My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0927_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0927_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 9:51:44 AM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:45:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
367
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 — 09/13/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 17 <br />Shopping Center District and shopping centers. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns, as a policy maker, <br />to maintain reasonable controls for public interest, in defining <br />City Code, specifically as it relates to the superstore <br />phenomenon; and to treat large retailers as shopping centers, <br />even if the zoning code definition needed revision. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her lack of support for amending <br />the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that he was troubled with the <br />change in the nature of the site and how little input the City had <br />under current code and the impacts to consider. Councilmember <br />Maschka expressed further concern regarding the City's lack of <br />control over the architectural exterior of the building, traffic, <br />streets; and noted the immense changes to the nature of the site. <br />Councilmember Schroeder expressed concern regarding the <br />public street functions and design between Perkin's Restaurant <br />and the proposed Target parking lot; its maintenance, traffic <br />patterns, and connections and other public safety concerns. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that numerous site-specific issues had been <br />discussed, and would continue to be a"work in progress," <br />through the design committee working with the <br />applicant/developer; prior to adoption of the final site plan. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the nature of the City <br />Council as a policy-making body and staff in enforcing <br />ordinances; revisions available during the review process; <br />activities of the development review committee; standards met to <br />meet application consistent with public health, safety and <br />welfare; building screening; aesthetic characteristics; and why <br />the application was not for a Planned Unit Development (PUD); <br />and closing of the frontage road and ramifications to businesses. <br />City Attorney Anderson confirmed his concurrence with staff, <br />opining that the standard applied was reasonable and consistent <br />with the policy goals and objectives of the city to advance public <br />health, safety and welfare. Mr. Anderson confirmed that <br />amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan required a 4/5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.