My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0212_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0212_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:37:15 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:20:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
227
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
Roseville City Council <br />DRAFT Minutes of 1��� ��� Pg 3 4 of 38 <br />] hold the character of the neighborhood as strictly residential and protect <br />� property values of current residents. <br />;� <br />� Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, DENIAL of the appeal of the Community De- <br />� velopment Director's Administrative Ruling that the use in question (offices <br />r� for Partnerships for MinnesotaFutures, Inc.) is not a low impact public or <br />� quasi-public use; and uphold that administrative ruling that the offices did <br />� not meet the criteria set forth in City Code describing a low impact quasz- <br />� public use as a use that "is essentially public as in its services rendered al- <br />1[� though under private control or ownership. <br />]1 <br />]� Mr. Manderfeld stated, for the record, that the appellant did not waive any <br />1� due process of law issues present due to confusion with staff noticing the <br />14 meeting to the appellants for the original hearing notice. <br />1� <br />1 � Roll Call <br />1� Ayes: Roe; Kough; Pust; Ihlan and Klausing. <br />1 � Nays: None <br />1� <br />�� 17. Subdivision Moratorium Study Process <br />�� Community Development Director John Stark addressed the timing of the <br />�� ordinance becoming effective based on publication constraints. <br />�� <br />��F Mr. Stark su�narized potential methods, study group composition, and pro- <br />�5 posed scope of the study, as detailed in the staff report dated January 29, <br />�.� 2007; and provided sta��'s recommendations for the study group composi- <br />�� tion, scope of the study, proposed study schedule; and sought City Council <br />�� � direction. <br />�� � <br />�� Discussion included sta��'s role to provide education of current standards <br />� 1 and impacts of changes; group facilitation; Council's role in the study and <br />�� overall policy process; role of the advisory group; the need for broad public <br />�� participation; specific and cooperative roles of the City's Planning Commis- <br />�� sion and the ��ous�ng and Redevelopment Commission; how to best receive <br />�� the public's input in the broadest and most all-encompassing way; City <br />�6 Council or Planning Commission oversight of the process; and meeting lo- <br />3 r gistics. <br />3� <br />;�� Councilmember Ihlan emphasized the need to Council oversight of the proc- <br />�[� ess; and the need to seek broad public input. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.