Laserfiche WebLink
<br />)"E -rtf:x?- "i1 ~ c.K ? á } J fl ck <br />"279 J h1)O oe AdD'~ <br /> <br />FGebruary 27, 1992 <br /> <br />Dear Jack, <br /> <br />You have obtained part of the documentation on the 1968 planned unit <br />development enacted as a rezoning and special use permit for the Rosedale <br />Apartment Project. There should be a file which contains the application, <br />all of the exhibits referenced(maps, landscaping plans, etc.), a report <br />from the city Planner, and a clear presentation of the conditions imposed <br />by th4e Planning Commission and City Council. Note that the Planning <br />Commission minutes reference numbered subject files. That Special Use <br />Permit should be part of that numberd subject file and the City's planning <br />records. <br /> <br />The City Council minutes of April 15, 1968, amplify the conditions under <br />which the rezoning and special use permit were granted by approving <br />specific landscape plans which were presented at the meeting and should be <br />part of the City's records, admonishing the developer to work out the the <br />fence problem with North Heights Church, requesting that the developer <br />initiate the landscaping of the buffer strip contemporaneously with the <br />building construction, and ordering an engineering report on storm sewers <br />capacity in County Road C2. A special Use Permit is a planning device <br />which permits a land use only under specific conditions; thus, there must <br />be a document which outlines those specific conditions. <br /> <br />I believe that the 200 foot strip along Woodbridge was zoned R1 before the <br />1968 Planned Unit Developement. Note that Ordinance 574 makes no mention <br />of zoning property to R1 (single family residential), but does zone <br />property from R1 to R7. The zoning ordinance in effect in 1968 might have <br />had procedural provisions on zoning property, but it is questionable that <br />zoning could be changed without specifying in the ordinance which land <br />parcel is involved. <br /> <br />The problem that Roseville has in enforcing the maintenance of the buffer <br />zone is a universal problem in planned unit developemts. We encountered <br />the problem continuously in California until the Legislature enacted <br />special assessment districts for street lighting and landscape <br />maintenance. This permitted th~formation of a special assessment district <br />as a condition of the PUD which could be used to charge the property owner <br />for landscape maintenance. <br /> <br />HOP~IS answers your specific questions. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~ Turnlund <br />