My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_060309
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
pm_060309
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2010 10:44:27 AM
Creation date
3/1/2010 10:44:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/3/2009
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.
/
15
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 <br />Page 4 <br />Staff recommended approval of the VACATION request, based on the comments and <br />findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated June 3, <br />2009. <br />City Engineer Debra Bloom arrived at this time. <br />Discussion included staff’s review of any easements/vacations for public and/or private <br />utilities located within the public rights-of-way; and the location of the existing pathway. <br />City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that staff had reviewed public and private utility <br />easements; and addressed the location of the pathway adjacent to the curb; and was <br />supportive of this vacation. Ms. Bloom noted that this was extraneous right-of-way not <br />being used; and as part of their review criteria, would have asked for an easement over <br />the right-of-way for utility purposes if it had been indicated. <br />Applicant Representative, Bob Moser <br />Mr. Moser was present, but had no comment. <br />Public Comment <br />No one appeared to speak for or against. <br />Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing for Planning File 09-013 at 6:49 p.m. <br />MOTION <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND TO THE <br />CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the VACATION of land for Donald Plumb, 501 South <br />McCarrons Boulevard; based on the comments and findings of Section 5 and the <br />conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated June 3, 2009. <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Chair Doherty advised that the Case was scheduled to be heard at the City Council <br />meeting of June 29, 2009. <br />b. PLANNING FILE 09-007 <br />Request by Owasso Ridge Associate, Inc. for an easement vacation, Planned Unit <br />Development amendment, and Preliminary Plat modifying the structure setback <br />requirements for the residences at 2765 – 2780 Cohansey Circle <br />Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 09-007; and while remaining <br />to participate in the meeting, turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Daniel Boerigter for the <br />remainder of the meeting. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed staff’s analysis of the request by the Owasso <br />Ridge Home Owner’s Association (Owasso Ridge) for a Planned Unit Development <br />(PUD) Amendment, Easement Vacation, and Preliminary Plat to address certain setback <br />encroachments and allow for residential amenities such as decks, porches, and/or patios <br />of the seven (7) single-family homes created as an association. Mr. Paschke noted that <br />the proposed remedy had been achieved following lengthy negotiations between staff <br />and the applicants to modify the terms and conditions of the original project approval. <br />Staff recommended approval of the request for the proposed PUD Amendment, <br />Easement Vacation and Preliminary Plat; as detailed in Sections 4 and 5; and subject to <br />conditions as outlined in Section 6.0 of the staff report dated June 3, 2009. <br />Discussion included clarification by staff of the intent of this action; staff’s interpretation of <br />City Code related to setback standards for enclosed or unenclosed porches/decks (i.e., <br />Sections 4.3 and 6.b of the staff report); inconsistencies in staff’s historical records <br />related to this case; applicable setback criteria; and ultimate and equitable resolution of <br />an ongoing issue with this proposed action. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.