My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_00359
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF001 - PF999
>
300-399
>
pf_00359
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2024 11:56:34 AM
Creation date
7/22/2005 6:31:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
359
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
Project Name
Midland Grove Condominiums
Applicant
Klosterman Realty Company
Status
Approved
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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 />,,; <br />"? ~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br />. <br /> <br />. - <br />" , <br />&: '. <br />~- <br />...!!t.~~_ ._.. <br /> <br />4te <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />May 3, 1967 <br /> <br />CASE: <br /> <br />359-66 <br /> <br />APPLjr.AN1: <br /> <br />KIO$termon Realty Company <br /> <br />lOCATiON: <br /> <br />Southeast Quad Jot cJ Highway 36 and Cleveland Avenue <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from "R-l" to -R-3.1" and IOR_6n (Townhotne Distric:t) <br />and Spe:ial Use Permit <br /> <br />PlANN:NG CONSIDERA!IONS: <br /> <br />1. This proposal was considerf:d i:'l considerable depth at the iast meeting of the Planni:'lg <br />CClI'Mtission and refefence ismadetathe April report regordifl9critical data far the <br />development. At that meeting, th~ Planning Commis.sion suggested that tl-e ap~licant <br />apply for the two zones in questioo, i. e. the "R-3a~ zone and the Townh(Xlse L.."lr\e, <br />where townhouses are fY.oposed to be constructed. <br /> <br />2. The qpplic:ant has resubmitted the zoning application requesting the opprepriate zones <br />uiing the l'ownhWSe' District along t~e $C.Jthern and east~ly portiCl:1 of the property <br />as fe-"iowed at the last Planning Commission meeting. The density rr..quirementsQs <br />:otipuloted in the regulations have beM me: in both districts pt'oposed. <br /> <br />3. One cJ the items not tinalized at the Icst nearing was that c:J the methoc:b cJ <br />handling .he drainage (or the sites in question. The Engineer's Report should be <br />c:onsidered in determining the adequacy of the proposed methods cl accommodating <br />thi$ cl.ruinoge without or.y adve:'.. eff~t on c:onti~uo...s pcoperties. <br /> <br />4. Thf' remaining reqt.iroo drawings and dale necessary for the approval rJ the planned <br />unit development have been submitted end appear to more than adequately meflt the <br />req..irements as stipuloted in the revised muitiple regubtioos. <br /> <br />5. We would suggest that the flanning COMmission and Council give serious c:onsidecotion <br />to the approval cl this proplY-Ol inasmuch os it ",oold appear to dff:r 0 reasonoble <br />development pdenticl foc the property withO'Jt odvene effects on conHgc..ous properties <br />or the neighborloood in genercl. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.