My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02151
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2100
>
pf_02151
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:41:56 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 10:43:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2151
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
Address
1655 COUNTY ROAD B2 W
Applicant
THOMAS N. THEISEN
PIN
092923140026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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 />~ <br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday October 3, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />wietecki moved and Berry seconded to recommend that in reviewing <br />the comprehensive plan, the Council should clarify the policy of <br />allowing Amusement Centers in the City because of the security <br />impact , the impact on public health safety and welfare of the <br />community and because of the impact on the market values in the <br />surrounding neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry Goedeke, Johnson, Roberts, <br />Stokes wietecki <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planning File 2153 <br /> <br />Richard KettlerjMe1 Buessler request for a rezoning at 1023 <br />Parker Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shard10w presented request stating that the proposal was <br />continued in order to let neighbors meet with developer and look <br />at similar buildings the developer has built. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that the City's policy of rezoning R2 lots in R1 <br />zones was established in 1959 and reaffirmed in the 1980 <br />Comprehensive Plan and again in 1983. The only condition was <br />that the lot was adequate size to support the building. <br /> <br />Roberts questioned whether <br />besides lot size. Shardlow <br />throughout the city, not <br />district. <br /> <br />there were any other conditions <br />stated that R2 should be scattered <br />clustered or place in a distinct <br /> <br />Kettler stated that the proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan <br />requirements, that due to financing concerns it is unlikely that <br />it would become a rental property, it won It add to traffic <br />because the units have only a two bedroom and because the design <br />caters to elderly and handicapped, that the architecture fits in <br />the style of the newer built homes and that the lot is adequate <br />for this type of building. <br /> <br />Mr. Foster, 969 Parker Avenue, questioned the 1983 policy <br />reaffirmation. Shardlow stated that the 1959 original plan <br />stated that there would be no zoning for R2 districts, but that <br />applications for rezonîng in R1 districts would be entertained on <br />a lot by lot basis. In 1983, the Metropolitan Council asked for <br />the city to review accessory apartment options in R1 districts. <br />The city determined that its 1959 policy was adequate and that no <br />changes needed to be made to it. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan <br />also designated R2 as a low density area. <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />...... <br /> <br />~. <br />~ <br />t <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.