My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0512
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0512
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/11/2014 8:37:45 AM
Creation date
6/10/2014 9:35:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/12/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,May 12,2014 <br /> Page 15 <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, DENIAL of the proposed EASEMENT <br /> VACATION for the property at 297-311 County Road. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Mr. Lloyd displayed a Preliminary Plat prepared and submitted by the applicant <br /> for compliance with LDR-1. <br /> Mayor Roe sought clarification on whether or not the applicant was required to <br /> submit an entirely new application and pursue the approval process. <br /> Mr. Lloyd advised that staff took the directive for LDR-1 zoning consideration <br /> and code provisions to interpret this as a minor change to the plans in the platting <br /> process and plans already approved in their final staff. Mr. Lloyd further advised <br /> that staff understood that increase of the lots from 70' as proposed under LDR-2 <br /> zoning to 85' lots under the existing LDR-1 to be among those minor changes <br /> provided in either of those places; and therefore not requiring a new Public Hear- <br /> ing as the new application was determined to be consistent with the application al- <br /> ready reviewed by the Planning Commission. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan, referencing the staff report, opined that, lacking engi- <br /> neering details regarding the revisions or whether those are required under City <br /> Code for a Preliminary Plat application, he would deem the application incom- <br /> plete at this time. <br /> City Manager Trudgeon concurred that only minor revisions to lot lines were in- <br /> dicated, but since revised engineering and/or grading plans had not been submit- <br /> ted, while probably straightforward, he recommended that those documents be <br /> submitted in full as part of the due diligence as set out in City Ordinance. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether this item needed to return to the Plan- <br /> ning Commission, City Manager Trudgeon advised that, if the City Council <br /> agreed with staff that they were minor changes, the Preliminary and Final Plat <br /> could be presented directly to the City Council for approval without returning for <br /> a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level, especially since both had <br /> been addressed in-depth to-date. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.