Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagett <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 18, 1988 <br /> <br />requirement of a zoning approval unless it fell under the <br />parkland dedication requirements following the sub-division <br />regulations. Waldron pointed out that under the city's <br />contractual powers we could negotiate a dedication as part of a <br />developers agreement required for tax increment financing. <br /> <br />Johnson asked how this would be implemented. Waldron responded <br />that this should not be an ordinance or a written policy, but <br />that the commission and council could encourage staff to consider <br />dedication in it's negotiation with developers. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned the timing of these negotiations. Waldron <br />replied that it typically occurs concurrently with planning <br />commission review of planning matters. staff would inform the <br />commission about the status of negotiations if planning review <br />was ahead of the developers agreement. The commission could <br />approve a project with the condition that a developers agreement <br />be entered into. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned whether the city would always require 10% <br />dedication. Waldron answered that in some situations, 10% might <br />not be appropriate and that this could be modified. Goedeke <br />asked that if the 10% dedication was not given, could the city <br />turn down tax increment financing assistance. Waldron responded <br />that the city could deny tax increment financing in that case. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that a design proposed by a developer could <br />already include the 10% dedication. Dahlgren indicated that in <br />many cases developers don't oppose this kind of a dedication. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked that if a developer could pass the cost of this <br />dedication on to the city by requesting additional tax increment <br />financing. Waldron commented that a smart developer could <br />attempt to offset his costs in this manner. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Maschka seconded, to recommend that the 10% <br />dedication be an item left to the city in it's development <br />agreement/negotiating process according to it's contractual <br />authority in state law. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Maschka, <br />DeBenedet, Johnson <br /> <br />Moeller, <br /> <br />Berry, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Review of desiqn standards for Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br /> <br />Johnson asked the commission if it was appropriate to consider <br />this item in light of the fact that there was no audience <br />