My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016_0104_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2016
>
2016_0104_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2016 3:42:16 PM
Creation date
12/31/2015 2:07:38 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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
RCA Exhibit C <br />1. The City is not equipped to adequately handle the comp�exity of the proposed drainage <br />system, including the faet that the City does not possess adequate easements situated on <br />surroundin� praperties. <br />2. The po�entiaa increase in wat�r volurrbe draining from the subject property s#ands ta be <br />large. <br />3. There is a basis to beYieve that the �;round on the subj�ct property cannot adequately <br />handle such water. <br />4. The surrounding properties are nat adequately equipped to handle the poteniial wat�r <br />impact and therefore are mc�re vulnerable to negative impact �iy this proposed praject than if <br />the project was located in another part ofthe Cit��, <br />�. Past sirnilar experiences, such as i� the Eaiz-�-�ew High School (Co�rnmunity <br />�Center)/Eldridge area and the Roseville Library/De�lwood area, compels the �it}r ta be <br />invoke hei�htened caution in appro��ing this uncertain proposed project. <br />AND WHEREAS, said findings Of fact underpinning the disapproval of t�e project were <br />reported ta the applicant in a�et�er t�ated Octr�ber 2, 2015; and <br />NC?'W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, <br />Minnesota, thac the praject has been denied as af September 28, 2015. <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutton was duly seeonded by Council <br />Member McGehee amd u�an vote being taken thereon, the foilowing voted in favor: McGenee, <br />V�Ti�lmus, and Etten <br />and Roe vated against. <br />'WHERECJP(�N said resolutian ti��as declared duly passed and adopted. <br />Pa�e 2 of 3 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.