pf_02319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ .fed bt//"'J ?;/e ~I~ '). MEMORANDUM DATE: 22 November, 1991 TO: Roseville Planning Commissioners FROM: John Shardlow RE: Follow Up to November Planning Commission Meeting; Description of Changes to Planning Reports to Avoid Future Confusion About Special Uses Within PUDs; Review of Proper Procedure and required Findings to Condition Zoning Approvals There were a number of issues that came up at the November meeting that caused some concern and misunderstanding. I want to respond to these questions in order to avoid similar problems in the future. I am committed to doing everything that I can to make Roseville's planning process as strong and well organized as possible. That will only happen if we continue to improve both the process and our working relationship. Certainly part of what occurred at the meeting was honest disagreement on policy recommendations. That is both healthy and beneficial, and as long as it occurs with the proper attitude, there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion, however, agreeing how to disagree could prove to be a worthwhile topic for a future workshop. The concerns stated regarding the "accuracy and credibility of the background reports" are much more important and need to be discussed There were two specific "inaccuracies" noted. The first related to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy (CO) for the Seaburg duplex and the second was the fact that the Brausen Amoco PUD report did not identify the car wash component as a special use. I want to address both of these concerns. The question of the CO for the Seaburg duplex came up, at least in part due to the fact that Mr. Seaburg had been difficult to deal with during the process. He complained about virtually every aspect of the process from the R.O.W. dedication to the fact that the issue related to the billboard only came up because his surveyor showed it on the survey. The question of the status of the CO was really only peripherally relevant to the Planning Commission's deliberations and, in retrospect, it confused the zoning discussion unnecessarily. The fact is that we asked Rick J opke about the status of the CO after driving past the duplex and seeing it occupied. Since Rick is quite literally the person who has to sign off