My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01829
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1800-1899
>
pf_01829
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 11:14:54 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 11:12:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1829
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4-11-88 <br />ITEM NO.: <br />Department,Ap royal: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: <br />Hearing <br />Item Description: Arthur Schuster/Richard Webb request for a <br />comprehensive plan amendment from low density <br />to nigh density residential, rezoning from R-1 <br />to R-3A, special use permit for an alternative <br />residential facility for the elderly, and <br />variances to parking set back, the number of <br />off street parking stalls provided, and to <br />exceed density requirements and a shoreline <br />permit. <br />The Roseville Planning Commission considered this matter at it's <br />April 6, 1988 meeting and recommended on a 4 to 3 vote that the <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment be denied based on the following <br />findings of fact: <br />1. The proposed land use features are in a excess of the density <br />allowed. <br />2. The proposed structure is to massive for the site. <br />3. The proposed parking variance is too extensive. <br />The Planning Commission further recommended denial of the zoning <br />special use permit)and variances on a 4 to 3 vote based on the <br />following findings of fact: <br />1. That the zoning and land use is inconsistent with the <br />comprehensive plan. <br />2. The building is too massive. <br />F� <br />3. The variance to parking is to extensive. <br />4. The hardship for the variances to parking set back and <br />density was not established. <br />Subsequent to the Planning jmmission hearing on this matter, it <br />has been determined that comprehensive plan change is not <br />necessary. Mr. Dahlgren will be developing correspondence in this <br />respect. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.