My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0806_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0806_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:29:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
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
Re�ular City C�uncii Meeting <br />11�I�nday, Juiy 23, 2007 <br />P�ge 37 <br />1 Mr. Mischke remembered past discussion for LydZa Avenue at the in- <br />2 iersection o� �nelling be considered �o� an ove�pass to al�eviaie traffc <br />3 voluam�s; and recognized that th� int�rsection had b�en di�'fcu�t <br />4 through the years; and questioned if it could handle two additiona� <br />5 lanes, even though they appeared reasonable. Ho�rever, Mr. 1V�ischke <br />6 qu�stion�d whe�h�r the int�rsee�ion wa� adequate to support such r�- <br />7 visions; and expressed concexn wi�h impacis to the neighbars a�ong <br />8 Lydia. <br />9 <br />10 <br />il <br />�. 2 <br />13 <br />Ta�n MeG�hee, 67 li�I�d 4aks Lane <br />Ms. 1V�cGehee stated ihat the City Council had va�ed to au�ho�ize the <br />EAW and vvere ultimately respons�ble �or fhe EAW. <br />14 Ms. McGehee quest�oned why the EAW was done by the paroposex <br />15 without City Counci� review un�il its comple�ion. M�. 1VIcGehee <br />� 6 opined that no one was standing up for the ciii�ens; and the computa- <br />1.7 tians w�re provided by th� college, not staff. Ms. MeGeh�e nated that <br />18 the College was loca�ed on a Iimi�ed piece o� proper�y; and ques�inned <br />19 why square �ootage considerations were not part o� the EAW io meet <br />20 thosc rules and thresholds, with buildings and specific locations <br />��. c�eax�y iden�zfied. Ms. McGehee opined that part of the problem was <br />22 with City Code and poiicies governing land use issues, and the en�ire <br />23 review process; and further opined ihat this EAW was meaningless. <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />so <br />31 <br />32 <br />3� <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />Ms. NlcGehee addressed the proposed location o� the new dormitory <br />to be Iocated too close io the shoreland. <br />Mayo� K�auszng noted that the Iatesi re�ised proposal had are�ocated <br />the dorm �o the o�her side of the existing dorm. <br />Ms. McGehee opzned that this proved her point, that nothing in the <br />document was firm; there were no final designs; no knawn square <br />footages; and noied that the applicani "was so sure no one would �ook <br />at �his, they included the 1986 d�sign for the dorm zn�o the 2407 <br />EAW." Ms. McGehee questioned the aeival environmental steward- <br />ship being done on campus; amount o� acreage reserved �o� cover a.nd <br />vege�aizon £or habita� as requested by ihe Depa�rtmeni o� Natura� Re- <br />saurees {DNR); and quesiioned the actual acreage elaimed by the CoI- <br />lege �or �orest and woodland. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.