My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 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.
/
778
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
a. Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat of an Existing Parcel into Six Lots in 1 <br />Order to Build a Twinhome Development (PF20-026) 2 <br />Chair Gitzen opened the public hearing for PF20-026 at approximately 6:42 p.m. and 3 <br />reported on the purpose and process of a public hearing. He advised this item will be 4 <br />before the City Council on February 22, 2021. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Senior Planner Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated 7 <br />February 3, 2021. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Member Pribyl as for clarification on the replacement trees because in the report it 10 <br />shows preliminarily that the trees are not required under the Ordinance but in Mr. 11 <br />Lloyd’s presentation it sounded like the Forester confirmed that replacement trees are 12 <br />required. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mr. Lloyd explained he and the Forester have been talking about this project as well 15 <br />as the other projects tonight over emails the last few weeks. The trees or table that is 16 <br />a part of the tree preservation plan document that the Commissioners are reviewing 17 <br />tonight is one that he pasted over the one already there. There were some numerical 18 <br />errors in the table that were on that plan. The staff report did indicate that 19 <br />replacement trees would not be necessary but that is incorrect. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Member McGehee indicated she was not aware of the fine details but assumed the 22 <br />single-family home will remain, but she learned from the resident that apparently the 23 <br />owner of the lot being developed, and the single-family home were owned by the 24 <br />same individual. When that person sold the home to the current owners on the west 25 <br />side of that site it was indicated the property line was different than what it is. Those 26 <br />people had been maintaining at least a strip of the property by their house. Since it 27 <br />was purchased a chain link fence was put up during COVID and with the chain link 28 <br />fence up there is not enough room next to their garage and she was sure that those 29 <br />owners need a buffer but there have been other places like this where the City has 30 <br />actually devised something up and made adjustments. She did not believe this was 31 <br />one of those cases, but she did think that given the proximity of that house, which is 32 <br />occupied as a single-family house, there needs to be some sort of buffer or 33 <br />accommodation between the developer and the other homeowner or the City put some 34 <br />additional buffering there but not a fence because that makes a problem for the 35 <br />current owners to navigate around their home. She asked staff for suggestions for 36 <br />this. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Mr. Lloyd indicated he was not sure there was a good answer. Whether the shared 39 <br />driveway is 110 feet to the east of where it is proposed to conform to that nominal 40 <br />provision about the street and the recently adopted underlying problem that the 41 <br />property line is closer than the homeowners anticipated it to be, moving the street or 42 <br />not installing a fence does not give anymore room to that neighboring homeowner 43 <br />and short of deeding some land or providing an easement across there, he did not 44 <br />know what other solutions there might be and he did not think that any of those are in 45 <br />the City’s purview. 46 <br /> 47 <br />Member Schaffhausen indicated because of the issues that came up with the new road 48 <br />she asked Mr. Lloyd to explain if someone could come in a back way and try and do 49 <br />RCA Attachment E <br />Page 1 of 28
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.