My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1016
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:41:12 AM
Creation date
10/24/2006 1:04:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/16/2006
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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 -10/16/06 <br />Minutes - Page 12 <br /> <br />costs to the City; cost-sharing or assignment to developers; and <br />contrasts between both. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust noted a land use seminar she'd attended <br />and a presentation by the City of Maple Grove Community <br />Development Director, and requested that Mr. Stark get <br />information from the City of Maple Grove related to passing on <br />costs to developers for environmental review. <br /> <br />Discussion included policy and staff perspectives in planning <br />effectively and which proved a better development tool, with Mr. <br />Stark preferring the AUAR methodology for proactive future <br />development, rather than an EIS used as a reactive tool. <br /> <br />Several bench handouts were provided and referenced by Mr. <br />Stark. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan renewed her intent to have an action <br />motion on next week's business agenda to seek hire of an <br />outside, environmental counsel for a legal analysis. <br /> <br />Further discussion included costs and benefits; scopes of study; <br />the AUAR process; status of the City's hiring of DSU, and <br />anticipated community meetings and other scheduled events <br />beginning in November; and future development scenarios. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included eXlstmg and proposed <br />development scenarios and aspects of the AUAR; ownership of <br />the development property; existence of the development <br />contract; time lines; public input; existing land use and <br />Comprehensive Plan Update requirements; 60-day review period <br />for land use applications; and staffs comments on their initial <br />review of the new Twin Lakes LLC application, and pending <br />staff meeting with City Attorneys this week to gain their legal <br />perspective of the application. <br /> <br />Concluding discussion included the incorporation of nine Master <br />Plans within the City's Comprehensive Plan; and staffs analysis <br />to-date on those Plans, their consistency with the Comprehensive <br />Plan, and their intent. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.