My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0228
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0228
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:24:47 AM
Creation date
5/12/2005 12:15:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/28/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 02/28/05 <br />Minutes - Page 15 <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson addressed the City's specific statutes, <br />Section 1016.26, related to Storm water Management and the <br />need for the City's Engineer to certify compliance with any <br />established agencies or standards having jurisdictions. Mr. <br />Anderson noted that Capitol Region Watershed District had no <br />written general rules, and therefore had no permitting authority, <br />but compliance would come through the engineering reviews for <br />established standards. <br /> <br />ApplicantIDeveloper Dennis Guptil <br />Mr. Guptil expressed disappointment that the Capitol Region <br />Watershed District took so long to respond to the submitted <br />plans; and their strong negative response, without allowing the <br />developer to meet their criteria in a timelier manner. Mr. Guptil <br />assured Councilmembers that he was confident he would be able <br />to meet their requirements related to rate control, runoff and <br />other items of concern. Mr. Guptil advised that his engineering <br />firm, Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, had been <br />engaged for those specific concerns, and was in attendance <br />tonight to address any Council concerns. Mr. Guptil noted that <br />he would have preferred to come before the Council with the <br />Concept Plan in compliance, but after more than two years in the <br />development process and with the Watershed aware of the <br />development, their response had only been received immediately <br />prior to the Planning Commission meeting, not allowing <br />adequate response on his part to make the required plan <br />revisions. Mr. Guptil noted that he would meet the requirements, <br />but until the Council provided Concept Plan approval, he could <br />not contract design finalization. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough opined that the developer had put <br />extensive time into the project, but recognized areas of concern <br />as addressed by Councilmember Ihlan. <br /> <br />Councilmembers Maschka and Schroeder opined that the process <br />would fine-tune the development and concerns would be <br />addressed and conditioned by staff. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that this was common for a Concept Plan; <br />however, requested clarification on the elevation drawings, <br />specifically the condo location, shape and design, expressing his <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.