My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_0817_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_0817_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 3:07:03 PM
Creation date
8/20/2009 4:01:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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
Councilmember Willmus expressed concern in balancing the location of the cul-de-sac and <br />inadequacy of the existing parking area; overflow in industrial parking areas to south; accessing <br />park through that industrial area; if at some point this road will connect further to the south and a <br />way to potentially have some sort of access there. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was a policy question; and that it was a wrong policy <br />decision to build a public road and parking lot, while removing trees and wildlife habitat. <br />Mr. Brokke opined that, from his perspective, the City had one opportunity to make that <br />development work with the park; and noted that it was a destination and community park, with <br />well used fields and drivers coming from other areas of the community, not just the immediate <br />neighborhood. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the proposed roadway and turnaround were there for a public benefit <br />to provide additional parking to serve the public purpose. Mayor Klausing noted that the <br />applicant was not promoting it, and in their providing a roadway to the park, it creates the <br />necessity for a turnaround to address public safety concerns. Mayor Klausing further opined that, <br />given that background, it makes more sense from his perspective for the turnaround on public <br />land to serve a public, rather than a private purpose. <br />Councilmember Roe expressed appreciation to the developer and staff for their discussion, <br />comments and clarification. Councilmember Roe opined that, related to the turnaround, and <br />intent to connect the road in the future, and also to have the ability to construct and approve a <br />substandard turnaround on a temporary basis pending further development and connections at a <br />cost estimated at $40-$50,000, it made sense to construct the turnaround on public property, with <br />the developer being required to construct the roadway and pay park dedication fees, as developed <br />through compromise with staff. Councilmember Roe suggested that part of the park dedication <br />fees could be applied to the construction costs to the City. <br />Councilmember Willmus opined that if the cul-de-sac was constructed, as part of the cost of the <br />roadway and infrastructure cost of the developer, he did not consider the road for the benefit of <br />the park, but a future benefit to properties to the south; with the roadway benefiting the <br />developer's ingress and egress for their site, one of which happens to be of auxiliary benefit to <br />the park. <br />Councilmember Pust advised that she hadn't changed her mind; while appreciating the <br />developer's willingness to pay the park dedication fee. Councilmember Pust opined that there <br />were too many things being sought to make the development work, and in trying to solve a <br />public problem with too small of a lot at the park Councilmember Pust noted that the park <br />Master Plans were in the process of being reviewed and potentially revised, and observed that it <br />was a long way to the south connection, and may encourage more vehicle traffic, access or <br />different answers may become evident. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of having those <br />discussions; and while opining that it made sense to go forward with the development, it made <br />sense to go forward with future park planning on a separate track Councilmember Pust opined <br />that the cul-de-sac may be needed, but that it should be at the developer's cost on their land; that <br />park dedication fees should be paid as indicated; and that a separate process for Langton Lake <br />shouldn't insist on widening the road for more parking, but that parking needs could be handled <br />in a better way. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the turnaround. <br />Councilmember Pust spoke in support of a turnaround on the developer's property, at their cost, <br />at a size and turn radius indicated as adequate by the City's Public Works Department. <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.