My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0130
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:31:18 AM
Creation date
2/15/2006 10:14:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/30/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 - 01/30/06 <br />Minutes - Page 10 <br /> <br />failed. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jay Squires advised that City Code dictated <br />enforcement, and that while there may be additional private <br />covenants, the City would not have direct enforcement authority <br />other than that through City Code. Mr. Squires opined that the <br />City need not be overly concerned about liability, that there were <br />immunities through state law and any claims would be difficult <br />to sustain against the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that the City had required a proper site <br />management and drainage plan to ensure the protection of the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan addressed concerns from the Watershed <br />District report dated January 25, 2006 regarding the northeast <br />infiltration area and its functionality without further soil boring <br />data; and questioned when that soil boring was scheduled. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke noted that the additional soil boring was pending; <br />but would be ongoing following tonight's meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan addressed further concerns outlined in the <br />Watershed letter related to volume control and flooding criteria; <br />and opined final plat approval be held until those items were <br />addressed and! or determined. <br /> <br />Ms. Bloom reiterated that the developer would be obligated to <br />meet specific requirements as outlined; and until actual buildings <br />were proposed, the Council was approving a concept for future <br />building in accordance with code and developed criteria, under <br />the direction of Capitol Region and engineering advice. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan again opined that the Council hold final <br />approval until all items were addressed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust questioned the solution if the Council <br />approved the request as presented; but conditions were not <br />ultimately met. <br /> <br />Ms. Bloom advised that the City would withhold grading <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.