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 16 <br /> <br />concern related to the frontage of the condo and six units. <br /> <br />Mr. Guptil apologized that more current drawings were not <br />available in time for tonight's meeting, but advised <br />Councilmembers that, following neighborhood meetings and <br />public comment at those meetings, he was developing new <br />elevations that would reduce the condo units from six to five <br />units consisting of two twin units and one single to allow sight <br />corridors to the pond and loosen up the density. Mr. Guptil <br />further advised that this would allow more flexibility in the <br />architectural design. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing commended the developer on this reVISIOn, <br />opining that the original design was too intense, and that more <br />creativity in the architectural styles would be welcome additions <br />to the Concept Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned the location of the <br />driveway connecting to an existing building on the east. <br /> <br />Mr. Guptil noted that this was a shared access to the parking lot <br />for Galilee Lutheran Church and the development, with an <br />agreement in process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned whether staff was <br />recommending that a new development use someone else's <br />property for access. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Welsch advised that the <br />easement would be recorded against the property, and that staff <br />was encouraging use of existing asphalt, rather than additional <br />asphalt in an overall effort in the community to reduce runoff. <br />Mr. Welsch noted that staff encouraged adjoining property <br />owners to work together to find workable solutions for all parties <br />involved; and that the easement would be an attachment to the <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD). <br /> <br />Mark Jaster, Anderson Engineering <br />Mr. Jaster addressed the suggestions offered in the Capitol <br />Watershed District letter related to infiltration of stormwater <br />runoff; opining that he was confident the developer could meet <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.