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
are properly maintained. The City does not have any requirements about how the 196 <br />trash is handled. 197 <br /> 198 <br />Mr. Michael Schmidt, 1300 County Road D West, indicated he has lived across the 199 <br />street from the property his entire life. He stated the property across the street from 200 <br />him has been an eyesore for him his entire life. It did have a house on it at one time 201 <br />and was demolished with a garage put up in its place and has never been maintained. 202 <br />He knew that The Buboltz’s have done a lot of work and tried to maintain some 203 <br />semblance of the property, but it is not their responsibility to keep it up because it is 204 <br />not their property. He was glad something was finally being done with the property 205 <br />to help make the area better to live in. His concern is that there are a lot of 206 <br />apartments within the area and this will eventually become three duplexes that will be 207 <br />rented out. There is an element that comes along with that. This is a very small 208 <br />community because of County Road D and the property owners want to make sure 209 <br />the area maintains itself. Another concern of his is the green aspect of this. He did 210 <br />not see anything in the plans with respect to that such as solar panels, water 211 <br />reclamation or anything like that. His last concern was the change in the plans and 212 <br />that the developer went from four units to six units which concerns him because four 213 <br />townhome units would probably mean owner occupied to six duplex units that will 214 <br />more likely be rental. 215 <br /> 216 <br />Mr. Lloyd commented on the City’s ability to control properties being rented. He 217 <br />noted even though the dwelling units are attached these units are proposed to be on 218 <br />their own lots and may be sold separately. 219 <br /> 220 <br />Chair Gitzen closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. as no one else wished to address 221 <br />the Commission. 222 <br /> 223 <br />Commission Deliberation 224 <br /> 225 <br />Member Pribyl indicated the Commission is asked to approve the plat and not 226 <br />anything else. She explained there were not any variances either. She felt like there 227 <br />might be some concerns about how this development is being done but the question 228 <br />for the Commission is the plat. 229 <br /> 230 <br />Chair Gitzen indicated that was correct. 231 <br /> 232 <br />Member McGehee thought there were a number of problems that exist with this, not 233 <br />the least of which is the City’s own definitional questions. She indicated she did not 234 <br />think those questions and issues seemed to be answerable in this discussion. 235 <br /> 236 <br />MOTION 237 <br />Member Schaffhausen moved, seconded by Member Kimble, to recommend to 238 <br />the City Council approval of a Preliminary Plat of an Existing Parcel into Six 239 <br />Lots in Order to Build a Twinhome Development with the conditions listed in 240 <br />the RPCA. (PF20-026) 241 <br /> 242 <br />Member Schaffhausen indicated she made the motion to approve because she 243 <br />believed there are some questions to be answered but as Member Pribyl pointed out 244 <br />RCA Attachment E <br />Page 5 of 28
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.