My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_1023_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_1023_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 3:54:31 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:40:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
281
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 Regular Meeting —10109/0& <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 17 <br />proposals for denial in the staff report. <br />Mayor Klausing noted the clarity of the 2005 Planning <br />Commission minutes indicating in no uncertain terms that they <br />would not consider a variance in the future; and staffs comments <br />that yes, anyone had a right to seek a variance, using the strict <br />application of the ordinance, without necessarily endorsing such <br />application. Mayor Klausing noted previous criticism that he was <br />too eager to grant variances; however, he defended the need to be <br />flexible in the City's growth as a first-ring suburb to avoid <br />deteriorating housing infrastructure. <br />Public Comment <br />Mary Bakeman and Jim Doherty, Variance Board <br />Commissioners <br />Commissioners Bakeman and Doherty briefly reviewed the <br />materials presented by the applicant to the Variance Board, with <br />not site plan included with the request, and additional materials <br />provided to the City Council during the appeal process. <br />Commissioner Bakeman addressed the public notice process for <br />appeal at the City Council level and areas of concern. <br />Mayor Klausing recognized those concerns, but asked that they be <br />addressed as a separate policy discussion at a later date. <br />Commissioner Sakeman brought forward discussions between the <br />applicant and the Planning Commission in 2005 when it was <br />noted that future variance requests would not be reviewed <br />favorably; and the lengthy conversations regarding whether the lot <br />was actually buildable or not, with the Planning Commission <br />being assured that it was buildable without variance. <br />Commissioners Bakeman and Doherty respectfully requested that <br />the City Council would support the Variance Board decision and <br />deny the appeal. <br />Councilmember Pust clarified, for the record, that she had not <br />been at the Planning Commission meeting in 2005 when this was <br />discussed as she'd previously stated, but had actually watched the <br />tape of the meeting, as it included one of John Shardlow's <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.