My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0411
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2011 8:48:41 AM
Creation date
4/28/2011 9:50:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/11/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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 11,2011 <br /> Page 8 <br /> the applicant for review by the City's Engineering Department. Mr. Paschke <br /> noted that the Planning Commission majority felt it was appropriate for staff to <br /> review that technical information and continue working with the developer and <br /> their consultants to finalize that information. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had <br /> since then received the information from the developer, and supported the propos- <br /> al. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that the Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract would <br /> come before the City Council for consideration in the near future; with the Public <br /> Improvement Contract addressing completion of utility and infrastructure work <br /> prior to development of the proposed subdivision. <br /> Councilmember McGehee expressed frustration that the agenda packet did not in- <br /> clude information discussed at the April Planning Commission meeting related to <br /> the ponds; and questioned their location on the subject parcels. <br /> Mr. Paschke clarified that the April Planning Commission discussion was a sepa- <br /> rate issue that would come forward to the City Council in the near future; but was <br /> a separate process. <br /> Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included the size of the overall <br /> acreage, and this parcel; demolition of the existing building on the parcel; devel- <br /> opment of the property to facilitate the proposed AirGas project as a separate and <br /> distinct land use review process; and proposed use for this parcel for an of- <br /> fice/warehouse use by an automotive parts distribution firm. <br /> Councilmember McGehee noted that this was a good time to reference the size of <br /> this acreage, and the need for the City to maximize its tax base rather than cover- <br /> ing such a sizable parcel with asphalt and single-story warehousing. <br /> Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee's concerns. <br /> Councilmember Pust clarified that this was not City property, but private proper- <br /> ty. <br /> Dan Williams, Chief Investment Officer with Meritex <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Williams advised that the overall acreage of the <br /> parcels owned by Meritex was forty-two (42) acres; with twenty-eight (28) acres <br /> represented in the two (2) parcels; and another fourteen (14) across Walnut Street, <br /> and that development of those fourteen (14) acres was the area most currently un- <br /> der discussion at the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Williams clarified <br /> that this request was for the southern most portion of the lot, for use by a whole- <br /> sale automobile body parts firm selling to automobile repair shops; and their pro- <br /> posal for a 60,000 square foot office/warehouse facility on this approximate five <br /> to six (5 to 6) acre site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.