Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Coancil Meeting <br />DRAFT Minutes of Monday, June 18, 2007 <br />Page 24 <br />I the motion be made contingent upon approval of ihe rezoning; with <br />2 the makers of the motion accepting the recommendatzon as a friendly <br />3 amendment. <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />S <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />Additional discussion included staff s impervious surface calculations <br />and their application to the PUD and shoreland management; and <br />staf�s application of City Code to meet goals and policies of the <br />City's comprehensive stormwater plan. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining that addi- <br />tional environmental review was necessary, at a minimum a discre- <br />tionary EAW due to the proposed density of the project, determining <br />impacts of shadow concerns, height, traffic, impacts of the new road <br />and addition of more impervious surface, loss of trees, and loss of <br />wildlife habitat. Councilmember Ihlan expressed interest in pursuing <br />a development project that dealt wifh those issues; expressed concern <br />that the project took up the entire site, witl� no room for park dedica-- <br />tion; and reiteratied her concern that the environmenial issues were not <br />given more time and attention. Councilmember Ihlan further opined <br />that the sheer bulk of the building was too dense for this neighborhood <br />and didn't fit in; and supported the City seeking formal access to <br />Langton Lake Park rather than incorporating the access into this de-- <br />velopment plan. <br />25 Councilmember Pust spoke against the motion, opining that, while it <br />26 seemed prudent for a development on this si�e, she preferred the ear- <br />27 lier plans showing a transition between single-family homes and the <br />28 co-op building, and even though she recognized the purpose for ihe <br />29 plan as submitted, she had several concerns. Councilmembex Pust <br />30 further opined �hat she didn't believe that Roseville needed more age- <br />31 restricted housing, even though it needed more multi-family housing; <br />32 and noted her interests in seeing the Twin Lakes area develop as a <br />33 comprehensive whole, rather tha.n piecemeal. Councilmember Pust <br />34 noted that she usually reli�d on the recommendation of staff and the <br />35 Planning Commission, and noted that the Planning Coin.mission <br />36 wasn't convinced that this was a good use of this site either. Coun- <br />37 cilmember Pust disagreed with Councilmember Ihlan's opinion #hat <br />38 the City needed to pursue a formal park access; and opined that if the <br />