2011-09-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 16 but by a private party; however, the City had retained sewer rights to dig it up, and would 743 be required to address any contaminated soils at the expense of the taxpayers. Ms. 744 Bloom advised that staff could review other City ordinances to ensure that the City had 745 the strength to enforce this issue through another mechanism. Ms. Bloom noted that this 746 situation will occur in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, given the soil contamination 747 already identified, and the number of pre-existing easements. Ms. Bloom agreed to work 748 with the City Attorney to determine if the City’s exposure could be reduced. 749 Member Boguszewski opined that he wasn’t sure if it was his desire to go that far; and 750 further opined that by adding “staff” to the language it appeared to be a developer-friendly 751 addition, rather than requiring Planning Commission and/or City Council action and 752 keeping it out of the political arena. If it was staff’s recommendation to leave language as 753 is, providing that additional level of protection based on realistic past experience, Member 754 Boguszewski spoke in support of leaving the language as is. 755 City Planner Paschke suggested that it could be revised to “and/or.” 756 City Attorney Bartholdi suggested that the language be clarified to state “if it has 757 jurisdiction.” 758 Regarding the final comment and concern of Ms. Steinwall, Member Boguszewski opined 759 that he didn’t share those concerns. 760 Chair Boerigter concurred that Ms. Bloom articulated a good example; and noted that 761 when language stated “City,” there was a natural concern with the level of 762 reasonableness that abounded. 763 Member Strohmeier stated that he continued to have some concerns with the revised 764 document and recommending it to the City Council without another review at the 765 Planning Commission level, given the amount of discussion and items covered since the 766 last meeting. Member Strohmeier spoke in support of leaving Sections D and E as they 767 were; and thanked staff for language in lines 339-346 to address his previously- 768 expressed concerns. Member Strohmeier questioned if it was better to include, but not 769 limit, protections to Langton Lake and the Oak forests, or revert to the original language. 770 Member Wozniak sought clarification. 771 Member Strohmeier noted the need to look at the Plan for specificity; and suggested 772 adding language as he stated. 773 Member Boguszewski reiterated his preference to have language stating “as appropriate” 774 to soften it. 775 To determine consensus, Member Strohmeier offered a motion, based on his language to 776 “include, but not be limited to;” reinstate language in line 329 to avoid conflicting 777 language; and including language to address concerns about large-scale retail in this 778 area, clarifying that for the purposes of this ordinance, development did not include large- 779 scale retail. 780 Chair Boerigter declared the motion failed due to lack of a second. 781 Storm Water Management, Lines 334 – 344 782 With Commissioner consensus, Chair Boerigter concurred with staff on the rationale for 783 removing language other than by reference. 784 Member Gisselquist concurred with staff and Chair Boerigter on the need to be consistent 785 across City ordinance, opining that the City’s Surface Water Management Plan was 786 specific, and that there was no reason to reiterate it in this ordinance. 787 Related to the aspirations of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, and in response to Chair 788 Boerigter’s query on that particular item, Member Gisselquist concurred with softening 789 the language as suggested. 790