My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_0910_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2001
>
2001_0910_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 2:33:16 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:38:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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 />3F <br />Date: July 16, 2001 <br />Item: 4 <br />emo <br />To: Neal Beets, City Manager <br />From: Ed Burrell, Finance Director �( �"/ <br />Deb Bloom, Acting Public Works Director <br />Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director <br />Cc: City Council <br />Date: July 11, 2001 <br />Re: Discussion of Public Notification on Projects <br />At a recent City Council meeting, there was discussion by the Council about revisiting the City's current <br />notification policy and procedures with respect to the various statutory requirements as well normal <br />courtesy. <br />Discussions have centered upon whether such procedures should be in the City's policies or should be <br />included in our ordinances. There are a number of pros and cons regarding each alternative, however, <br />the issue is a Il�le more complicated than a simple yes or no. <br />On most projects and land use issues, the City is required to post legal notices in the official newspaper <br />as well as provide some specific notification e.g. within 350 feet of the parcel, etc. <br />Attached are several samples of where the City should and would notify residents. As one can observe <br />that the legal notices aside, both determining who may be directly affected by a project and who may <br />have an interest, is not the same for all circumstances. Under such conditions, we suggest that a policy <br />which allows for maximizing any specific notification would be more reasonable than an ordinance. <br />Staff would appreciate the Council's review of the notification issues as well a s some thoughts as to <br />what directions they believe might make the most sense. <br />We will be prepared to discuss these issues with the Council at the July 16, 2001 work session. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.