My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0130
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:31:18 AM
Creation date
2/15/2006 10:14:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/30/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 - 01/30/06 <br />Minutes - Page 13 <br /> <br />received additional e-mail and phone contact from other <br />residents expressing confusion that it was being considered for <br />final approval without additional public hearing. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Welsch advised that, when a <br />property owner came into compliance, an additional hearing was <br />not held, and no additional notice, outside the Planning <br />Commission, was given. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires addressed Mr. LeTendre's January 24, <br />2006 letter; noted that initial notice was provided, after which <br />followed an alteration of an interior lot line by the property <br />owner, and would not require the City to provide additional <br />notification. <br /> <br />Further discussion included the original notice; specific City <br />Code references and Minor Subdivision language; policy <br />discussion regarding the 350' notice requirement and potential <br />for expansion of the notice area; and timing requirements. <br /> <br />Ihlan again moved to table action on this request in order to <br />provide notice of the Subdivision Code. Mayor Klausing ruled <br />the motion out of order as it had already been voted down. <br /> <br />Following further discussion and the suggestion of City Attorney <br />Squires in recent consultation with the applicant and the <br />applicant's attorney, it was Council consensus to continue action <br />on this item until the February 27, 2006 meeting. <br /> <br />Applicant's attorney advised that, while disappointed in the <br />continuing delays, the applicant was willing to follow the process <br />outlined by City Attorney Squires. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing, Councilmembers and staff continued discussion <br />on the uniqueness of the request; the administrative function of <br />the revised request; the applicant's code compliance; and the <br />potential ambiguity of the situation. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets questioned whether such action would <br />discourage applicants from modifying their requests to comply <br />with City Code, if notification was again required. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.