My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf07-021
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2007
>
pf07-021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 3:07:05 PM
Creation date
6/17/2013 3:07:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
07-021
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
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.
/
275
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
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />• i <br />provide the information necessary to consider the application, with the applicant <br />having more of a chance to get a straight-forward approval. <br />The applicant expressed that this was their frustration in what staff was requiring for a <br />preliminary site plan at this stage; and his being prepared to provide future <br />connections; however, noting that typically something is not schemed out at this level <br />of the application process. <br />Continuing discussion included the deadline for the review process; scope of the <br />project; staff's lack of review of the site plan modifications provided earlier today by <br />the applicant; the high visibility and strategic nature of this property to the overall <br />development of the Twin Lakes area; road right-of-way ownership, official mapping, <br />recording, and future acquisition for roadway construction and right-of-way. <br />Staff reviewed their adherence to the application process and review period and their <br />rationale for requesting more information; inherent design guidelines; and limited <br />ability to require deviation from a concept plan once passed onto the City Council for <br />their review, and major changes requiring amendment to the concept plan. <br />MOTION <br />Member poherty moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND <br />DENIAL of the request by Cent Ventures and AmWest Development LLC, based <br />on the absence of pertinent information necessary as identified in Section 8.2 of <br />the staff report dated June 6, 2007. <br />Ayes: 4 <br />Nays: 2 (Boerigter, Gasongo) <br />Motion to DENY carried. <br />Chair Bakeman advised that the application would go before the City Council for <br />consideration at their June 18, 2007 regular meeting, unless the applicant submitted a <br />written extension to staff.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.