2014_07_09_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 8 whether assisted living facilities were similar to that provided for park, industrial and 346 commercial buildings. Mr. Bilotta advised that it created a slippery slope; and since 347 everyone was in this together, it may be prudent to avoid getting too detailed to avoid 348 falling into the category of impact fees. 349 Similar to runoff mitigation requirements, Member Daire suggested undertaking some 350 kind of study related to park dedication similar to a study related to expected runoff with 351 intended facilities. Member Daire opined that this to him seemed more reasonable than a 352 percentage just because everyone else does it, while not effectively addressing the 353 equity or actual impact on a case by case basis. Member Daire opined that the principle 354 or purpose of park dedication was to attenuate impacts of additional development on a 355 service area of a park or adjacent land. Member Daire stated that he was not 356 uncomfortable having something like that to put a handle on it; even it Roseville became 357 a leader in that charge, and provide a relationship between what the developer was 358 asked to provide and the anticipated impact the development will make on the park or 359 public utility system. 360 Vice Chair Boguszewski noted that in a vast majority, if not all cases before the Planning 361 Commission during his tenure, the Park & Recreation Commission had made a 362 recommendation for cash in lieu of park land. 363 Mr. Bilotta suggested that may be more of an indication of Roseville being a first-ring 364 suburb; and not generally building new parks, but simply enhancing existing ones. 365 Practically speaking, Vice Chair Boguszewski opined that it defaulted to cash in lieu of 366 land, with a fee schedule dictating that fee, whether a percentage of land or straight fee. 367 However, Vice Chair Boguszewski opined that Member Daire had a valid point, and 368 perhaps the fee could be scaled or tied to the actual impact of the development on the 369 greenway and water runoff; a concept that may be worth exploring. Vice Chair 370 Boguszewski asked if the City had any latitude to change the method by which land or 371 cash in lieu of dedication was established to link it more directly with the estimated 372 impact. Vice Chair Boguszewski agreed with Member Daire, and asked that staff review 373 that concept applied under State Law provisions, for land or cash. 374 Specific to primary park dedication language, Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned if it 375 needed to be included in this document at all, or simply reference the current dedication 376 process as documented in the park dedication ordinance. By having language in this 377 document as well as underlying documents, Vice Chair Boguszewski opined that it 378 seemed another redundancy requiring multiple changes; and suggested the Planning 379 Commission comments be directed to the Park & Recreation Commission and City 380 Council for a determination as to whether the language needed to be included in the 381 Subdivision ordinance or only addressed by reference. 382 Mr. Bilotta clarified that it was a quirk of how Roseville handled park dedications, as it 383 was not handled by the Park & Recreation Commission, but typically recommended by 384 staff to that commission. Mr. Bilotta opined that there was definitely some latitude in how 385 things were handled; with some cities basing their fee on a per unit or per acre basis, with 386 others handling them differently between commercial and other districts. Mr. Bilotta 387 stated that this was a good discussion point and exactly the type of comment and 388 feedback being sought from the Commission for further review. 389 Based on the earlier Preliminary Plat at this evening’s meeting, Vice Chair Boguszewski 390 sought clarification as to whether the Planning Commission was charged with accepting 391 the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission specific to park dedication 392 fees or whether the process of that being established before it got to the Planning 393 Commission was the more accurate process. In the overall charge to the Planning 394 Commission, Vice Chair Boguszewski asked if that should be called out separately to be 395 addressed with each application. 396 Mr. Bilotta advised that cities had different ways of doing it; and if the current process and 397 issues suggested a need to review the current process, it could be done. However, if the 398