My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0512_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0512_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:45:24 PM
Creation date
5/8/2014 2:29:59 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
321
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
Attachment E <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, Apri121, 2014 <br />Page 16 <br />he didn't see how the City Council could approve this application; and expressed <br />serious concerns in doing so. <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that lot sizes could also be addressed similarly in commercial <br />districts, where the Zoning Code didn't address lot size standards other than sin- <br />gle-family lot sizes. <br />Mayor Roe read the "Statement of Purpose" from Section 1004.09 of the Zoning <br />Code; opining that this application didn't meet the definition of LDR-2; further <br />opining that he could approve LDR-1 and would be willing to do so in the inost <br />expeditious way possible for the developers to proceed. <br />McGehee moved TABLING action tonight; with Mayor Roe asking that she <br />withdraw her motion for the moment to allow more discussion, at which time she <br />did so. <br />City Attorney Gaughan clarified that, if the intent was to table action, that the de- <br />cision for extending the review period needed mutual agreement by the applicant <br />and City Council. <br />Mr. Johnson stated that he was not sure of his ability to extend the Purchase <br />Agreement without first consulting with other parties to the agreement. Mr. John- <br />son noted that, when this route was taken, it was to avoid any new road or infra- <br />structure for this almost four acre parcel, which could accommodate sixteen lots, <br />but they had chosen not to do so to keep with the current neighborhood's charac- <br />ter. <br />Mayor Roe Recognized that aspect; and asked Mr. Johnson's preference for <br />committing to an extension or having the City Council take action at this time, <br />which may result in denial. <br />Mr. Johnson agreed to the 60-day review extension. <br />City Attorney Gaughan asked that any action include a specific date to ensure a <br />more perfect record for the City. <br />Councilmember Willmus suggested action be taken when a full City Council was <br />available, recognizing that Mayor Roe would be unable to attend the May 5, 2014 <br />meeting, and suggested the extension be done to the May 12, 2014 meeting; <br />which was mutually agreed upon by the body and Mr. Johnson. <br />At the request of Mr. Johnson, Mayor Roe clarified that the extension would be <br />for consideration of the plat as presented or it would require the applicant to start <br />the process over again with a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level; <br />and suggested that the applicant choose what they were willing to do. <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.