My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0510
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0510
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:28:56 AM
Creation date
12/15/2005 10:56:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/10/2004
Meeting Type
Town Hall
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 - 05/10/04 <br />Minutes - Page 13 <br /> <br />criteria above statutory environmental criteria to be more <br />responsive to citizen concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke noted that staff had sought additional information, <br />review and comment from the Department of Natural Resources <br />(DNR) related to this project, but the DNR had responded that <br />the project site was non-jurisdictional wetland and declined <br />comment. Mr. Paschke further noted that the City's existing <br />ordinance related to wetlands and stormwater regulation was <br />therefore the sole jurisdictional reference. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan recommended that this project serve as a <br />learning experience as it relates to environmental issues; and that <br />staff pursue more wide-spread notification of concerned citizens <br />outside the 350' notification area, so there would be less <br />frustration expressed by the public regarding their lack of <br />involvement in the process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough reiterated his support of the project, <br />noting the additional tax monies and enhancement of the area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder spoke in support of the project, <br />noting that expressed environmental concerns had been <br />addressed by staff, and that the project would be monitored <br />during its construction phases. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted his proximity to this neighborhood; and <br />his viewpoint from a City Council standpoint in the validity of <br />the project and the additional controls available to the City for <br />the project's development through a PUD, rather than what <br />would be available for construction of single-family homes on <br />the site requiring only a Building Permit, and the additional land <br />obtained for park expansion through the park dedication. Mayor <br />Klausing referenced Exhibits F and G of the Development <br />Agreement related to tree inventory and preservation and <br />landscaping plans respectively, and the advantages gained by the <br />City in being able to stipulate these items as part of the PUD. <br />Mayor Klausing suggested that the landscape materials plan may <br />need to be more stringent in defining plant materials, and specifY <br />that the developer work with neighbors in developing the buffer. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.