My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02471
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2400
>
pf_02471
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:53:18 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:32:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2471
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Address
674 COUNTY ROAD C W
Applicant
PARKRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
Status
WITHDRWN
PIN
112923110007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
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 />On June 3, 1994, Mr. ){P.hr noqylHtal the rnmmißÏon to consider a continmltiœ of the <br />~~.:;;.., ;.... CouoÕi1 hr.ori.,. 'q;¡ddi"f die JCcIv JWpninlID a R...d.nti.1 <br />. r adred that the hP.arinp be coÕtimled until after the ComprP.hen~ve Guide <br />Plan revisinn~ have been COJQpleœd. <br /> <br />ALlERNATIVE ACTIONS: <br /> <br />1) By MOTION, recommend denial of the Concept Plan fŒ a 23 unit townhœse Planned Unit <br />Deve~ at a densi1y of 6 units per acre as being too dense (4 units is the maximwn), not <br />conåmmt with the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation of the site as Low Densi1y <br />Residential (as per the Council action of May 23, 1994), and an inadequate set of pJam regarding <br />drainage, grading, Jandscaping. (State,in the máion, as many reasons as the Commission may have <br />foc sœh as recommendation. This would send the issue on to the Ci1y Council fŒ further action. <br />If the Council denied the PUD remning request, the Code stipulates that the applicant could not <br />reawIy fŒ a similar rezoning hearing on this site fŒ at least 6 months.) <br /> <br />2) By MOTION, recommend approval of the request as consistent with the PlaIming Commission's <br />action of May 11, 1994. (This is a problem because the PUD Concept application and submittals <br />are nŒ complete as viewed by the staff and because the Colmcil has determined that the <br />. Comprehensive Guide Plan shoold remain Low Densi1y - single family or at least, units no more <br />than 4 per acre.) <br /> <br />3) By MOTION, acce¡t or deny a request of the applicant to continue the Concept Plan Rezoning <br />Hearing to a specific PlaIming Commission meeting date, pending the completion of the <br />Com¡rd1ensive Guide Plan. If this action is chosen, the Commission shoold state that it will not <br />accqt an application unless it is complete and the awlicant pays for all additional public hearing <br />nOOfication costs. (Staff estimates that the earliest this may 0CClØ" would be the October 12, 1994, <br />mætùJg.) <br /> <br />4) By MOTION, accept or deny a request of the applicant, to table action on the project <br />indefinitely. The Commission should ~ that such a request will require a completed set of <br />awlications and submittals and another set of public hearings on the Comprehensive Guide Plan and <br />the PUD Concept PJan. The applicant pays fŒ all additional public hearing notification costs. <br /> <br />..(þ- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.