My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0517_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0517_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 3:15:34 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:41:19 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.
/
167
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
City Council Regular Meeting — 05/10/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 14 <br />City in being able to stipulate these items as part of the PUD. <br />Mayor Klausing suggested that the landscape materials plan may <br />need to be more stringent in defining plant materials, and specify <br />that the developer work with neighbors in developing the buffer. <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought additional information from staff <br />related to future owners of the townhomes and their possible <br />removal of trees on their private lots. <br />Mr. Paschke responded that, while the PUD didn't address future <br />owners, the development's homeowner association rules and/or <br />covenants could address specific terminology related to tree <br />removal. <br />Further discussion ensued between Councilmembers and City <br />Attorney Anderson regarding common areas (Lot 8) in the <br />development proj ect and governance of actions on private <br />property as addressed by City code or homeowner's association <br />documentation. <br />Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Ihlan concurred about <br />future policy decisions needing to be discussed related to <br />environmental issues, and the possible future creation of an <br />environmental commission. <br />Mayor Klausing suggested the City Council might consider <br />stipulating that the developer consult with neighbors on the <br />landscaping plan as part of the motion. <br />Mr. Moser, in reference to stipulating in the PUD that the <br />developer would work in consultation with neighboring property <br />owners on a landscape plan, offered to provide neighbors with a <br />copy of the landscape plan, and expressed his willingness to <br />work with them on the plan already submitted as part of the <br />PUD, but requested that no further stipulations be applied due to <br />the number of preferences and potential lack of consistency in <br />making a determination on actual materials. <br />City Attorney Anderson, from a legal perspective, recommended <br />that the term "consult," not be used as part of the motion of <br />formal language in the PUD agreement, noting the broadness and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.