My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 - 06/20/05 <br />Minutes - Page 23 <br /> <br />addressed light pollution and provided City Manager Beets <br />with a copy of a printout from the "Dark Sky Association" <br />outlining a model lighting ordinance he recommended that <br />the City consider adopting. <br /> <br />Carol Erickson, 2925 Mildred Drive <br />Ms. Erickson read a quotation from a recent newspaper <br />article related to the continuing success of mixed use <br />developments (retail/residential) and national market <br />trends; and encouraged the City Council to vote for this <br />development. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 9:22 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing requested that City staff and consultants <br />address those concerns and comments raised during the <br />Public Hearing; listing those items as he had them <br />summarized. <br /> <br />Discussion and clarification included limitations on <br />environmental clean up costs; additional environmental <br />testing in process to quantify risk; burden on developer to <br />accomplish the environmental remediation process for all <br />parcels in the redevelopment project; potential use of <br />Eminent Domain as a last resort, and in consideration of <br />pending legislation and litigation, with provisions <br />adequately addressed in the proposed Redevelopment <br />Agreement; City Attorney Scott Anderson reiterating City <br />Attorney opinion that no Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />was required; and pending litigation of Friends of Twin <br />Lakes vs. the City of Roseville and potential summary <br />judgment decisions within 90 days. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough wished to go on record that he is of <br />the opinion, along with Councilmember Ihlan, that <br />amendment of the Comprehensive Plan requires a 4/5 vote <br />of the City Council. <br /> <br />Further discussion and clarification included limited <br />expenses in the area for infrastructure demand and <br />developer responsibility versus city responsibilities (i.e., <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.