My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0825
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0825
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2008 12:50:29 PM
Creation date
9/12/2008 12:50:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/25/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 Council Meeting <br />Monday, August 25, 2008 <br />Page 17 <br />Nays: Pust; Roe; Willmus; and Klausing. <br />Motion failed. <br />Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10652 entitled, "A <br />Resolution Denying the Citizen Petition for an Environmental Assessment Work- <br />sheet (EAW) for the Applewood Pointe at Langton Lake, 3008-3010 Cleveland <br />Avenue N (PF07-006)." <br />Mayor Klausing recognized citizen petitioner concerns; but opined that informa- <br />tion and evidentiary materials presented did not indicate the necessity of reopen- <br />ing the AUAR Update. Mayor Klausing noted that AUAR assumptions were, and <br />had been, that some type of development would occur on that site, whether office <br />or housing; and opined that there was no basis for an EAW. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Pust; Roe; Willmus; and Klausing. <br />Nays: Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that an outcome of tonight's discussion regarding <br />visual impacts was a consideration that future decision-making needed to take <br />into account; not based on the "not in my backyard (NIMBY) sense, but how a <br />project or development affects the overall area. <br />Councilmember Roe noted that the next item on tonight's agenda was to consider <br />the final PUD for this project; and one of those considerations would be the <br />neighborhood's concern of scale and massing of the project, aside from their envi- <br />ronmental platform. Councilmember Roe opined that those considerations were <br />legitimate in not approving the development, based on massing and location; and <br />assured the neighborhood that they should not feel that they didn't have City <br />Council support on the basis of the environmental issues. <br />Public Comment <br />John Franey <br />Mr. Franey asked Councilmembers to recognize the burden being placed upon <br />their home's market value and future sales, and how he could be compensated for <br />its decreased value. <br />e. Approve the Final Plat; Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning the Property; and by <br />Motion Approve the Final Development Planned Unit Development and <br />Agreement for 3010 Cleveland Avenue <br />Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly summarized the re- <br />quest of United properties for approval of a Final Plat, Rezoning, and Final De- <br />velopment PUD and Agreement to redevelop the property at 3010 Cleveland <br />Avenue N with a 95-unit age-restricted cooperative housing development. Mr. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.