My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:44:44 AM
Creation date
2/27/2007 3:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/29/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
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 />Roseville City Council <br />Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 24 of 38 <br />Mr. LeTendre opined that this area had contributed to increased density with <br />other redevelopments in the near vicinity. Mr. LeTendre questioned the <br />City's legal position if they were to deny this application due to the proposed <br />cul-de-sac and long tenn maintenance costs; and sought clarification that be- <br />cause the application was submitted prior to the moratorium being in place, <br />it was excluded. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the moratorium didn't govern, as it <br />wasn't effective until January 30, 2007, the date of publication. Mr. Ander- <br />son further addressed cul-de-sacs and his interpretation of City Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark addressed the development of a Preliminary Plat and denials based <br />on City Council considerations related to health, safety, general welfare and <br />convenience of the City. Mr. Stark further addressed the public notification <br />for the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level with mailed and <br />published notice; with additional City Council testimony taken, as per cur- <br />rent policy, at City Council discretion, but not publicly noticed. Mr. Stark <br />further noted that staff didn't take an advocacy position; but looked to the <br />technical merits to provide recommendation to the City Council allowing <br />them to make their policy decisions. <br /> <br />Darrell LeBarron, 2101 W County Road B <br />Mr. LeBarron personally endorsed the project, and noted that - along with a <br />number of other neighbors of Mr. Mueller - had chosen not to sign, if ap- <br />proached, as they were supportive ofMr. Mueller's proposed development <br />plan. Mr. LeBarron provided a brief history of the original development in <br />the area by Mr. Mueller's father in the 1940' s and noted that some neighbors <br />currently in opposition to the project were currently living on those subdi- <br />vided properties. Mr. LeBarron disputed allegations that 98% of the neig- <br />hbors were against the project. <br /> <br />Previous neighborhood support had been provided, and confirmed by staff, <br />of property owners at 2101 W County Road B; 2121 W County Road B; <br />2192 Acorn Road; 2220 Acorn Road; and 2237 Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />Vivian Romalingam, 2182 Acorn Road <br />Ms. Romalingam questioned the legality ofthe City Council considering this <br />application one day before the moratorium went into effect. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.