CC_Minutes_2008_0519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 19, 2008 Page 22 Councilmember Pust asked if the developer clearly understood and agreed with the proposed language; with Mr. Noble responding affirmatively; noting that the concern was that where it was possible to utilize portions of existing paved areas, rather than constructing new roadways for temporary access purposes, it would provide cost savings to the project. Mr. Noble assured the City Council that it was the developers' intent to make sure that the right-of--way was kept clear and useable at all times during the construction process. Section 9.18 Final Ri it-of-way/Public Easements Mr. Noble sought clarification, since this would be the first development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, that language be clarified to ensure that final right-of--way acquisition costs are as allocated in the AUAR Infrastructure Im- provements study dated February 2008, page four. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was agreeable to staff; and that the allocation study included costs for design and construction costs for infrastructure improvements. City Attorney Squires clarified that the referenced Section 9.18, was actually Sec- tion 9.19. City Attorney Squires expressed some discomfort with the PUD Agreement as presented by staff for approval, and the suggested revisions or clarifications by the developer, and affirmed with the developer each specific section as previously addressed. City Attorney asked, for the record, clarification by the developer on his agreement or opposition to language on each of the following sections, as dis- cussed previously: Section 9.14 (Development Fees) and Section ~ X9191 (Final Ri t-of- Way/Public Easements) Mr. Noble responded that the developer had no opposition to final language, as per the staff report dated May 19, 2008, on either of these sections. Section 9.15 (Temporary Access City Attorney Squires asked if the developer accepted revised language to this section, as suggested by Councilmember Pust, and to be reflected in the language of the final PUD Agreement. Mr. Noble advised that the developer accepted the revised language to this sec- tion, as previously suggested by Councilmember Pust. Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1368 entitled, "An Or- dinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code, Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area from General Industrial (I-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), with an Un- derlying Zoning of Mixed Use Business District (B-6);"