My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-10-06_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-10-06_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2011 1:56:50 PM
Creation date
2/18/2011 1:55:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/6/2010
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.
/
13
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 06, 2010 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />for recommendation to the City Council, with minor revisions as discussed and <br />354 <br />subject to additional revision by the City Council. <br />355 <br />Member Gisselquist expressed his concern that, with realistic future uses and <br />356 <br />potentially subjective interpretation, if not specifically listed as a prohibited use, it <br />357 <br />was perceived to be a permitted use. <br />358 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that all zoning ordinances included disclaimers; and that <br />359 <br />planning staff and/or the City Attorney were charged with interpreting whether a <br />360 <br />specific use fit into a specific zoning district. Mr. Paschke noted that he shared <br />361 <br />Member Gisselquist’s concerns; however, he supported having a list and opined <br />362 <br />that it was better for the community versus not having anything and the continual <br />363 <br />challenges that lack presented to staff. <br />364 <br />Member Gottfried reiterated his trust in staff’s interpretation of prohibited uses <br />365 <br />now and with any future vernacular shifts, based on their common sense <br />366 <br />interpretations. <br />367 <br />Member Cook concurred with the concerns expressed by Member Gisselquist, <br />368 <br />and spoke against recommended approval of the list of prohibited uses; opining <br />369 <br />that objective performance standards could be established consistent with current <br />370 <br />code, as well as development of the revised zoning code. <br />371 <br />MOTION <br />372 <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND TO <br />373 <br />THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the proposed Section 1007.015B <br />374 <br />Prohibited Uses and the list of prohibited uses as identified in Section 2 of <br />375 <br />the project report dated October 6, 2010; <br />as amended: <br />376 <br /> <br /> Delete “K” as a principal use at the recommendation of the City <br />377 <br /> <br />Attorney; <br />378 <br /> <br /> <br /> Typographical correction to “H” changing “rear” to “rare;” and <br />379 <br /> <br /> Including any modifications based on tonight’s discussion and verbal <br />380 <br /> <br />and/or written public comments received following staff’s review <br />381 <br />Ayes: 4 <br />382 <br />Nays: 2 (Gisselquist and Cook) <br />383 <br />Motion carried. <br />384 <br />6. Adjourn <br />385 <br />Chair Doherty adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:47 p.m. <br />386 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.