CC_Minutes_2012_0917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 17, 2012 Page 9 Mr. Trudgeon noted that consideration should be given to the current economic sit- uation and address past community controversy on uses in the Twin Lakes Rede- velopment Area; with situations different in 2001 and 2007 compared to the pre- sent. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had some thoughts on how this process should work, if the City Council chose this option. Let AUAR lapse and let existing zoning code and regulating plan govern develop- ment. Mr. Trudgeon noted that current environmental investigations and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Response Action Plans provided significant recognition and monitoring of development; and the current language in the Over- lay District states that a developer must provide a RAP. Mr. Trudgeon suggested this language be incorporated into City Code to address the bigger issue at Twin Lakes. Mr. Trudgeon noted that traffic drove inconvenience, costs, etc. Given the challenges as a result of recent litigation, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City could no longer use the allocation agreement, and could only assess a project to collect for road improvements. With any individual development, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City required a traffic study to understand impacts, and could codify that in City Code more directly as well as setting up a process for assessments. While unsure how that would work, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was becoming apparent that the City needed to be proactive to identify areas for roadway assess- ments, with lots of ideas on how to best approach that through current piecemeal development of individual properties versus the now defunct master plan or devel- opment process. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that there may no longer be a need for an over-arching AUAR document, even though they remain good documents. Under the first option listed to update the AUAR, Mayor Roe noted this would take several months to complete, and if the existing AUAR expired in October, what happened in the interim, and would individual projects be reviewed on their own merit. Mr. Trudgeon concurred that the current AUAR would lapse, but the City Council's preferred option would dictate future action. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon expanded on Option 2. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while many of the visioning processes pre-dated his ten- ure with the City, they were performed by community outreach groups serving as a steering committee (e.g. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee). Mr. Trudgeon opined that, while those were of great value with good work provided by citizens, they didn't get to the heart of the matter and served to delay the necessary discus- sion by the policy-making body, the City Council itself, since they ultimately made the final decision. In this particular interest, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would envision the Steering Committee to be the City Council itself, with them interacting with the public, property owners, consultants, and staff during whatever process