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 />Again, the ordinance specifically states that this applies to the shoreland district not the <br />shoreland management district. Therefore, the restriction on the density of the PUD within 1,000 <br />of the ordinary high water mark must meet the requirement of at least 50% of the area will be <br />preserved as open space. <br /> <br />The 50% requirement applies to the PUD since it applies to the project area and therefore does <br />not include any area that is not part of the PUD such as Langton Lake Park. <br /> <br />Since the project does not meet these two requirements of the Shoreland Management <br />Ordinance, the project is not in compliance with the AUAR mitigation plan which therefore <br />makes the AUAR invalid based on the criteria stated above. <br /> <br />The motion from the Planning Commission had a condition that city staff was to evaluate the <br />project relative to the Roseville Shoreland Ordinance and report on whether the project was in <br />compliance with the ordinance and if it was not in what ways was the project not in compliance. <br />Since the city staff has not in any of its written reports detailed this information, I assume that <br />they have not done a detailed review as they were required to complete. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />Based on this analysis, I state that the project does not meet the mitigation plan passed as part of <br />the AUAR, is not in compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance, no variance to either the <br />Shoreland Ordinance or the mitigation plan has been requested, and therefore this concept plan <br />as proposed must be rejected. <br /> <br />I would recommend that prior to any action by the city council that we receive, at least, a legal <br />opinion from the City Attorney as to the status of this project relative to the Shoreland Ordinance <br />and the AUAR Mitigation Plan. <br /> <br />Sincerely yours <br /> <br />Timothy Callaghan <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.