CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular CityD Council 13 Meeting Mon, Page 15 Related to structures requiring building permits, Mr. Trudgeon advised that any structure required a building permit, whether permitted use or not; with very few instances where a Conditional Use permit was required. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that once a Conditional Use was approved, the applicant was still required to apply for a building permit for any new improvement requiring one. Neil Nelson, 1442 Ryan As a resident in the Har Mar Mall neighborhood, Mr. Nelson opined that many of his neighbors remained unaware of the proposed rezoning as part of this rezoning code rewrite process. Mr. Nelson advised that, while the neighbors may not be opposed to development on that residential parcel on the southern portion of Har Mar, with current requirements, they would be noticed of any proposed develop- ment to provide public comment. Mr. Nelson expressed concern that if the resi- dential buffer was lost, the neighborhood would lose the residential buffer, signif- icantly changing the looks of the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson asked that, as a re- quirement to rezone that parcel, 4/5 of the neighbors should also be allowed to be aware of and be supportive of any zoning changes, similar to the requirements for the City Council. Discussion among staff and Councilmembers confirmed that notice had been pro- vided to those residents adjacent to Har Mar Mall, specifically regarding the pro- posed changes to their properties and linking them to other resources for more de- tail, as well as notice to all property owners in the City of Roseville on the pro- posed zoning code rewrite; as well numerous community meetings; Public Hear- ings at the Planning Commission meeting; and a variety of media regarding up- coming City Council discussions. Warren Sweet, 1383 Ryan Mr. Sweet provided his recollection of the August meeting attended by residents adjacent to Har Mar Mall had provided clear direction from the City Council to staff regarding the uniqueness of that residential neighborhood; and potential neg- ative impacts of future development. Mr. Sweet opined that, now five (5) months later it appeared that the same issues remained unresolved; and further opined that with the snow storm and significant number of elderly residents, they were unable to attend tonight's meeting, as well as having presumed that the issue had been re- solved in August of 2010. Kim Melby, Laurie Road Ms. Melby expressed her frustration that there had been no provision in the pro- posed rewrite to protect large lot neighborhoods; and opined that both the intent and purpose statement ran contrary to preserving her neighborhood; with the en- tire proposal appearing to be "one size fits all." Ms. Melby opined that their neighborhood was unique and different; and further expressed concern with Chap- ter 1009.05 regarding Minor Subdivision changes making her nervous, given her past perception of transparency in certain instances with the Community Devel-