Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting <br />of the city Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, <br />Minnesota was duly held on the 22nd day of October, 1990, at 7: 30 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />The following members <br />Rog, <br />Johnson and Thomas. <br /> <br />Member Maschka <br />adopted. <br /> <br />were present: Maschka, Cushman, and <br />and the following were absent: <br /> <br />moved that the following resolution be <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 8622 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Richard Kettler/Mel Buesseler filed an application <br />to rezone a lot at 1023 Parker Avenue from R-l to R-2. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, R-l and R-2 zoning districts are distinct uses each <br />with their own permitted uses clearly set out in the zoning code. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the zoning code, which makes a distinction between <br />R-1 and R-2 districts would be meaningless if R-2 uses were <br />regularly used in R-l districts. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, R-2 zoning districts provide a good transitional <br />use separating R-l zoning districts from other districts which <br />allow more intense uses. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the application to rezone 1023 Parker Avenue could <br />result in co-mingling R-l and R-2 uses and if such a policy were <br />followed it would render the clear distinction between R-l and <br />R-2 districts meaningless. In would make all R-l districts, in <br />effect, R-2 districts. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the application to rezone 1023 Parker does not <br />qualify as transitional use separating R-l from other districts. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the city Council of the <br />City of Roseville as follows: <br /> <br />1. The application to rezone a lot at 1023 Parker Avenue <br />from R-l to R-2 is denied. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was <br />duly seconded by member Rag and upon a vote being <br />taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Maschka, <br />Cushman, and Rog , and the <br />following voted against the same: None. <br />