My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2012 12:59:07 PM
Creation date
8/17/2012 12:58:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/16/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
Regular City Council Meeting AND <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> Monday,July 16, 2012 <br /> Page 44 <br /> By consensus, there was no objection to including it in the record, and it was attached hereto <br /> and made a part hereof <br /> Chair Roe noted the handout by Mr. Rancone, apparently from the 2004 Stakeholder Panel, <br /> dated June 10, 2004, and providing a listing of potential opportunities in the Twin Lakes Rede- <br /> velopment Area. <br /> Member Pust opined that she had no problem making it part of the record, as long as it re- <br /> mained clear that it was a submission by Mr. Rancone and not presented as meeting minutes of <br /> the Stakeholder panel itself. <br /> From the audience, Mr. Rancone clarified that it was actually information provided to the <br /> Stakeholder Panel from their final meeting. <br /> By consensus, there was no objection to including this document in the record, and it was at- <br /> tached hereto and made a part hereof <br /> Chair Roe, recognizing two (2) separate appeals, questioned the Board on their preference to <br /> rule on them individually or in combination. Chair Roe noted that, after his most recent dis- <br /> cussion with City Attorney Gaughan during tonight's meeting recess, any ultimate motion <br /> would need to direct findings in support for or in denial of the appeals. Chair Roe clarified that <br /> this would be a choice for the Board majority to uphold the appeals or to uphold staff's deter- <br /> mination. Chair Roe noted that a motion either way should be followed by specific findings, <br /> and address whether or not the use is permitted, whether there is a conflict in the Zoning Code <br /> and Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, or whether there is a conflict between the Zoning <br /> Code and 2030 Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Member Johnson expressed his preference to rule on the entire matter all at once. <br /> Member McGehee stated that she had no objection, but was of the belief that staff didn't firm <br /> up with the existing Zoning Code, and her objection is with the non-compliance of the current <br /> Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; therefore wanted to take them up independently of <br /> each other. <br /> Member Willmus suggested it might be a cleaner process if the appeals were considered sepa- <br /> rately. <br /> Member Johnson stated that he would be amenable to that. <br /> Chair Roe questioned, with additional discussion impending, was it Member Willmus' inten- <br /> tion that each of those independent discussions be limited to that specific appeal? <br /> Member Willmus responded negatively,just to have separate motions for each appeal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.