My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf09-023
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2009
>
pf09-023
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2014 4:10:58 PM
Creation date
7/17/2013 9:58:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
09-023
Planning Files - Type
Division of Land
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 24, 2009 <br />Page 15 <br />Discussion included residual addressing assigned to the properties; application of <br />such requests directly to the City Council after staff review and without Planning <br />Commission review, and not requiring a public hearing process or public notice. <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern that adjacent property owners may <br />be unaware of the request and unable to provide public comment; and suggested <br />t:zat the City Council consider deferring approval to allow sun-ounding property <br />owners to be sufficiently noticed. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the proposed use was a permitted use in the <br />area, and that permits were issued by staff, providing the applicant met current <br />Code requirements, and was simply a re-identification of properiy lines. <br />Councilmember Pust asked that this process be included in the overall review of <br />the Zoning Code, whether the policy should remain as it stands, or if it should go <br />through the Planning Commission and public hearing process. <br />Councilmember Roe concurred that the Planning Commission should review this <br />policy as part of the Zoning Code redraft. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her request that action be deferred until public <br />rotice was provided. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned what purpose the notice would serve, since the ques- <br />tion before the City Council was a recombination of lots, and how the public <br />would address that. <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed her desire to know specific setbacks, height re- <br />strictions, or potential traffic to be generated, prior to her vote on the request, all <br />things typically reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. <br />Councilmember Roe clarified with Mr. Paschke, the setbacks from the front, rear <br />and sides; with the current hardware store out of compliance; noting that the new <br />structure would be further away from property lines than current structures, pro- <br />viding a better situation for adjacent property owners. <br />Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the proposed CONSOLIDATION <br />�,ND RECOMBINATION of parcels at 2595 — 2635 Rice Street and 160 County <br />Road C, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 and 5 and the condi- <br />tions of Section 6 of the Request for Council Action dated August 24, 2009. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, without additional notice <br />to the neighborhood. <br />Roll Call <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.