2011-09-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 11 City Engineer Bloom opined that incentives to be in the pool first included ever-increasing 493 annual costs for infrastructure improvements. 494 Chair Boerigter suggested that, if Twin Lakes Parkway was needed for a development for 495 the ultimate best use, it may be prudent for that developer to wait to develop an adjoining 496 parcel or work out some deal with the City, since that parcel wouldn’t contribute enough 497 to pay for the Parkway in full. 498 Line 348 499 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that revisions had been shortened related to roadway 500 allocation costs for various mitigation factors, and working with alternative transit services 501 and integrating plans to reduce trips. While some of this was automatically built into the 502 system, Mr. Bartholdi noted that if a developer could implement plans to further mitigate 503 traffic, they would receive the benefit of lower network trip calculations to encourage 504 property owners to develop a traffic demand plan. 505 City Engineer Bloom clarified that travel demand management was not mitigation, but 506 that its goal was to have a certain percentage of other transit options (e.g. bicycles) to 507 encourage other methods of transit rather than by vehicle. Ms. Bloom used Northwestern 508 College as an example and their provision of shuttle buses from other sites. 509 Voluntary Development Agreements, Lines 146-147 510 City Attorney Bartholdi noted clarification of the options available for a developer, beyond 511 the voluntary development agreement, such as the developer building necessary 512 improvements themselves at City standards, or convincing the City to use a Chapter 429 513 Assessment process; of use of TIF if available in the future. 514 Lines 404-409 515 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that previous confusion expressed as to what was 516 included in a development agreement indicated that revisions were indicated to clarify 517 allocation costs included and other items similar to those identified in a Public 518 Improvement Contract (PIC) between a developer and the City. Mr. Bartholdi noted that 519 some of those items could be broadly identified, include construction of public/private 520 improvements (e.g. street lights), involve erosion control and other items all typical to a 521 PIC and specifically suited to a particular development and/or parcel. 522 Perceived Disparity on Network Trips on Adjacent Parcels 523 City Engineer Bloom clarified that base network trips were determined by existing uses in 524 place, and thus there may appear to be some disparity based on their specific use. 525 Lines 339 – 342, Lines 342 – 346, New Sections B and E 526 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that these new sections were in response to previous 527 Commissioner concerns that more specificity was needed, rather than generalizations 528 (Item B) and were taken directly from AUAR language and references to the Twin lakes 529 Business Park. 530 Chair Boerigter clarified whether park coverings could not be altered. 531 City Engineer Bloom clarified that, as with any development, the grading could be 532 matched at a park boundary as indicated. 533 Chair Boerigter sought clarification on the intent of Section E. 534 City Attorney Bartholdi noted that it referred to the original Twin lakes Master Plan goals, 535 and was incorporated as part of the AUAR and for the benefit of reiterating the City’s 536 goals. 537 Chair Boerigter questioned what it meant in terms of development. 538 Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the history of the original 539 Twin Lakes Master Plan created in 2001, providing a bold document identifying City 540 expectations for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area including uses, but specifically 541 defining the desire for a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly development; provision of 542