2014_07_09_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 9 current system was working in general, Mr. Bilotta suggested it be left intact, especially 399 based on the fully developed community represented by Roseville and preferred fee 400 versus a small park in those smaller development areas still available, or being infilled in 401 existing neighborhoods. If the City had an asset such as the TCAAP development site, 402 Mr. Bilotta noted that then such a discussion may be more prudent if the developer 403 intended to build those parks as lots, with the 10% providing enforcement for park land. 404 Vice Chair Boguszewski expressed understanding for the cash grab; however, from a 405 process issue, using the previous preliminary plat as an example, he questioned which 406 city body authorized acceptance of the actual case fee in lieu of land. 407 Mr. Paschke clarified that the Parks & Recreation Commission made the 408 recommendation, reported to the Planning Commission, and subsequently to the City 409 Council who made the final decision. 410 Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned whether the Planning Commission had any authority 411 to not agree with that commission’s recommendation. 412 Mr. Bilotta advised that neither body had authority to do anything; but if the Planning 413 Commission felt strongly that the Parks & Recreation Commission was not going in the 414 right direction, they could make a recommendation to the City Council and indicate it as 415 part of Comprehensive Plan efforts indicating that a park was needed in this area and 416 recommending that the City Council override the Parks & Recreation Commission’s 417 recommendation. 418 Mr. Lloyd displayed the actual park dedication language in Section 1103.07.A. 419 Member Murphy suggested other voices and commissions should review and address 420 park dedication or fee recommendations before it reached the City Council level. 421 Mr. Bilotta noted that Item E of this section addressed reducing fees or land, but strictly 422 tied to affordable housing incentives, not inconsistently done from one application to 423 another. 424 Vice Chair Boguszewski observed that the only point the Planning Commission could 425 then make would be a counter-recommendation to the Parks & Recreation Commission’s 426 original recommendation. If it is that straight forward, Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned 427 why it was needed in this Subdivision Ordinance at all, since it could be pointed to 428 another underlying code document. 429 Mr. Boguszewski opined that one reason to keep it in this document, although not 430 duplicating efforts, was that it kept the Planning Commission in control. 431 Mr. Paschke suggested determining whether it was essential to provide enabling 432 legislation tied to the whole subdivision process form the Planning Commission to the 433 City Council. While this may be the reason to keep it in this language, Mr. Paschke 434 suggested that it needed future review and an exploration of the options based on this 435 discussion. 436 MOTION 437 At approximately 8:15 p.m., Vice Chair Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member 438 Murphy to CONTINUE the Public Hearing to a subsequent meeting of the Planning 439 Commission. 440 Ayes: 6 441 Nays: 0 442 Motion carried. 443 6. Adjourn 444 Vice Chair Boguszewski adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. 445