My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0825_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0825_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 1:34:50 PM
Creation date
12/28/2011 1:35:39 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
284
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
M <br />Residential to Planned Unit Development (PIED) with an underlying zoning <br />of B-6 Mixed Use Business Park District; and DENIAL of the GENERAL <br />CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD), as prepared for the June <br />6,- 2007 Planning Commission meeting by United Properties; based on <br />findings outlined below; and based on information provided in the Staff <br />Report dated June 6, 2007. <br />Ayes: 4, <br />Nays I (Bakeman) <br />Motion to DENY carried. <br />Chair Bakernan advised that the application would go before the City Council for <br />consideration at their June 18, 2007' regular meeting. <br />Mr,. Carey expressed concern that the applicant had not been provided an <br />opportunity for response to the public comments-, and noted that the developer <br />had felt very challenged by the project, and had attempted to provide more <br />transition with the town homes. Mr. Carey opined that the project as proposed <br />was supported by staff, and that. the applicant had met all requirements outlined <br />by staff, as well as attempting to be open with neighbors, but things didn't seem <br />to be working out. Mr. Carey observed that the Roseville community is <br />completely built out, and there were few, opportunities to develop. Mr. Carey, <br />opined that it was incumbent on the leaders, of the City to take advantage of <br />opportunities to serve -seniors in the community by providing additional housing <br />opportunities,; and advised that they may be retuning with this proposal in some <br />form, and sought continued andl thoughtful consideration of it. Mr. Carey <br />expressed appreciation for the neighbor, comments, and recognized their <br />(preference that the area remain woods, however unrealistic. <br />Commissioners determined findings for, denial as follows:. <br />FINDINGS FOR DENIAL <br />No sufficient transition next to a single-family neighborhood; and negative <br />influences from height, scale, and mass. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.