My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0708
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0708
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2013 12:33:27 PM
Creation date
7/22/2013 1:37:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/8/2013
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 <br /> Monday,July 8, 2013 <br /> Page 7 <br /> City Planner Paschke provided a brief summary of this requested modification as <br /> detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013. <br /> At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding her preference to eliminate <br /> the last sentence of Section 5, #35, line 18 to avoid confusion, City Attorney <br /> Mark Gaughan reviewed the rationale for leaving the language intact as drafted. <br /> Mr. Gaughan advised that this provided notice that general standards would apply <br /> with a case by case review; and in no way precluded use of those general stand- <br /> ards. While recognizing that the preferred language was ultimately up to the City <br /> Council and wouldn't make a difference in this situation, he noted that all would <br /> be subject to interpretation; but that the intent of the sentence was to suggest that <br /> the City would use its existing flexible general standards in reviewing each case. <br /> McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, to strike the final sentence (line 18): "There <br /> are no specific standards for this use <br /> In his review of other sections of the Zoning Code, Mr. Paschke advised that this <br /> was a consistent statement and parallel language throughout in listing regular and <br /> standard criteria, and areas where there was recognition that there may be some <br /> other distinct or additional criteria, but not necessary in this application. <br /> Further discussion ensued regarding what and how the Conditional Use was trig- <br /> gered based on the number of vehicles defined; and how this section of code <br /> needed to be considered in the context of the rest of the code and general criteria. <br /> After further discussion and consideration, and with Mr. Paschke's review of Sec- <br /> tion 1009.02, Specific Standards and Criteria (D), and those five (5) general <br /> standards; Councilmember consensus was that the sentence should remain as <br /> drafted. <br /> Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus withdrew the motion. <br /> Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Paschke for the additional research. <br /> Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No.1446 (Attachment <br /> B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordi- <br /> nance of the Roseville City Code;" creating the definition for Limited Warehous- <br /> ing and Distribution; adding Limited Warehousing and Distribution as a Permitted <br /> and Conditional Use to Table 1005-2 in the RB-2 District and Table 1006-1 in the <br /> O/BP and I Districts (8 or fewer pick-up, cargo, and/or cube variety fleet trucks <br /> permitted and greater than 9 pick-up, cargo, and/or cube variety fleet trucks con- <br /> ditional use); and amend Section 1009.02 by adding "35" the number of vehicles <br /> that trigger a Conditional Use; as revised in the bench handout. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.