My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0621
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:19 AM
Creation date
2/9/2006 2:19:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Legal Publications
Meeting Date
6/21/2004
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 Study Session - 06/21/04 <br />Minutes - Page 8 <br /> <br />refinements required). Mr. Shardlow noted that on July 12, <br />2004, the Advisory Panel, Planning Commission and staff <br />would meet for a fast-paced, information-filled summary of <br />the entire process to-date. Mr. Shardlow concluded by <br />summarizing the express purpose of the process and the <br />Panel to engage the group of citizen/community <br />representatives in bringing information to the Development <br />Team so the Team was fully informed of the input as they <br />put their process together. Mr. Shardlow noted that the <br />process had worked well with good exchanges between the <br />Panel and the Development Team, and had reached <br />consensus on a number of issues, with other key issues <br />clearly identified, but with no real current consensus at this <br />time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted, for background purposes, that <br />she had been following the process and panel discussions, <br />and expressed concern about several issues. <br />1) Her opinion that the four proposals presented at <br />the end of the process were similar to those <br />originally proposed, and their inclusion of a large <br />scale retailer (i.e., Costco); and <br />2) Why no other alternatives or types of retail <br />development were considered given lack of <br />consensus that a "big box" retailer was essential for <br />project's economics. <br />Councilmember Ihlan concluded by asking what had been <br />gained by the process if the same proposals were put <br />forward as had originally been presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Shardlow responded to Councilmember Ihlan's <br />concerns that, at the July 12, 2004 meeting, it was proposed <br />to present the proposed retail component in more detail; <br />noting that portion of the project was substantially different <br />and smaller than originally proposed. Mr. Shardlow noted <br />that the retailer would be 100,000 square feet less than <br />originally proposed, would see a reduction in over half of <br />the total traffic trips per day; and that the overall comments <br />of the Panel had been more positive than negative for this <br />aspect of the development. Mr. Shardlow further noted that <br />the development team needed to bring forth a plan that was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.