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 24 <br />Further discussion ensued related to mailed notification of <br />residents in the area. <br />Mr. Paschke clarified that this specific request was not heard <br />before the Planning Commission; that a separate issue related to <br />a minor subdivision was heard, and that this issue was <br />administrative in nature. <br />Florene Muska, 3117 Asbury Street (other side of <br />Albertson's) <br />Ms. Muska expressed disappointment in her perception of the <br />City Council's comments and disregard in moving "old people" <br />out of their homes. <br />Mayor Klausing apologized to Ms. Muska if the City Council <br />had implied this, and that it was not their intent, noting the need <br />to provide housing options within the City. <br />Greg Larson, 3077 Asbury Street <br />Mr. Larson sought clarification on the list of homes previously <br />displayed by Attorney Dan Wall, and the actual notification list. <br />Mr. Paschke responded that everyone within a 350' minimum of <br />the parcel — whether in Arden Hills or Roseville — had been <br />noticed by mail. <br />Mayor Klausing sought clarification from City Attorney <br />Anderson and fellow Councilmembers if they felt a conflict <br />existed and he needed to recuse himself from this matter. <br />City Attorney Anderson responded negatively that any conflict <br />of interest was apparent. <br />Councilmember Kough, as a resident on Asbury Street, opined <br />that he had reservations related to whether he should abstain <br />from voting. <br />Discussion ensued, with City Attorney Anderson noted that <br />while no conflict existed related to Councilmember Kough, there <br />was nothing to prevent him from abstaining should he choose to <br />do so. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.