My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:38:47 AM
Creation date
8/1/2006 12:17:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 - 06/20/06 <br />Minutes - Page 10 <br /> <br />conditional uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />Agreement; and rationale for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), <br />rather than rezoning of the site. <br /> <br />Councilmembers expressed disappointment that the Planning <br />Commission meeting minutes were not included in the packet of <br />information. <br /> <br />City Planner Paschke apologized that the minutes were not <br />available; noting that the Community Development Department <br />was currently shorthanded, thus the lack of minutes in the <br />packet; and his attempt to provide general discussions and <br />findings in the staff report. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jay Squires provided the documented historical <br />information for the site and City Council approval in 1987 of a <br />Special use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the <br />Shelard Group on the subject property with eleven (11) <br />conditions. Mr. Squires noted the vagueness of PUD and in <br />order to clarify uses, the need to get an agreement in place now. <br />Mr. Squires advised that, if the City Council rezoned the parcel <br />at this time, procedurally and technically, they would need to <br />eliminate the CUP; but concurred with the recommendation of <br />staff and the Planning Commission for all parties involved. <br /> <br />Additional discussion ensued, with the City Council unable to <br />reach consensus with the information available. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires recommended a full 60-day extension for <br />further consideration, if the City Council chose to take such <br />action. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, an additional 60-day extension of <br />the original 60-day review deadline; and directed staff to provide <br />written notice to the applicant of the Council's action. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Kough; Ihlan; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: Maschka. <br /> <br />Staff was directed to include consideration of this item at the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.