My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 />City Council Regular Meeting - 06/20/05 <br />Minutes - Page 36 <br /> <br />Ayes: Schroeder; Maschka and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br /> <br />[12.5] Consider a Proposed Ordinance Rezoning Ordinance 1323 <br />Certain Parcels within Twin Lakes Phase I from "B-1" Rezoning Certain <br />Limited Business District, "B-4" Retail Office Service Parcels within <br />District, "I-I" Light Industrial District, and "1-2" Twin Lakes Phase I <br />General Industrial District to Planned Unit <br />Development with underlying zoning of "B-6," Mixed <br />Use Business Park." <br />Schroeder moved, Maschka seconded, enactment of <br />Ordinance No. 1323 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending <br />Title 10 of the City Code, Changing the Zoning Map <br />Designation of Certain Real Property within Twin Lakes <br />Phase I from B-1, B-4, and I-I and 1-2 to Planned Unit <br />Development (PUD) No. 1323 with an Underlying Zoning <br />of B-6 Mixed Use Business Park District and Park and <br />Open Space District (POS)." <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining it <br />was inconsistent with B-6 Zoning District provisions. <br /> <br />Discussion included staffs interpretation of limited use <br />definitions and permissible uses. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough concurred with Councilmember <br />Ihlan and spoke against the motion, opining it was a drastic <br />change in the Comprehensive Plan, and that the developer <br />should have to come back for Council approval to change <br />from office to rental housing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder opined that staff had done a <br />good job in preparing documents, research, and <br />consultation with legal counsel, and were providing their <br />recommendations. Councilmember Schroeder thanked <br />them for their work and professional opinions provided; <br />and spoke in support of the motion. <br /> <br />Roll Call [12.5 - Rezoning Ordinance] <br />Ayes: Schroeder; Maschka and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.