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 - 01110/05 <br />Minutes - Page 24 <br /> <br />actual roadway, and the right-of-way, with the elevations <br />defining the location of the parkway approximately 97 feet from <br />Langton Lake. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, denial of all requested land use <br />applications as outlined in the staff report dated January 10, <br />2004. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan presented her rationale for why Rottlund's <br />proposal should not be approved, and proceeded to detail each <br />point in her argument: <br />- Unsupportable traffic increases in nearby residential <br />neighborhoods; <br />- Negative impacts on Langton Lake and Park; <br />- Roseville does not need more big retail; <br />- Unresolved environmental issues require further study; <br />- Rottlund's proposal violates state law, city ordinances and the <br />City's Comprehensive Plan; <br />- No competitive bidding on project; and <br />- Rottlund's proposal is an example of bad suburban sprawl <br />development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan provided additional suggestions on how <br />Roseville could do better: <br />1) Do a genuine "community-based" planning process; <br />2) Build consensus from community up; <br />3) Go out into the market and solicit bids to see if we can attract <br />corporate clients; can't do now because we're locked into <br />development agreement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's <br />analysis and opined that the development was in violation of the <br />City's Comprehensive Plan; and spoke in support of the motion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder opined his complete disagreement <br />with Councilmember Ihlan's traffic interpretations of the <br />information provided. Councilmember Schroeder addressed the <br />developer's responsibility to prove water quality and quantity <br />standards and the lake quality improvements to be realized <br />through the development. Councilmember Schroeder opined that <br />the recent expansions of Target and Rosedale Center supported <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.