciation to City staff for their cooperation to-date in development this proposal. 399 Mr. Foster advised that his question revolved around environmental issues addressed in 400 Chapter 1022.04, Section3, Subs. B and c, of the proposed ordinance for environmental 401 issues and the MPCA’s site assessment for completion by the property owner that he had 402