My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0224
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0224
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:33:44 AM
Creation date
2/17/2006 12:15:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/24/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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 />Regular City Council Minutes 2/24/03 <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />did not address commercial park fee dedications, and with <br />the new ordinance not being effective until publication, he <br />wanted to ensure the City was addressing any potential <br />commercial developer claims that the fee was not <br />applicable to their specific project in the interim. <br /> <br />Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke reviewed <br />the request, staff recommendations and materials <br />presented. Mr. Brokke stated that the proposed ordinance <br />provided more detailed policy with revisions to Sections A <br />and D, and the addition of Section E, incorporating <br />Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) comments <br />as they continued their work on guidelines to establish <br />identifiable ways to determine affordable housing needs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka sought clarification on parcel <br />calculations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough asked about ramifications on the <br />proposed Arona and Twin Lakes projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Brokke advised that the Building Permit application <br />would prompt the new dedication fee process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder responded to Councilmember <br />Maschka's request for parcel calculation comparisons <br />between the past practice and the proposed ordinance and <br />resolutions. <br /> <br />Further discussion included rationale for requiring a <br />developer to compensate through land or fees for taking <br />land for development or redevelopment; impact on <br />existing facilities; significant increases for developers and <br />need for a potential cap; Planning Commission rationale in <br />their conservative recommendation; and comparisons with <br />surrounding communities. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka expressed his concern with <br />adding additional costs for developers that would be <br />passed on through increases costs to residents. <br />Councilmember Klausing opined that he was supportive of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.