My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0411
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 3:50:46 PM
Creation date
4/26/2016 9:47:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/11/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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, April 11, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />tionale for waiving any requirements, with that information then forwarded to the <br />City Council as part of their approval process. However, Councilmember <br />Willmus stated that he only found that language carried over to PUD Final Plan <br />review when he understood the intent was for both stages. <br />In Attachinent B, page 9, line 253, Mr. Paschke advised that submittal require- <br />ments were applied at the PUD Concept Plan stage. <br />Councilmernber Willmus noted that the intent was that any waivers be brought to <br />the attention of the City Council at the PUD Final Plan stage as well. <br />The consensus of the City Council was that this iteration had inadvertently omit- <br />ted that requirement; and without objection, Mayor Roe noted language of Item <br />3.b PUD Final Plan Review (lines 364 — 370, specifically lines 369-370) ad- <br />dressed it, but suggested also including that language at line 320 on page 11 as <br />well. <br />City Attorney Gaughan noted that, if the language is added to the PUD Concept <br />Plan Review on page 11 as well, it would incorporate three different bites, includ- <br />ing at the PUD Concept Plan stage (page 8, line 228) that also includes the waiver <br />statement. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that previous discussion directed staff <br />to alert the City Council of any waivers at the Concept and Final Plan reviews, but <br />not at the Concept Plan review stage. <br />Councilmember Willmus opined that at any point in time that staff waives a re- <br />quirement, the City Council needed to be aware of it. <br />Without objection, Mayor Roe reiterated the request to add the language to the <br />Concept Plan Review stage on page 1 l, line 320 as referenced above. <br />Councilmember McGehee noted that, in each of the three instances, language <br />needed to be revised to indicate that "staff [�k-e�lt�J [shallJ identify any infor- <br />mation submittals that were waived..." (Lines 228, 253, the added language at <br />line 320, and line 369). <br />City Planner Paschke noted that staff attempted, with assistance of Consultant <br />Ben Gozola from Sambetek, to incorporate all previous suggestions of the full <br />Council in this draft of the ordinance. <br />Councilmeinber McGehee noted other revisions suggested in her submittal of <br />proposed changes submitted as a bench handout to "Attachment C. <br />Mayor Roe asked the status of those suggestions by Councilmember in this latest <br />draft from staff. <br />Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.