My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0213_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0213_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 2:28:02 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:31:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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
City Council Reguta�r Meeting — 01/30/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 10 <br />failed. <br />City Attorn�y Jay Squires advis�d that City Code dictat�d <br />enfo�-cement, and that while there may be additional private <br />covenants, the City would not have direct enforcement authority <br />other than that through City Code. Mr. Squires opined that the <br />City need not be overly concerned abou� liability, that there were <br />immunities through state law and any claims would be diif cul� <br />to sustain against the City. <br />Mayar Kiausing no#ed ihat the City had required a proper site <br />management and drainage plan to ensure the protection of the <br />neighborhood. <br />Cauncilmember Ihlan addressed concerns from the Watershed <br />District report dated January 25, 2006 regarding the northeast <br />znf ltration area and its �unctionalzty withaut fi.�rthe� soil bozing <br />data; and questioned when �hat soil boring was scheduled. <br />Mr. Paschke noted �hat the additional soil boring was pending; <br />but would be ongoing fa�lowing tonight's meeting. <br />Councilmember Ihlan addressed further concerns outiined in the <br />Watershed letter related to volume con�rol and flooding criteria; <br />and opined final plat approval be held un�il those items were <br />address�d and/or determined. <br />Ms. Blaam reiterated that the developer would be obligated to <br />meet specific rec�uirements as outlined; and until actual buildings <br />were proposed, the Council was approving a concept for future <br />bui�ding in accordance with code and deveioped criteria, under <br />the direction of Capitol Region and engineering advice. <br />Counczlmembex Ihlan again opined that the Cauncii hald fnal <br />approval until all items were addressed. <br />Councilm�mber Pust questioned �he solution if the Council <br />approved �he z-equest as presented; but conditions were nat <br />ultxmately met. <br />Ms. Bloom advised that the City would withhold grading <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.