My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02153
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2100
>
pf_02153
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:42:04 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 10:43:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2153
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
Address
1023 PARKER AVE
Applicant
KETTLER, RICHARD J.
PIN
142923220040
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
<br />PLANNING REPORT <br /> <br />DA TE: <br /> <br />3 October 1990 <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br /> <br />2153 <br /> <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />Richard Kettler/Mel Buesseler <br /> <br />LOCA nON: <br /> <br />1023 Parker <br />sketch) <br /> <br />Avenue <br /> <br />(see <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br /> <br />Rezoning <br /> <br />PLANNING CONSIDER A TIONs: <br /> <br />1. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />This item was continued at the September 5th meeting. The applicants <br />and the surrounding neighbors were encouraged to get together, visit <br />other similar units built by Mr. Kettler's company, and attempt to <br />resolve as many issues and concerns as possible prior to the October <br />3rd meeting. <br /> <br />It is my understanding that there was a brief meeting following the <br />Planning Commission meeting on September 5. Mr. Kettler has also <br />informed me that one of his associates has made contact with several <br />of the neighbors and offered to show them comparable units. According <br />to Mr. Kettler, the neighbors that were contacted all said that they <br />planned to visit these sites on their own. We have encouraged Mr. <br />Kettler to contact as many neighbors as possible and reaffirm his <br />willingness to present and explain these units to them. <br /> <br />2. SUMMAR Y AND RECOMMENDA nON <br /> <br />The purpose in continuing this item was to give the applicants and the <br />neighboring property owners the opportunity to meet, visit similar twin <br />home units, and discuss concerns. Whether or not the parties availed <br />themselves of this opportunity will be clear on October 3rd. Each of <br />you can and will judge for yourself the sincerity of the participants and <br />the attitudes that they have toward meeting with one another. <br />Regardless what has transpired or the results, we believe that both the <br />decision to continue the hearing and the recommendation that the <br />applicants meet with the neighbors was a good idea. <br /> <br />At this point, however, we do not recommend spending a great deal of <br />time or attention on the interaction between the applicants and the <br />neighbors. If they have met and learned more about what is being <br />proposed and each other's concerns, that is great; and if they have not, <br />we can agree that this is unfortunate, What is more important and <br />relevant to the Commission's deliberations is the adopted policies <br />regarding rezonings to R-2. <br /> <br />As staff members and Planning Commissioners, it is not our jobs to <br />make policy, but rather to interpret proposals to determine if they are <br />consistent with adopted policy. If you strongly disagree with this policy <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.