My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0110
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0110
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:25:42 AM
Creation date
5/17/2005 3:20:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/10/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 01/10/05 <br />Minutes - Page 18 <br /> <br />Ms. Mockovak opined her opposition to "big box" development, <br />citing her own neighborhood's transportation difficulties. Ms. <br />Mockovak further opined that there was more than enough retail <br />in Roseville, and that this was an issue for the entire community, <br />not just the Twin Lakes neighborhood. <br /> <br />Kristin Sandau, 3070 Mount Ridge Road <br />Ms. Sandau echoed concerns previously expressed related to lack <br />of proposed sidewalks and other safety concerns not yet <br />addressed; the detriment of increased development; increased <br />pollutants found in the area; and expressed frustration that her <br />previous written concerns had not been addressed yet. Ms. <br />Sandau concluded by opining that "we don't want big box; we <br />don't need it; what we have is sufficient." <br /> <br />Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane <br />Mr. Callaghan presented a written handout with his extensive <br />personal analysis and opinion that the proposed project does not <br />meet the mitigation plan passed as part of the AUAR; is not in <br />compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance; no variance to either <br />the Shoreland Ordinance or the mitigation plan has been <br />requested; and reasoned therefore that the concept plan as <br />proposed must be rejected. <br /> <br />Mr. Callaghan further recommended that, prior to any action by <br />the City Council, that at the least a legal opinion from the City <br />Attorney be received as to the status of this project relative to the <br />Shoreland Ordinance and the AUAR Mitigation Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Callaghan proceeded to provide his interpretation of the <br />background, summary, and details related to the requirements of <br />a Planned Unit Development (PUD) outlined by City Code, <br />Section 1016.24; and Water Management Overlay Districts <br />outlined by City Code in Section 1016.12. Mr. Callaghan's <br />overriding concern appeared to be staffs interpretation of a 300 <br />foot setback, rather than a 1,000 foot setback from Langton Lake <br />to the proposed redevelopment and location of the Twin Lakes <br />Parkway. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson briefly responded to several of Mr. <br />Callaghan's interpretations and definitions of a Shoreland <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.