My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0723
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0723
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2007 11:59:30 AM
Creation date
9/12/2007 11:59:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/23/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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 C®uncil eating <br />~I®nday, July 23, 2007 <br />Page 52 <br />dated July 6, 2007 to John Livingston from Jon Larsen, Principal <br />Planner with the Environmental Quality Board. Mr. Livingston noted <br />the projected tax base and lodging tax that would be realized by the <br />community based on the property's estimated market value. <br />Additional discussion included surface water impacts; underlying con- <br />tamination and whether the City could obtain the environmental re- <br />ports completed by the previous Twin Lakes developer and subject to <br />court order; traffic issues; past practice for meeting the water runoff in <br />the area and requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District; City <br />Attorney opinion on the process for Preliminary Plat approval and <br />conditions; and need for a mitigation plan for the entire area, based on <br />an updated AUAR. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that it would not be inconsistent for <br />someone needing to complete and EAW even with an AUAR in place. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council had bent over <br />backwards to work with the applicant; yet continued to find inadequa- <br />cies in the information reluctantly provided to staff for review and re- <br />commendation to the City Council. <br />~/Ir. Livingston noted that he has always supported extension of the <br />center island addressed in traffic study; however, opined that staff s <br />representation of conclusions and scope of the traffic study had been <br />misconstrued. Mr. Livingston verbally reviewed his written comment <br />as previously noted. <br />® art aje <br />1VIr. Hajek advised that his client couldn't wait any longer with the <br />property remaining dormant. Mr. f-Iajek further advised that the prop- <br />erty would be sold for development or returned to a truck terminal. <br />~/Ir. Hajek noted that the previous eminent domain was not a pleasant <br />experience and created additional and unnecessary delays. Mr. Hajek <br />cautioned that, if necessary, his client would consider litigation to <br />clear the property for development. <br />Councilmember Pust noted standing comments from the City's traffic <br />consultant regarding unsafe mitigation strategies, and questioned the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.