My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01874
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1800-1899
>
pf_01874
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 10:05:28 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 10:03:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1874
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.
/
128
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 <br />page# 3 <br />Wednesday, March 1, 1989 <br />Gatlin <br />excessive runoff in the area. redspon Gatlina t he h <br />addedthatad �a <br />seeenen how much vegetation <br />ewould be remove <br />the time that a <br />spec <br />ific drainage plan would be han el should not be an dverse <br />• ed at <br />building permit is issued and that there <br />t the existing drainage pattern. <br />effec on <br />Schultz stated that they were not PI on removing any more <br />would <br />trees than <br />necessary, just where the house Vict ria from tthe <br />Schultz added that the water would draindrainage pattern would <br />front of the house and the remaining a <br />remain the same. <br />laced on the deeds to <br />Maglich asked if a restrictio the homes ould e are sold. �Iaglich added <br />prevent removal ofe to after the project and that the Planning <br />that he was opposedthe lot division. <br />Commission should deny <br />Jane Apman, 2989 Vic <br />stated that the prime reason they <br />Victoria, <br />bought their <br />house was because the area had 100s fo A m nt added <br />that a 60 foot lot in a its acrossoot r the street but Victoria foot <br />that there are 75 fois a <br />ot 1 <br />division which separates the 100 foot lot area from the 75 <br />low area. <br />that trees would be removed to provide yard <br />Apman pointed outA man <br />space because there are not sufficient <br />tasked atos•bail pthe <br />P <br />testified that the neighborhood out that the proposal is not <br />developer out. Apman Pointed <br />consi��tent to <br />the rest of the lots on the block and would be <br />destructive to the neighborhood. <br />. what makes he <br />The <br />resident at 3013 Victoria stated that space is <br />would appearto <br />area desirable and that with the new to , <br />he <br />be crammed in. He pointed out that 85 feet foot Clots . Het added <br />00 <br />on the block and most of the lots are 1 <br />haracter <br />that <br />60 and 65 foot lots would not be Situation should the <br />he <br />hborhood. He stated that the exis g house or the house <br />neigis or just add on to the existing <br />should be moved or torn down to allow two 100 foot lots. <br />left as <br />3029 Victoria, stated that the Planning Commission <br />Crum, ect the project because it is not consistent <br />should vote to rej <br />with the existing space and character of the neighborhood. <br />Dod 2992 Victoria, stated that he has a 75 foot lot which <br />Keith Yclose <br />dy <br />is too small and that the houses are able and that the Planr. ning <br />added that a 60 fiat tis the proposal. <br />Commission should reject <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.