My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0213_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0213_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 2:28:02 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:31:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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
City Council Reg�lar Meeting — 0� 130/0b <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 13 <br />received additional e-mail and phane contact from other <br />re�idents expressing confusion that it was being considered for <br />final approval without additional public hearing. <br />Community Development Director Welsch advised that, when a <br />property owner came into compliance, an additional hearing was <br />nat held, and no addi�ional natice, outside the Planning <br />CommiSSion, was given. <br />Ciiy Attorney Squires addressed Mr. LeTendre's January 24, <br />2006 letter; noted that initial notice was provided, after which <br />foIlowed an alteration of an interior lot line by the p�-operty <br />awner, and would not require the City to pro�ide additional <br />notifieation. <br />Further discussion included �he original notice; specific Ci�y <br />Code refearences and Minor Subdivision language; policy <br />discussion regarding the 350' notice requirement and potential <br />for expansion of the notice area; and timing requirements. <br />Ihlan again maved to iable action on this request in order ta <br />pravide no�ice of the Subdivision Code. Mayor Klausing ruled <br />the motion out of order as it had already been �oted down. <br />Following �'urther discussion and the suggestion of City Attarney <br />Squires in r�cent consultatian with the applicant and the <br />applicant's attorriey, it was Council eonsensus to continue action <br />on this item until the February 27, 2006 meeting. <br />Applicant's attorney advised that, while disappointed in the <br />continuing delays, the applicant was willing to follow the pracess <br />outlined by City Attorney �quires. <br />Mayoar Klausing, Councilmembers and staff con�inued discussion <br />on the uniqueness af the request; the administrative function of <br />the revised request; the applicant's code compliance; and the <br />poteniial ambiguity of �he situation. <br />City Manager B�ets questioned whe�her such action would <br />discourag� applicants fram modifying �heir requests to comp�y <br />with City Code, if notification was again requzred. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.