PCAgenda_90May21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 23, 1990 PAGE 2 • PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A GAZEBO AT 2148 FOLWELL AVENUE IN AN R-1 ZONE Mr. Gordon Davis, 2148 Folwell, proposes to construct a detached gazebo 12 feet x 15 feet x 12 feet high in his rear yard in place of an existing deck which was removed. The gazebo will be made of redwood posts with treated lumber, a fir floor, screens and rolled roofing with a pattern. The gazebo will be 12' from the principal structure, 30' from the rear lot line and 30' feet from the east side lot line and 32' from the west side lot line. The size and location of the gazebo meet the requirements of the zoning code. He talked to his neighbors who voiced no objections. A building permit is required for this type of structure. Daykin moved approval of the permitted accessory use permit. The motion was approved unanimously. UPDATE ON THE PARKING COMMITTEE AND THE MCALLISTER REQUEST FOR "NO PARKING" Planner Hoyt Taff reported that the Parking Committee met and made progress on drafting a city parking policy. With respect to the McAllister request for "No Parking" on Arona, Planner Taff will research the issue with city staff and prepare a report for the May Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Ciernia • suggested the Roseville Police be asked to comment on safety issues. INTERVIEW PLANNING CONSULTANTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Randy Thoreson of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson; John Uban and Tim Malloy of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban; and Fred Hoisington of Hoisington Group Inc. made presentations on their proposals for the comprehensive municipal plan update. A question and answer period followed. After the presentations, Commission members discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal. Daykin favored the Hoisington Group because of the firm's experience, clearly thought out proposal and ability to produce a good product. Barry suggested that the Hoisington Group would give the city a fresh look but Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban's experience with the city would be an asset in preparing the plan. Nestingen favored the Hoisington Group due to the detailed citizen based process in the proposal. Talbot also favored the Hoisington Group because the proposal exhibited more substance, gave more attention to the process and suggested looking at expanding the process to include more in-depth redevelopment and Boche concluded that the Hoisington Group would look at the city with "a fresh set of eyes" and give the concept a new look. Barry requested that Mr. Hoisington be asked to include a more detailed redevelopment and more in-depth citizen participation element as options with the proposal. •