2014_07_09_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 7 Member Stellmach questioned if other cities were trending toward having that detailed 295 information moved to the application or if the City of Roseville was leading the charge. 296 Mr. Lloyd stated that it seemed the abstraction for subdivision code trending to other 297 portions of code for those details. Mr. Lloyd noted that the idea for defining the type of 298 subdivision, whether Type 1, 2 or 3, was not the invention of the City of Roseville, but 299 noted that staff had used the City of Bloomington’s model in drafting this document. 300 In Code Sections 1102.02 and 1103, specific violations of zoning code, Member Daire 301 questioned the language related to violation of those requirements as a misdemeanor or 302 criminal offence. 303 Mr. Lloyd advised that, while he had not reviewed that language specifically at this time, 304 opined that the enforcement section was probably verbatim from the zoning code; and 305 was only a place holder at this time, and the City Attorney would address that language in 306 accordance with current law. 307 If that is the correct reading, Member Daire noted that there was then no adjudication 308 preceding a determination of built in this matter, which struck him as needing more 309 acceptable wording for anyone violating it, and not determining guilt and sentencing at 310 the same time, but allowing for an adjudicated process preceding any determination of 311 guilt. Member Daire stated that this was of concern to him. 312 Mr. Bilotta clarified that a determination of guilt or innocence did not get handled at the 313 staff level, but was an enforcement of the court, with the key word being “charged.” Mr. 314 Bilotta noted that anyone could charge anyone with anything, whether it was right or 315 wrong, but if they were found guilty they would need to have gone through a process first. 316 Member Daire stated that he would be more comfortable if the process were more well- 317 defined and the process of adjudication perceived and based on a finding of fact; as well 318 as spelling the process out, including recourse or appeal; and steps beyond the appeal 319 process itself. 320 Mr. Bilotta duly noted that concern of Member Daire, and reiterated Mr. Lloyd’s 321 comments that this section was only meant as a placeholder at this time, and that the 322 City Attorney would manage the language and system. 323 Vice Chair Boguszewski shared the concerns of Member Daire; and asked that the City 324 Attorney provide written comments to the Planning Commission to address or respond to 325 that specific issue as future iterations came forward for review. 326 Specific to park dedication principles and requirements, Member Daire noted that even in 327 infill places, a new development was required to provide park land or cash in lieu of land; 328 and questioned how that impact was actually determined, whether through empirical 329 allotment or by applying a 5% or 10% rule based on the development and how that 330 relationship was determined. Member Daire opined that he had not seen the impact or 331 expected impact of a development actually addressed in park land dedications, and 332 would like to see it defined. 333 Mr. Lloyd advised that State Statute required a direct association between development 334 and park needs, and admitted that current code didn’t do well in addressing it, nor did this 335 proposed language. Mr. Lloyd suggested it be addressed better as the process moved 336 forward, based on administration policy and application in relationship to state law. 337 Member Daire opined that, however calculated, it needed to be more transparent for the 338 Planning Commission, the public and the developer. 339 Mr. Bilotta noted that the 10% rule was fairly standard across the country and was the 340 rationale in earlier developments. Mr. Bilotta cautioned that, with the restrictions in place 341 in MN State Law, if the City’s language because too specific, it delved into the “impact 342 fee” side, directly tying it to the impact situation, which could not be done due to those 343 impact fees in place in MN. In reviewing park dedication requirements in aggregate, Mr. 344 Bilotta advised that some in the metropolitan area were pushing for reconsideration of 345