My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_1024
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_1024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:28:13 AM
Creation date
11/22/2005 10:08:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/24/3005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 />City Council Regular Meeting -10/24/05 <br />Minutes - Page 23 <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding specific direction to staff. <br />Council consensus appeared to focus on practical issues within <br />Title 11 related to subdivisions (i.e., lot size, shape and density; <br />identification of portions of the code being impacted; language <br />of moratorium ordinance itself - not too broad, but broad <br />enough; platting procedures; major and minor subdivisions to <br />minimum lot sizes; flag lots; policies to preserve and a review of <br />those policies; residential, rather than commercial zoning <br />considerations); preservation oflarge lots; and the specific issue <br />that current ordinance language allows that ten homes can be <br />built in the middle of a neighborhood, changing the entire <br />character; and what needs to be amended in the process to avoid <br />these situations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that he was not concerned with <br />Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) where density issues could <br />be addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke sought additional clarification, noting that the <br />Council concerns were not subdivision issues; but zoning and <br />Comprehensive Plan concerns and its guiding principles; and <br />redevelopment of residential areas related to density and division <br />of existing areas with diverse residential types. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson clarified that the City Council was <br />seeking to curtail development while they performed a study, <br />opining that the study may prove more in depth and complicated <br />than the Council was anticipating, but was asking staff to advise <br />them of the issues they needed to consider for such a study. <br /> <br />Further discussion included the 60-day review period for <br />Plarming Case 3665. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the law doesn't always permit the <br />City Council to do the popular thing; and expressed his concerns. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined her support of attempting to study <br />a 40+ year old policy to determine if the policy was still <br />consistent with goals. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.