My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0716
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0716
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2007 1:48:05 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 1:42:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/16/2007
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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
C~~y cil St Y Sessi~ <br />on~ay, ~~~y ,Zoo? <br />Page 23 <br />Mr. Stark advised that staff had received a draft traffic study from the <br />applicant earlier today, and staff would attempt to review the docu- <br />ment between now and the July 23, 2007 meeting. However, Mr. <br />Stark advised that the environmental review remained unresolved, and <br />Council directive tonight would dictate what would be prepared for <br />that meeting by staff. Mr. Stark advised that staff s preference would <br />be for the applicant to request an extension to allow tune for comple- <br />tion of the updated AUAR, and referenced their detailed rational in <br />Sections 2.6 (a), (b~, and (c~ of the staff report dated July 16, 2007 and <br />staff's interpretation of City Code requirements related to this land use <br />application. <br />Mr. Stark noted that late Thursday afternoon following City Council <br />agenda packet preparation and distribution, July 12, 2007, staff had <br />received a partially completed, unsigned and undated ~A~%J from the <br />applicant. The document was provided as a Bench I-Iandout, and is at- <br />tached hereto and made a part thereof. Mr. Stark looked to City At- <br />torney Anderson for his determination as to whether the document <br />rnet legal standards. City Attorney Anderson reviewed statute provi- <br />sions, subpart 3, for Council consideration. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned why staff was requiring an envi- <br />ronmental review of this project in a B-6 zone, when it was not re- <br />quired for the condominium proposal approved several meetings ago. <br />Mr. Stark reiterated staff's response to a similar question asked sev- <br />eral meetings ago and addressed in staff reports, and advised that staff <br />had differentiated that parcel from the remainder of the Twin Lakes <br />redevelopment area. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that, with respect to the AUAR and <br />staff's recommendation, she would need to know which, if any, of the <br />scenarios in the current AUAR and new draft AUAR, would be appli- <br />cable to this project. <br />Mr. Stark advised that both Scenarios B and C contained thresholds <br />that would include the proposed development. Mr. Stark noted that <br />part of staff's concern was trying to ensure that if the area is to de- <br />velop in a "piecemeal" fashion., and be determined by "who's first in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.