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.' Page# 4 <br />Wednesday, March 1, 1989 <br />Bill Zerfas, 3006 Victoria, testified that the openness of the <br />area is the attraction and that three homes where two should be <br />is a problem. Zerfas stated that the Commission should reject <br />the proposal. <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br />Johnson stated that in her opinion this was an unreasonable <br />request which would be deleterious to the character of the <br />neighborhood. Johnson added that she would support a 75 foot lot <br />and a 125 foot lot but that a 60 foot was too small. <br />Berry stated she had great difficulty in approving this without a <br />survey. Berry added. that she had no problem with the small size <br />lot, that it providf.s a variety of housing in the community. <br />DeBenedet testified that he also had the concern that they were <br />only presented with a sketch plan and that a survey should be <br />required. DeBenedet stated that he would rather see an 85 foot <br />lot and setback variances granted. <br />Stokes said that he sees nothing wrong with the proposal, that it <br />would provide increased taxes to the City. Stokes added that the <br />City can't control tree cutting and that the proposed homes were <br />designed well and wouldn't detract from the homes and value of <br />the area. <br />Moeller stated that there has been no accurate survey presented <br />to allow the Commission to determine what is actually being <br />proposed. <br />Stokes testified that the Commission owes it to the petitioner <br />to act on the proposal and that he was concerned that if a survey <br />was required and the proposal was ultimately voted down that the <br />petitioner would needlessly have expended money for a survey. <br />Dahlgren stated that staff had realized that there was no 'survey <br />provided but thought the Planning Commission could decide if the <br />division was appropriate and then require a survey before the <br />Council acted on the proposal. <br />Apman stated that one property line was not accurate. <br />Goedeke stated that'he was not comfortable acting without a <br />survey. Goedeke added that he would be more comfortable with a <br />75 foot lot and a 125 foot lot but that three homes is too many <br />for the site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.