2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

158 noted this provided an opportunity for feedback from the City Council and public for the 159 applicant. 160 Councilmember McGehee stated she found this list similar to that used for past 161 Environmental Assessment Worksheet forms, as a checklist, with “not applicable” for boxes 162 as appropriate, and as her preference for such a checklist to come before the City Council. 163 Mayor Roe requested the consultant, by general consensus, to add staff justification of 164 administrative waivers of requirements as part of the process and reflected in language 165 accordingly. 166 Timeframe (Page 8) 167 Mr. Bilotta noted that typically in ordinance the timeframes were one year and 180 days. 168 However, realistically with Minnesota weather, Mr. Bilotta noted how that could impact 169 development and construction cycles, resulting in the 365 day time period depending on 170 when the process was initiated and how long analysis required, with the ultimate goal of 171 developers with a contract to get through the process as quickly as possible. 172 Without objection, the City Council agreed. 173 To be consistent, Councilmember Laliberte asked that the 15/45 day period be followed. 174 However, Councilmember Laliberte noted current work by two advisory commissions on 175 notification process and their task force recommendations, asking that the consultant 176 acknowledge their work and recommendations as they related to this document. 177 Operating and maintenance requirements for common area – single ownership (Page 12) 178 Mayor Roe agreed that the city didn’t want to get into dispute resolution. 179 Mr. Bilotta agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the documents should be recorded 180 between parties, but somehow injecting the city as an intervening party in case one of the 181 other parties defaulted (e.g. snow removal) to resolve any issues. 182 Mayor Roe questioned if the city would be enforcing the terms of any PUD. 183 As an example, Councilmember Willmus, noted cross titles of properties. 184 Mr. Bilotta noted the need for the city to be third party to a PUD agreement so other parties 185 couldn’t undo any situation. 186 Cancellation (Page 13) 187 Councilmember Willmus opined there was a viable role for the City to have cancellation 188 authority should a PUD at some point in the future come forward for rezoning or 189 redevelopment, and retain the ability to terminate any agreement in place. 190 Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in better understanding that. 191 City Planner Paschke used the 1980’s era Center Pointe development as an example; and 192 current issues specific to uses, with that PUD amended two separate times already, and 193 difficulties in selling one vacant lot because uses for it were currently so narrowly defined. 194 Mr. Paschke opined that the only option to address that was to cancel the PUD or 195 modify/amend the PUD. By having the ability for the City to cancel the entire PUD, Mr. 196 Paschke advised that it would allow them to look at the entire PUD and determine whether or