My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2012 8:48:05 AM
Creation date
9/11/2012 10:44:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/27/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,August 27,2012 <br /> Page 38 <br /> With inclusion of those findings for denial, Councilmember Johnson stated that <br /> he could then support a motion to deny the application. <br /> Based on those findings, Mayor Roe stated that he could also support a motion <br /> for denial; however, he could not do so based on a finding related to what ease- <br /> ments may eventually needed, or lack of a more substantial drainage plan. <br /> Mayor Roe opined that those findings alone did not provide sufficient grounds <br /> to deny the subdivision. <br /> In terms of drainage issues and without drawing a conclusion on those facts, <br /> City Attorney Gaughan noted that the City's Minor Subdivision Code provided <br /> for an expedited process and basis for denial in Section 1102, as it related to <br /> concerns for the City's health, safety and welfare based on drainage concerns. <br /> Mayor Roe opined that he didn't see this subdivision request sufficiently affect- <br /> ing the health, safety or welfare of citizens as a justification for denial; however, <br /> he did have a problem with the two (2) zoning districts on one parcel. However, <br /> Mayor Roe advised that he could not support the motion as it currently stood. <br /> Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, an amendment to the original motion that <br /> would strike previous reasoning for findings; and address those findings rec- <br /> ommended by City Attorney Gaughan related to multiple zoning and represent- <br /> ing poor planning practices. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that she could accept a finding that the pro- <br /> posed request affected the health, safety and welfare of area residents due to <br /> drainage concerns. <br /> As the seconder of the motion, Councilmember Willmus expressed his concur- <br /> rence. <br /> The motion, as amended, was restated as follows: <br /> "McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, DENIAL of the request for a RECOM- <br /> BINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION,based on the following findings: <br /> • The proposed request affected the health, safety and welfare of area resi- <br /> dents due to drainage concerns. <br /> • The proposed request would create a land-locked residential strip; <br /> • The proposed request would create a lot with multiple zoning designations <br /> and signify poor planning practices by the City. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; and Johnson. <br /> Nays: Roe. <br /> Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.