My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-08-05_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-08-05_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2015 11:30:36 AM
Creation date
10/16/2015 11:30:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />95 <br />Nays: 0 <br />96 <br />Motion carried. <br />97 <br />b. PLANNING FILE No. 13-010 <br />98 <br />Request by Hand In Hand Christian Montessori, with property owner Church of <br />99 <br />Corpus Christi, for renewed approval of the existing temporary classroom <br />100 <br />structure to remain on the property at 2131 Fairview Avenue as an INTERIM USE <br />101 <br />for an additional two years <br />102 <br />Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 13-010 at 6:43 p.m. <br />103 <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed the request for a temporary classroom <br />104 <br />facility for Hand In Hand Christian Montessori (HIH) initially approved in August of 2013; <br />105 <br />and now requested for renewal as detailed and necessitated as outlined in the staff report <br />106 <br />dated August 5, 2015. <br />107 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that the recommended expiration of the renewed IU approval is to <br />108 <br />calendar year end in 2018, and intended for the use of the facility over four academic <br />109 <br />years as requested, ending in May/June of 2018, allowing the remaining 6-7 months of <br />110 <br />that year for removal of the facility. <br />111 <br />At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had received no direct <br />112 <br />feedback about the new structure impacting drainage for the better or worse, other than <br />113 <br />the written material from Councilmember McGehee included in the agenda materials <br />114 <br />addressing her personal observation of drainage at the site. Mr. Lloyd noted that this <br />115 <br />observation had prompted the condition for approval addressing that issue. <br />116 <br />Noting that there had been no feedback or comments from neighbors at the time of the <br />117 <br />staff report, at the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd reported that staff had received <br />118 <br />no comments since the report had been disseminated. <br />119 <br />In addressing the concerns raised by Councilmember McGehee, Chair Boguszewski <br />120 <br />asked if the City r the applicant was working on plans to address her concerns with <br />121 <br />drainage. <br />122 <br />Mr. Lloyd referenced an e-mail from City Engineer/Public Works Director Marc Culver, <br />123 <br />indicating that the City and Watershed District were working to address this broader site <br />124 <br />rather than only a system to address the temporary building. In his meetings with Mr. <br />125 <br />Culver as part of the Design Review Committee (DRC), Mr. Lloyd reported that his <br />126 <br />impression was that this improvement was functioning as intended. <br />127 <br />In his personal observation of the site and as addressed by Councilmember McGehee, <br />128 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted landscaping and exterior building materials, and asked if those <br />129 <br />had been resolved or were still in process. <br />130 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the reason this was coming before the Planning Commission at <br />131 <br />this time was due to the applicant seeking an additional month after the open house to <br />132 <br />address landscaping concerns, as outlined by Mr. Thompson in written comments <br />133 <br />included in agenda packet materials for tonight’s meeting. While unsure if siding <br />134 <br />concerns had been addressed, in talking to the City’s Building Official and Building <br />135 <br />Inspector, Mr. Lloyd reported that they had not indicated or made him aware of any siding <br />136 <br />material problems. Mr. Lloyd advised hat poorly maintained siding would not be allowed <br />137 <br />as part of any approved Interim Use or extension of one; noting that concerns raised <br />138 <br />would be more in the nature of building form and type of siding allowed. <br />139 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd advised from his perspective, there was <br />140 <br />nothing that should prevent this from going ahead provided work continues to address <br />141 <br />concerns raised at the open house. As noted in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reiterated that <br />142 <br />staff recommended approval and had heard nothing to-date to change that <br />143 <br />recommendation. <br />144 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.