My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0504
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2015 1:09:19 PM
Creation date
5/21/2015 12:23:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/4/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, May 4, 2015 <br /> Page 31 <br /> Ms. McCormick asked how oversized bays would be addressed and whether <br /> they'd be allowed or not, in addition to many other questions with this use pro- <br /> posed so close to Langton Lake and single-family residences. <br /> All in all, Ms. McCormick noted that 65 surveys had been returned, contrasted <br /> with 80 signatures on several very specific petitions. Under those circumstances, <br /> Ms. McCormick stated that she felt slighted, and in some respects felt things were <br /> moving forward, while in other areas they were not. <br /> Tim Callaghan,3062 Shorewood Lane <br /> From his perspective, Mr. Callaghan stated his belief that the City was pursuing <br /> too high density next to a residential area. Mr. Callaghan opined that the City <br /> plan didn't used to allow HDR next to residential, but required MDR on the way <br /> and as a buffer. In his review of this, Mr. Callaghan stated a multi-family build- <br /> ing with 400 residents was fine next to a single-family neighborhood (Subarea A, <br /> formerly Subarea 4), which he found to be a mistake and didn't understand why <br /> duplexes were not being allowed when two townhomes were permitted in the <br /> same area and could look the same as long as they weren't called duplexes. Mr. <br /> Callaghan opined that he was having a hard time with definitions, since those two <br /> seemed so close to each other and either provided a transition to HDR from the <br /> single-family residential area. Mr. Callaghan expressed his lack of certainty if <br /> multi-family housing was allowed in Subarea C; and stated he had no problem <br /> with it in Subarea B. <br /> Mr. Callaghan opined that big box retail didn't belong anywhere in this area; and <br /> while there was a certain amount of retail the City could still support and had the <br /> ability to handle traffic to accommodate; it, all that appeared to him to be happen- <br /> ing was that additional retail was increasing the load for Police and Fire personnel <br /> without generating any additional revenue beyond that paid for by Roseville tax- <br /> payers, which was not a good idea in his opinion. <br /> Personally, Mr. Callaghan stated he would not include the red line on the dis- <br /> played map, as it was way too close to Langton Lake Park and he would back it <br /> down. Mr. Callaghan reiterated statements made at previous Council meetings <br /> regarding his lack of support or belief in the whole Twin Lakes Parkway issue <br /> and City Council responses heard during that time as a result of a fake traffic <br /> study assuming six lanes on Snelling Avenue. Mr. Callaghan agreed with Coun- <br /> cilmember McGehee's proposal for the line more horizontal; and again ques- <br /> tioned the rationale for building Twin Lakes Parkway at all, therefore not using it <br /> as a dividing line for Subareas and uses. <br /> Kathleen Erickson, Centennial Drive <br /> When this process was begun almost a year ago, Ms. Erickson opined that she felt <br /> it was a last attempt to participate in civic planning and discussion. However, at <br /> this point, Ms. Erickson opined she found it in some ways to have been a fruitless <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.