Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, June 18, 2007 <br />Page 24 <br />the motion be made contingent upon approval of the rezoning; with <br />the makers of the motion accepting the recommendation as a friendly <br />amendment. <br />Additional discussion included staff s impervious surface calculations <br />and their application to the PUD and shoreland management; and <br />staff'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 with those issues; expressed concern <br />that the project took up the entire site, with no room for park dedica- <br />tion; and reiterated her concern that the environmental 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 />Councilmember Pust spoke against the motion, opining that, while it <br />seemed prudent for a development on this site, she preferred the ear- <br />lier plans showing a transition between single-family homes and the <br />co-op building, and even though she recognized the purpose for the <br />plan as submitted, she had several concerns. Councilmember Pust <br />further opined that she didn't believe that Roseville needed more age- <br />restricted housing, even though it needed more multi-family housing; <br />and noted her interests in seeing the Twin Lakes area develop as a <br />comprehensive whole, rather. than piecemeal. Councilmember Pust <br />noted that she usually relied on the recommendation of staff and the <br />Planning Commission, and noted that the Planning Commission <br />wasn't convinced that this was a good use of this site either. Coun- <br />cilmember Pust disagreed with Councilmember Ihlan's opinion that <br />the City needed to pursue a formal park access; and opined that if the <br />