My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0614
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0614
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:14 AM
Creation date
2/9/2006 1:05:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/14/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 06/14/04 <br />Minutes - Page 19 <br /> <br />Greg Larson, 3077 Asbury <br />Mr. Larson reiterated his comments from a previous Council <br />meeting, noting his opposition to this subdivision. Mr. Larson <br />further expressed his disappointment in his observations of city <br />government related to this issue; and questioned whether staff <br />and Councilmembers had any concerns about this neighborhood, <br />given the neighborhood's overwhelming opposition. <br /> <br />Bradley Gunn, an attorney with the firm of Leonard, Street <br />& Deinard P A representing Marie Churchward, 3093 <br />Asbury Street N <br />Mr. Gunn presented a letter and petition to the City Council (no <br />copies available). <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing questioned why Mr. Gunn had not provided this <br />information to the City Council for their review prior to tonight's <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Gunn apologized for the delay in providing this material; <br />and proceeded to review his client's request that the City Council <br />protect the consistency, character and stability of the <br />neighborhood by not granting this minor subdivision. Mr. Gunn <br />presented four (4) interpretations in considering this request: <br />1) The application is not consistent with the character of the <br />neighborhood; <br />2) The application doesn't meet the City's zoning ordinance <br />as stipulated by the applicant's attorney as it relates to <br />required front yard setback; <br />3) By granting this minor subdivision, the City Council was <br />doing nothing more than inviting a future purchaser to ask <br />for variance(s), which did not represent good planning or <br />good policy; and <br />4) The application doesn't comply with the City's subdivision <br />regulations, citing specific sections of City code and <br />ordinance upon which he was basing his opinions. <br /> <br />Mr. Gunn concluded by respectfully requesting denial by the <br />City Council, and presented a petition with approximately 20 <br />signatures of neighbors in opposition to this request. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.