My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_1108
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_1108
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:32:16 AM
Creation date
2/16/2006 11:06:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/8/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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 - 11/08/04 <br />Minutes - Page 29 <br /> <br />presented. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification as to whether <br />public comment would be allowed in writing, if not <br />verbally, to allow that comment to become part of the <br />public record. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka spoke In support of allowing <br />written public comment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether neighborhood <br />notice provisions would be followed, similar to a public <br />hearing before the Planning Commission; and encouraged <br />additional press coverage be sought, but at a minimum the <br />Twin Lakes neighbors. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson recommended that, in any <br />newspaper notice, public comments be submitted to a <br />certain individual by a certain date to avoid oversight; in <br />addition to notice on the City's website. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that, while the two-day response <br />time was short, there should be nothing "shocking" from <br />either side, given the amount of information received to- <br />date from all parties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder sought clarification from City <br />Attorney Anderson regarding the process following the <br />City Council decision and that decision as it related to the <br />planning case. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that, if the petition were <br />granted by the City Council, with the Council making a <br />determination that the AUAR was no longer and that an <br />EA W would be required, that decision could be challenged <br />in Ramsey County District Court as well. City Attorney <br />Anderson noted that the court looked at whether the ROU <br />made a reasonable, quasi-judicial decision. Mr. Anderson <br />noted that the court standard was clear; they would look at <br />the record of what the Council did. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.