My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01912
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 4:49:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2024 4:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1912
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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
ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page# 7 <br />Wednesday, January 4, 1989 <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren summarized the proposed lot division and the lot sizes <br />in the surrounding area. <br />Nelson stated that he liked the neighborhood and City and wants <br />to stay but that his existing house is getting over crowded. <br />Maschka asked what the footprint of the new house would be. <br />Nelson responded that he hadn't developed it yet but he wants it <br />to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. <br />Richard Peterson, 1045 W. County Road B, inquired what the effect <br />of the proposal would have on the natural drainage flow in the <br />area. Keel replied that this issue would be dealt with in the <br />permit review process and that Mr. Nelson wouldn't be able to <br />impede the natural flow across the lot. <br />Peterson asked if there would a storm sewer assessment. Keel <br />replied that the developer would be responsible for any storm <br />sewer that was required because of his project. <br />Lawrence Peterson, 1043 W. County B, stated that he opposed the <br />proposed lot split and pointed out that the existing lots are a <br />nice size and comparable to other lots in the area. Peterson <br />added that allowing minimum sizes is the wrong approach in that <br />area and pointed out that the corner lot would be below minimum <br />area standards. Peterson also concurred with the concern about <br />drainage. Peterson stated that Mr. Lloyd Benson at 2176 Oxford <br />had asked him to convey his objections to the lot split and that <br />the City has ordinances in place which it should abide by. <br />Gary Erickson, 2185 Oxford, stated that the City should not go by <br />past actions but to review this case on its own merits. Erickson <br />stated that the proposed division would destroy the appeal of the <br />neighborhood and that the City should not try to shoe horn <br />another lot because it could affect the value. Erickson stated <br />that he was opposed to the division. <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br />Berry stated a concern about drainage from the Super. America lot <br />going across this property. Peterson replied that Super America <br />takes care of its own drainage. <br />Berry asked about the open space that appeared to be behind all <br />of these lots and wondered what the development potential might <br />be. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.