My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_011114
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2001
>
pm_011114
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:36:01 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:04:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/14/2001
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />Member Olson asked for clarification on State enabling Statutes vs City ordinance requirements. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Rhody moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend approval (approval with modifications or <br />denial) of the Ordinance modification to Sections 1008.1 OB1 f and 1 015.01A of the Roseville City Code consistent with the <br />attached draft ordinance. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br /> <br />Nays: 0 <br /> <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />7. Presentations and other actions <br /> <br />a. PF3351: Mixed Use Business Parks <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch provided a review of the B-6 proposal. <br /> <br />He reported that currently there is not a zoning that accurately describes these redevelopment areas as "Master Planned <br />Business Park", which would protect the new uses. Encroachment or expansion by older, heavy industry and trucking <br />occur because the "1-1" and "1-2" zones have remained and surround the Redevelopment PUDs. Therefore, staff is <br />proposing a revision of the B-6 zoning district, which could be used with the PUD redevelopment process to more <br />correctly plan for and protect the higher value and more aesthetically pleasing newer land uses in a Business park. <br /> <br />This is a discussion item only and a recommendation to the Council would be requested at a future Planning Commission <br />meeting after the required public notice and public hearing process. <br /> <br />8. Information, Reports & Other Business <br /> <br />a. Land Use Application Process <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke provided a review of the Development Review Committee and its review process. <br /> <br />b. Before and After <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke provided a summary of projects approved during 2000-2001. <br /> <br />c. 2000 Census/Implications <br /> <br />This item was tabled indefinitely. <br /> <br />d. Update 35W Coalition Build-Out Work <br /> <br />This item was tabled indefinitely. <br /> <br />9. Adjournment <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. <br /> <br />Return to Planning Commission <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.