Laserfiche WebLink
Regula� City Couneil Me�ting <br />Manday, May 07, 2007 <br />P�ge 10 <br />1 Discussion included differences in the P�anned Unit Development <br />2 (PUD} p�acess between the Ciiies af Arden Hil�s and Roseville; the <br />3 EAW proces� not diff�r�ntiatzng mun�c�pal boundaries a�d consider- <br />4 ing the eniire deveiop�neni; citizen petitian (25 signato�ies} poten- <br />5 tially requesting an EAW if noi requested by a munic�palzty; tra�'�c <br />C concexns on Lydia; ingr�sslegress on the nnrth side of the ea�x�pus an <br />7 �he A�den Hills side zn conszderat�on o£ addi�ional dormitories; miti- <br />S ga�ion issues in considera�ion of water runoff and taraff c concerns. <br />9 <br />10 City Attarney Anderson reviewed th� tim� table and p�ocess related �o <br />11 conszderation of the Iand use application; and the EAW process and <br />12 publication requiremen�s. <br />13 <br />14 Mr. S�ark noted that staff was a�ready zn the p�rocess of working on �he <br />I5 process preparing it for submission to �he app�icable ageneies; and <br />1.6 would return to the City Counc�l �or forma� actian. <br />17 <br />18 Cz�y A�torney Ancierson concurred with staff �ha� the law was ve�y <br />19 specific regaarding envi�onmental review; and provided, as a Bench <br />20 �Tandout, a copy o� the MN Rules, Chapter 4410, for the Ci�y Council <br />2 3� ta re�'erence during and at �he end o£ �he process. <br />22 <br />23 Further diseussion included whe�her �ormal ac�ion was applicah�e and <br />24 what specific direction wo�uld be provid�d to staf£, de�egation by the <br />25 City Counci� to their technical staff; and mainiaining City Council <br />26 oversight o�th� RGU designation without micromanaging staff. <br />27 <br />28 No action taken. The City Counezi, by consensus, concuxred that stafi�' <br />29 and the City Counczl wou�d f I1 their appropriate and specific rales in <br />30 accepting the deszgnation as the Responsib�e Gov�rnmental Unit <br />31 {RGU} �or the Nor�hwes�ern Co�lege EAW. <br />32 <br />33 b. Status Report — Status of Axel's Ch��rhousa A�cohvl Violation <br />34 App�al Proceedings and Recommenda�ian for Action <br />35 City At�orney Anderson reviewed the propased setilement wzth Axel`s <br />36 Charhause, due to iheir assexied c�aim �or violation of due process �n <br />37 fihe C'rty shuiting them dawn due to past �zquox �zcense vialation in <br />38 sel�ing to minors, and doing so prior to their app�al heax�ng being <br />�9 h�ard. Mr. Anderson, in 1igh� of communication problem� on the <br />