My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0616
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2008 1:54:00 PM
Creation date
4/4/2006 11:56:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/16/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
~`~, ~ y Pagc I off` 2 <br />~ ~ ~- <br />p e~ <br />,~ ~ , <br />Janet Vllilke <br />From: "Doug Wilke" <dwilke@attbi.com~ <br />To: <johnk@ustamily.net>; <Craig0456@attbi.com>; <dmaschka@gwest.net>; <gregschroeder@attbi.com>; <br /><Neal.Beets@ci.roseville.mn.us>; <tomkough@netscape.com> <br />Gc: "Sandy Wondra" <sandy@askusinc.com>; "Janet Wilke" <jwilke@attbi.com> <br />Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:35 PM <br />Subject: Planning File 3478 <br />I am e-mailing the Roseville City Council and Mayor I~ysylyczyn regarding the <br />Planning Fi1e3478 requesting variances for improveme~lts to 420 Te~~race Drive. <br />We learned of this project when we received a card in the mail telling us that this <br />would be on the agenda of the Planning commission at their meeting an Jane 4, <br />2003. We attended this meeting along with many Of the co~~tiguo~~s neigl~~o~;s. We <br />also had a petition signed by appro~r~~~ ~.tc~~~ 3 of tic ncig~~r~~-s ~j~~~ Y~~~st~~ ~ ~; ~:~~: ~;a <br />grant the variances for this project. <br />It was at this time that we were first informed that this was a part of the Rasevil~c <br />Rambler Improvement project. We feel teat ~. pro~,~ta~~~ teat is s~~.l~sid.i~cd bbl dollars <br />from fees paid by taxpayers should m~.r~d~t~: tie ~pp~.~a.Dt.s be re~~~red ~.o co~~p~e~.~~ <br />their projects by staying within the City codes. The city and: the pla_nn~ng <br />commission should be less variance friendly and n~a~~c cads f~icndl~r. ~1,hey sl:~o~~ld <br />be more selective in granti~~g c~x~;eptio~~s. ~l~c apl~.lic~::~~t s~ou~d ~c ~-cu~~=~~c }~o <br />justify the NEED for a varia~~ce not. jest ~::~~c dcs~~~-~~. ~'~~~~ s~~~~~~ld ~~~~ p~s~: of~.~~~~ `dea.~' <br />between the grantor and the grantee. Also, the FII~~ should be re~~.ired, a~aDg wltb <br />the applicant, to at Least attempt to n~.eet with tl~e neig~~boa:£s to d~sc~~ss ~.1~~~ f~r~~~~~t. <br />Note: this was not done. ~`l~e~j s~~old also b~ ~F~~~l~~i~a~~~~ ~.~~ pl~~sic.~~-y .~1~1uai~~~~ <br />themselves with the n~ghbo~R~oo~~_ ~~1:~~~r~: ~~~~~.~~~ a j~~~~~_~~~~~~~, ~.~ ~~ ~.~ <br />appropriateness of the proposed: project.. <br />If tax payer's dollars are being used for this type, of Ra~~~b1c~~= Rc~~~od~.~ p~`~~~~-a~~~f <br />then the tax payers that arc affc~~~d i~~ tl~c ~~c-igl~~k~~orl~oo~ s~R~ld ~~~,: ~~~~'~~fLc ~-arlic~~ <br />in the process. <br />tJther Comments: <br />5.9 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors: <br />I served on the Planning Commission for eight years From my exper~e~~ce I <br />feel that in this case there ~s not a. h~:~o~~~~1_~ ~.ta~ ~ond j~~~~.~-g~ ~.~~~_ ~~~~-~~a~,~s. '~~s ~s a. <br />residence that at the time of pug cl~a5e ~~~ l~.te su~~~r~~e~~, x,002, vv as ~. 3 hed~ oo~~~ <br />6/16/2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.