My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0827
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 12:06:10 PM
Creation date
9/17/2007 12:06:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/27/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Minutes of 8/27/07 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Page 13 <br />Mr. Boryczka and Mr. Thatcher returned to speak to this issue, spe- <br />cifically discharge rate increases and sizing of piping. <br />Interim Community Development Director Mike Darrow <br />Mr. Darrow addressed page 4, line 5 of the public improvement con- <br />tract, and the part of agreement requiring the developer to obtain nec- <br />essary permits from various agencies as outlined, after entering into <br />the contract, but before commencing construction, with all issues re- <br />solved prior to any work being initiated. <br />Mayor Klausing sought staff comment on whether it would be consis- <br />tent for the City Council to act on the Final Plat without a tree preser- <br />vation plan before them. <br />Mr. Darrow responded affirmatively. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated and reread State Statute language, <br />opining that the City Council, was attempting to circumvent the proc- <br />ess; and further opining that the City Council needed to seek an exten- <br />sion, until conditions of the Final Plat had been met, made sense, and <br />a tree preservation plan had been submitted. <br />Mr. Darrow attempted to address Councilmember Ihlan's concerns <br />regarding that question, and referenced and read City Code, Section <br />1102.1 for submission requirements to complete an application. Mr. <br />Darrow opined that his interpretation was that, not the conditions of <br />Council, but the twelve (12) conditions found in City Code, were what <br />staff was basing completion on, and was interpreting that those condi- <br />tions were complete, allowing for their recommendation for Final Plat <br />approval and Public Improvement Contract approval. <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with Mr. barrow's interpretations, <br />and recognized Councilmember Ihlan's interpretation; however, noted <br />that subsequent approval conditions were not shown on the Final Plat <br />filed with the County Recorder, and would be part of staff, engineer, <br />and other agency approvals involved in the process as it was initiated. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.