My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0308_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0308_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 2:16:34 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:40:21 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.
/
185
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
Regular City Council Meeting — 02/23/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 9 <br />inaccuracy of the Community Development staff report, tainting <br />the City Council decision-making process relative to this case. <br />Mr. Berkner concluded his comments by opining that if the <br />variance was allowed, it would seem to be a taking. <br />Several options were discussed among Councilmembers and Mr. <br />Berkner, with no viable option being established. <br />Councilmember Kough sought to clarify if other options had <br />been considered. <br />Councilmember Ihlan asked Mr. Berkner if he and the applicant <br />had communicated or discussed, formally or informally, possible <br />alternatives. <br />Mr. Berkner advised that he had introduced himself to Charlie <br />Rose, spouse of the applicant, and the renovation had been <br />discussed, but he was under the impression that the project <br />would not be happening this quickly. <br />Councilmember Ihlan requested comment from the applicant as <br />to her question of alternative and options being discussed <br />between the neighbors. <br />Charlie Rose, 998 Brooks Avenue (spouse of applicant) <br />Mr. Rose advised Councilmembers that he had held numerous <br />discussions with the Ramsey County Assessor and seven (7) <br />contractors as to the ramifications or adverse affects to adjacent <br />properties; and other suggested locations for the addition, <br />respectively. Mr. Rose further advised that it was the opinion of <br />the Ramsey County Assessor that there would be no adverse <br />market value affects on the neighboring property; and further <br />noted that all seven (7) contractors had concurred that the best, <br />most economical location for the addition was that as presented <br />in the request. Mr. Rose provided several pictures regarding the <br />actual summer time view that would be available to the <br />neighbor's property, which varied distinctly from Mr. Berkner's <br />position, and in his opinion, created less of an impact than <br />presented by Mr. Berkner's representative. <br />Community Development Director Welsch noted that the deck is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.