My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2019_0128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2019
>
CC_Minutes_2019_0128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2019 10:08:49 AM
Creation date
2/13/2019 10:08:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/28/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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,January 28, 2019 <br /> Page 18 <br /> number of units. He stated he struggled a little bit if the applicant was proposing <br /> four units and not able to make that work in LDR-1. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon indicated the letter that came back from the Met Council was on <br /> November 26, so the City had nine extra days and without any other recourse to <br /> look at any other possibilities or the law, he thought the time was up. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan stated the City Council has already approved rezoning <br /> subject to Met Council approval so to not approve this now would be an added <br /> difficulty. <br /> Mayor Roe thought the action the City Council took was just to approve the <br /> change of land use designation in the Comp Plan and send it to the Met Council. <br /> He did not think the City Council took any action related to the zoning. He <br /> thought this property was just LDR guidance-wise and the zoning was applied for. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated there was no action taken on the zoning. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon stated the Planning Commission did recommend LDR-2. <br /> Mayor Roe stated if the sixty-day window has passed, the applicant has their <br /> LDR-2 zoning because that is what the applicant applied for. <br /> Councilmember Groff stated the Planning Commission was presented with the <br /> plan with the four properties and this conversation never came up there. <br /> Councilmember Etten believed the conversation did come up at the Planning <br /> Commission meeting because there was discussion regarding why LDR-1 versus <br /> LDR-2. <br /> Mayor Roe read the motion the City Council took according to the minutes. He <br /> indicated the Council only approved that a portion of the area be changed from <br /> LDR to Institutional, which is what went to the Met Council and the only action <br /> the City Council took as a result of the application. However, the application was <br /> a full rezoning of the area. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan stated that was correct and under State Law, the zoning <br /> application extended sixty days after the Met Council's process is completed <br /> which appears to be November 26. <br /> Councilmember Etten asked if the City Attorney felt the City Council needed to <br /> legally approve this. <br /> Mayor Roe thought this application was already approved and no matter what the <br /> Council does, it is approved by State Law. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.