My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf09-002
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2009
>
pf09-002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 3:46:44 PM
Creation date
6/21/2013 2:49:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
09-002
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.
/
431
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 />Enzler, and questioned if the Commission or City Council should determine <br />projects based on impacts to 1 or 2 properties. Vice Chair Boerigter concurred <br />with Commissioner Cook that staff had performed careful analysis of traffic <br />issues. Vice Chair Boerigter addressed the past development projects of Mr. <br />Mueller, and opined that they were "red herrings" and not relevant to the issues <br />at hand before this Commission. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that this Concept <br />Plan was good and provided a positive influence on the area and Roseville <br />society, whether or not it increased the City's tax base; and clarified that the <br />Commission was not looking at the project from that perspective; but personally <br />opined that this project would not negatively impact the assessed values of <br />surrounding properties. <br />MOTION <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member poherty to RECOMMEND <br />TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT <br />PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT and the request of Art Mueller to <br />redevelop 2025 County Road B with a 55-unit active senior living <br />community; as prepared for the June 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, <br />subject to the conditions of Section 8 of the staff report dated June 3, 2009; <br />noting that final approval by the City Council will be considered after all <br />conditions and required documents and permits have been submitted for <br />final approval, and considered as a separate application process. <br />MOTION <br />Member Gottfried moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to <br />RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL that the project be LEED <br />Certi6ed, as presented at this meeting. <br />Roll Call Vote (Amendment) <br />Ayes: 2 (Wozniak; Gottfried) <br />Nays: 4(Best; Cook; Doherty; Boerigter; Gisselquist) <br />Motion failed. <br />MOTION <br />Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to <br />RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL friendlv amendment of the <br />original motion that the building be LEED certified or the equivalent <br />thereof; with the makers of the original motion, Members Boerigter and <br />Doherty, accepting the amendment. <br />Roll Call Vote (Original motion as amended) <br />Ayes: 5(Best; Cook; Doherty; Boerigter; Gisselquist) <br />Nays: 2 (Gottfried; Wozniak) <br />Motion carried. <br />Vice Chair Boerigter advised that the Case was scheduled to be heard at the City <br />Council meeting of June 29, 2009. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.