My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03556
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3500
>
pf_03556
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:33:54 PM
Creation date
3/16/2006 1:55:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3556
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
3103 ASBURY AVE
Applicant
Vernon Albertson
Status
Approved
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 />5. <br /> <br /> <br />Re: Minor Subdivision at 3103 AsburvlPF3556 <br /> <br />Dear <br /> <br />Thank you for providing a copy of your planning file on the Albertson request a minor <br />subdivision. Since speaking you last week I have reviewed a tape of the April 7 Planning <br />Commission hearing and have spoken with both Dennis Welsch and Jay Squires. There appears <br />no reason why the City Council would deny the minor subdivision requested. <br /> <br />In your planning report you recommend approval based on the conditions listed in Section 3.1 <br />through 3.11. Concerning the conditions at 3.8, I do not believe the Council can deny variances <br />or setback permits which have not been requested and are not before it. I have spoken with an <br />experienced local realtor who believes that this condition will significantly diminish the market <br />value of Lot 7 and may even preclude its sale. It could, in my opinion, constitute an unlawful <br />taking. Likewise it is not appropriate that the Council condition approval of a minor subdivision <br />by requiring placement of a driveway and submittal of a scaled site plan with afzdure building <br />permit, as set out in 3.9 and 3.10. The conditions are wholly unrelated to the request for a <br />subdivision. <br /> <br />Except for mollifying a few neighbors, there is no benefit to the City in imposing these <br />conditions as part of this minor subdivision. The conditions should only be taken up by the City <br />at such time as a building permit is actually applied for. <br /> <br />Please remove conditions 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 from the Staff Findings and Conditions section of <br />your report. I am happy to speak with you further about this before Monday's Council meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />Thank you. <br /> <br />Daniel G. Wall <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.