My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_000809
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2000
>
pm_000809
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:35:52 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:03:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/9/2000
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
<br />the front yard if it met performance criteria. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing explained the discussion at the August 2nd zoning Committee meeting, noting the cost and time of a <br />setback permit versus variance. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained a definition of "rear lot line" as it relates to corner lots. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if the front door should be used to locate the front property line. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing suggested more time to think about the amendment and the setback permits and look at other cities' code <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked about the impacts of street improvements and assessments. (Short side plus a percent or portion of <br />long side). He also asked how other cities are treating the definition of corner lots. Thomas Paschke explained some <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />Member Egli asked for details on lot size and coverage relating to corner lots. <br /> <br />Member Olson noted the definition is confusing and both the definition of front and rear yard should be stated with the <br />dimensional setbacks. <br /> <br />No public comment was offered. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing continued the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Klausing moved, second by Member Olson, to continue the request and hearing for an amendment to <br />Section 1002.02, Definitions, Lot Line, Front, to allow more staff time to review alternatives. <br /> <br />Ayes: Klausing, Egli, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke <br /> <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />Motion carried 5 to O. <br /> <br />8. Presentations and Other Actions <br /> <br />8a. Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation t Peggy Egli <br /> <br />Chair Klausing thanked Peggy Egli for her participation on the Planning Commission and read the following Resolution: <br /> <br />Member Klausing moved, second by Member Olson, to approve the following Resolution: <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION <br />TO CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER <br /> <br />PEGGY EGLI <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Planning Commission and Community Development Staff <br />encourage community participation and thoughtful approaches to the impacts of development within <br />the community and on the environment, and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Roseville Planning Commission Member Peggy Egli has provided valuable insight and <br />planning contributions to the city planning program such as serving on specific Planning Task Forces, <br />including the City Center Task Force, expanding the Vista 2000 vision of the community, school- <br />community issues, neighborhood preservation, environment and water quality issues, and more <br />insight toward the Comprehensive Plan, and for contributions to citizens, commissions, and staff, and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville planning program has placed high demands on commission member's <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.