My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0927
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0927
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:31:50 AM
Creation date
2/15/2006 12:37:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/27/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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 - 09/27/04 <br />Minutes - Page 21 <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding staff tin1e; cost of postage; <br />anticipated number of additional mailings required; the purpose <br />of the published notice in expanding the limits of the mailing; <br />and recipients being the property owner of record from the <br />Ramsey County property database. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke in favor of the motion, noting this <br />proposed development was the most important development the <br />City will ever consider, and expressed his desire to hear from as <br />many citizens as possible. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br /> <br />Ayes: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Nays: Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. <br /> <br />Motion failed. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing clarified, for those watching via cable <br />television, that the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission <br />would be held on October 6, 2004 and Continued to October 14, <br />2004 with public comment taken at both meetings. <br /> <br />Twin Lakes Redevelopment Project, Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendment <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted that the mailed notice made no <br />mention of the proposed amendment to the City's <br />Comprehensive Plan, suggesting this omission raised another <br />legal question. Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification as to <br />whether a Comprehensive Plan amendment was required, <br />referencing previous action on August 6, 2003 for another case; <br />and questioned and sought clarification as to whether a majority <br />vote was required. Councilmember Ihlan further questioned <br />whether Twin Lakes Master Site Plan could be amended without <br />amending the City's COlnprehensive Plan; and opined that there <br />were inconsistencies between the land uses now being proposed <br />for the Twin Lakes redevelopment and the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson, in response to Mayor Klausing's <br />request for clarification, noted his previous written legal opinion <br />dated August 9, 2004 that addressed at least one of <br />Councilmelnber Ihlan' s concerns. Mr. Anderson noted that, <br /> <br />Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment <br />Project, <br />Comprehensive <br />Plan Amendment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.