My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011_0411_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2011
>
2011_0411_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 4:22:02 PM
Creation date
12/20/2011 1:01:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
Attachment D <br />7 . .... 7' Chair Boerigter recognized Member Gottfried's concerns, and advised that in many circumstances, he would <br />7'8 agree. However, in reviewing this request, and based • the verbal comments of the City Engineer, as well as <br />7'9 the recommendation condition of staff that remaining engineering details be addressed prior to approval by the <br />80 City Council, he found no rationale for delaying action. Chair Boerigter advised that, no matter how those more <br />81 technical requirements were worked out, they were beyond his ability to discern, and he expressed his <br />82 confidence in staffs analysis and recommendations at the City Council level; and that those final issues did not <br />8'3 impact his clecision-ma king • moving this request forward based on those contingencies. <br />84. Member Gisselquist expressed his inclination to concur with Member Gottfried, noting that there remained two <br />85 (2) areas where missing data was obvious. Member Gisselquist noted that this was a public forum designed for <br />86 public comment; and that the Commission needed to do their due diligence prior to making a recommendation <br />8 7' to the City Council and not depend on the City Council to take time to review those technical questions. Member <br />88 Gisselquist advised that he was inclined to deny the request, or support a motion to continue, pending receipt of <br />89 Vie @,,4(shtiotal itforttati&t. <br />90 Member Best concurred with Chair Boerigter, supporting moving forward with the request and supporting <br />91 expressing his confidence in the City Engineer making recommendation for any final approval based on technic <br />92 data received. I <br />9'3 Member Wozniak advised that, under normal circumstances, he would request more detail; however, in this <br />94. case, he was unsure of what he could add above and beyond the assurances by City Engineer Bloom that all was <br />95 in order. Member Wozniak expressed his confidence in relying on Ms. Bloom's expertise and final review by the <br />96 Development Review Committee (DRC) to make those technical decisions • any outstanding issues. Member <br />9 7' Wozniak spoke in support • the request, contingent upon staffs recommendation for the condition detailed in <br />98 Section 7.0 • the staff report. <br />99 MOTION <br />100 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMMEND approval of the proposed <br />101 PRELIMINARY PLAT at 2285 Walnut Street; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the <br />102 recommendation of Section 7 of the Request for Planning Commission Action dated March 2, 2011; with said <br />10'3 appraval canditianed upan submittal by the Applicant any and all autstanding easement,, starm water,, and <br />1 G4 utility data ta staff, with thase submissians subject ta the satisfactian af the Public Warks Department and <br />105 priar ta cansideratian af the prapased plat by the City Cauncil. <br />10 7' Ayes: 3 (Best,,, Wozniak,,, Boon gter) <br />108 Nays: 2 (Gisselquist; Gottfried) <br />109 Motion carried. <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.