My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0621_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0621_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 2:54:54 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:42:59 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.
/
107
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 — 06/14/04 <br />Minutes - Page 20 <br />Attorney Wall, representing the Albertsons, responded to <br />several of Mr. Gunn's comments; noting that he had received an <br />offer from Ms. Churchward via Mr. Gunn, to purchase a portion <br />of the property, and Wall recognized the professional planning <br />staff retained by the City, and reiterated his request that the City <br />Council grant this minor subdivision, excluding condition 3.8. <br />Michael Lukaska, 3125 Asbury Street, Arden Hills <br />Mr. Lucanska requested that the City Council make a decision <br />tonight to bring closure to this matter; noting the issue was <br />dividing the neighborhood. Mr. Lucanska spoke to the <br />neighborhood represented in the audience, requesting that, <br />whatever decision was made, the neighbors accept it and hea1. <br />Brad Gunn, Attorney representing Churchward's <br />Mr. Gunn responded to comments of Attorney Dan Wall, <br />reviewing the offer made, for thirty-five feet (35') of the <br />Albertson property <br />John Kysylyczyn <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn responded to Dan Wall's comments. <br />Mayor Klausing closed the public comment portion of the <br />meeting related to this issue at 9:13 p.m. <br />City Planner Paschke clarified that any comments related to <br />Planning Commission deliberations were related to a previous <br />variance request, and did not apply to the minor subdivision <br />request. Mr. Paschke provided staff's interpretation of City code <br />for this request, thus prompting the Planning Commission's <br />denial of the original variance request. Mr. Paschke further <br />reviewed pre-existing setbacks and staff's rationale; and the City <br />Attorney's concurrence with staff's interpretation. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that he and other peers in his <br />firm had thoroughly reviewed the code and ordinance, and <br />viewed Section 1004.O1E as an exception. City Attorney <br />Anderson noted that Mr. Gunn had provided at least one <br />reasonable argument in his presentation; but confirmed his <br />original interpretation of the code as previously advised and <br />offered by legal opinion. Mr. Anderson noted that the Council <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.