My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Correspondence 1992-1993 Waldron
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
1983-1993 Correspondance and Office Hours Records
>
Correspondence 1992-1993 Waldron
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2016 9:02:57 AM
Creation date
2/9/2016 1:08:31 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
603
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
M E M O R A N D II M <br />• DATE: July 7, 1992 <br />TO: Steve Sarkozy <br />i�ROM: Craig A. Waldron <br />S��CT; Proper ro�.e of the Planning Commission and the Review <br />process for the proposed John Rose Speedskating/Band� <br />� <br />� <br />facility. <br />The proper role �f the Planning Commis h� ��ase �of d the proposed <br />Council on land use matters. In t <br />s�eedskating/bandy facility, the role of the Planni,nr� Commission <br />would be limited. The proposed use would be consistent wi�h �the <br />�'civic" designation of the si�e on the comprehensive plan. The <br />praposed Oval site is in an R-1 zoning dist�ict. R-1 zoning <br />�ist�:•ict regulations state that ,�� y�tbu Therefore,�no rezon�na <br />permitted uses in an R-�. zoning di <br />wauld be r�ecessary . <br />It should be noted that golf courses, puiblic swinunin� pools, �nd <br />community centers rec;ui�e. �Pecial use permits in R-1 distriets . <br />If the Council would consid�r the proposed facility as similar to <br />thes� uses, a special use perm�.t could be required. � The <br />Pianning Camm�ssic�n wauld have to review the special use permit <br />request and mak� a recommendation io the City Council. It is our <br />opinian that the Oval is not a co�nuni�ty ce�nter'� use. <br />Depending on the f inal design af tk� e proj ect, <br />required. I� variances are requi�ed, Planr�ing <br />and reco�nmendation to the City Cauncil will be <br />variances may �e <br />Commission review <br />necEssary. <br />between <br />The project wo�xld also involv TheeP1 nning�Commission�wauld have <br />Woodhill and County Road C. <br />to review �hat vacation and make a recommendation to the City <br />Council. <br />Finally, State ].aw requires tlna� the Planning Commission review <br />all c�nital impxovements fo� consistency with the City's <br />compreh�nsive plan. State law also indicates that "the governing <br />body may, by resolution adopted by twc�-thirds vote, dis�er�se with <br />tT�e requir�ments of �khis subdivision when, in i�s judge�nent, it <br />f�nas that the propc�sed acquisition or disposal of real property <br />or capitai improvement has no relation:�hip tc► the comprehensiv� <br />municipal plan." <br />It may also be apprapriate to <br />the proposed plan in general <br />issues. <br />Y�ave the Planning Commission review <br />and to co�nent on site development <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.