My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2008 10:23:32 AM
Creation date
2/19/2008 10:23:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/28/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
12egular Clty Council Meeting <br />Monday, January 28, 2008 <br />Page 25 <br />fiting property owners, in this case only impacting Har Mar Mall on the east leg; <br />and increased benefits to the property owner. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against language that would be expansive enough to <br />commit the Har Mar Mall owners to future improvements without further discus- <br />sion. <br />Additional discussion included potential future improvements and the neighbor- <br />hood/property owner information, notification and public hearing processes; clari- <br />fying that the Firestone portion (PF07-053) and the Backyard Grill (PF07-062) <br />cases were two separate agreements. <br />Mr. Hart assured Councilmembers that the applicant was agreeable to paying their <br />fair share; however, were concerned with the appearance that encumbrances for <br />future improvements be placed on the property at this time; as they should be ap- <br />plicable under Chapter 429 provisions. <br />Mayor Klausing suggested inserting "as governed by applicable law" to staff's <br />proposed language. <br />Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposed language of the resolution. was also incor- <br />porated in the proposed PUD Agreement, and that both would need to be revised <br />in any action taken tonight. <br />Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, revised draft resolution language, page 2, line 14, <br />Item 6: to read as follows: "... ingress/egress in the future should the City deter- <br />mine, in its reasonable discretion, [under applicable law,] that traffic safety con- <br />siderations warrant it. <br />Councilmember Ihlan suggested a friendly amendment with revised draft resolu- <br />tion language, page 2, line 10 - 15, mirroring that requested by the applicant, to <br />read as follows: "While not requiring closure of this ingress/egress as a part of the <br />approval of the PUD Amendment, the parties acknowledge that the City does not <br />waive, and hereby retains, any right which it may have under applicable law to <br />require closure of the ingress and/or egress from such westerly driveway in the fu- <br />ture should the City determine, in its reasonable discretion, that traffic safety con- <br />siderations warrant it." <br />Councilmember Roe, as the maker of the motion, accepted Councilmember Ih- <br />lan's friendly amendment. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the staff recommended language was sufficient. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.