CC_Minutes_2007_1015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

eg Iar ity ~o ii ecti g ondy, c er I5, age 13 Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10563 entitled, "A Reso- lution Adopting the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update for the Twin Lakes Business Park; "incorporating comments and responses as detailed in the staff report dated October 15, 2007 and as discussed tonight; and language as amended on Page 73, as per previous motion. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in apposition to the motion; reiterating her previous comments on the need for additional environmental review; preservation of the Oak forest; and impacts to neighborhoods due to potential increases in traffic. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her disappointment with fellow Councilmembers and their assumed support of the motion; opining that Roseville could do better in improving quality of life issues in Roseville. Councilmember Roe expressed his disappointment in being accused of allowing "big box" retail as a use; and clarified that voting on the AUAR provided the City with an analysis of potential developments or uses; and by approving the docu- ment allowed the City to be aware of potential impacts of various types of land use and development; and was critical information to have as apolicy-maker. Councilmember Roe opined that, if a project came forward that he, as a policy- maker, didn't support, he would not support it. Councilmember Roe expressed further disappointment that, if the Council was supposed to look out for the City's environment, that this detailed look, as represented by worst case scenarios, it was implied that the Council was in favor of doubling traffic and/or ruining life in Roseville. Councilmember Roe further clarified that the document provided a de- tailed environmental review, and was a tool to use when reviewing potential de- velopment projects and uses; and spoke in support of the motion specifically for the purpose of using it as a tool in evaluating future land use applications. Councilmember Ihlan advocated fora "no build" scenario in the AUAR. Mr. Carlson advised that this would not be applicable to AUAR provisions. Councilmember Pust opined that she had no need to use taxpayer monies to pay a consultant to study what would happen environmentally if nothing changed; and clarified that the purpose of an AUAR was not the same as a land use application. Councilmember Pust opined that if the Council, as leaders, wanted to set the tone for what was or wasn't allowed in the community, by expressing an opposition to "big box" retail, that an individual Councilmember should move such action ac- cordingly. Councilmember Pust further opined that by identifying a "worst case scenario" of environmental impacts, traffic issues and neighborhood impacts, of a potential use; and what mitigation measures would be required or applicable, the AUAR provided such information and mitigation to prevent such events. Coun- cilmember Pust opined that is was simply name-calling to say that a vote in favor of the AUAR was a vote in favor of the worst case scenario, and required a sub- stantial leap of logic.