My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0524
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0524
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2010 11:22:49 AM
Creation date
6/23/2010 11:22:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/24/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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, May 24, 2010 <br />Page 16 <br />bors. Mayor Klausing advised that, if further review of future community gardens <br />and any necessary code requirements for their use through the CUP process was <br />indicated, that this was a separate issue. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke clarified that a community garden, if determined as <br />a nonconforming use, would cease to exist, in accordance with recent legislation <br />and revised State Statute, after abandonment of that use for a one year period. <br />Councilmember Roe noted that the initial phase of the community garden is <br />smaller than originally envisioned; and in future review a threshold could be de- <br />termined with a certain percentage of property as a consideration; and any future <br />expansion triggering a CUP. <br />Councilmember Pust addressed the determination of low impact, quasi-public <br />uses, and generation of people and activity on-site, making her lean toward mod- <br />erate impact. Councilmember Pust, however, noted that, if NPCP came forward <br />with a CUP application, she would support it, and allow the garden to go forward <br />conditionally to meet public concerns. <br />Councilmember Johnson expressed his preference for a CUP process, but spoke in <br />support of the motion, based on the limited criteria provided, and the need for the <br />City Council to determine if it met the five criterion and his literal interpretation <br />of the definition of "employee." <br />Councilmember Pust clarified that, even though interpreting the code differently, <br />each individual Councilmember was doing their job. <br />Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be voting against the motion; but <br />was supportive of the community garden, and would support a CUP; however, <br />opined that she found this to be a moderate, quasi-use within the code. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing. <br />Nays: Pust and Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br />Mayor Klausing requested a future review of community gardens and their im- <br />pacts in the context of various zoning districts. <br />Recess <br />Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 9:16 p.m. and reconvened at approx- <br />imately 9:24 p.m. <br />c. Appoint Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization (GLWMO) <br />Board Member <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.