My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0612
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0612
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:38:33 AM
Creation date
6/27/2006 12:14:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/12/2006
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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 - 06/12/06 <br />Minutes - Page 4 <br /> <br />type of notice for land use cases; opining that a procedure <br />or policy needed to be addressed regarding the scope of <br />public notices. Additional comments included the Planning <br />Commission's intent to follow City Council directive; and <br />limitations of application criteria and parameters and the <br />actual amount of input possible by the Commission, public, <br />and/or City Council related to development and design of <br />private property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka expressed his appreciation to <br />Planning Commissioners for their excellent work and <br />recognized the difficulty of their work in keeping all parties <br />satisfied. Councilmember Maschka suggested that <br />consideration be given to design standards on some larger <br />commercial projects (i.e., Target, Wal*Mart, etc.), and <br />recommended other communities be surveyed for their <br />design standard applications. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Dan Roe volunteered to work on <br />determining those various thresholds. Commissioner Roe <br />addressed current market place trends regarding lot and <br />home sizes; conflicts of current residents with future <br />residents; and the value of the visioning process capturing <br />all components. <br /> <br />l.c Discussion about potentially increasing dialogue <br />between Council and Commission; or need for a <br />Commission representative at Council hearings. <br />Chair Traynor addressed feedback issues from the City <br />Council and their final decision back to the Commissioners, <br />along with their rationale, especially after the more <br />controversial issues; and to provide a performance review <br />of the Planning Commission recommendations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust suggested that staff report to the <br />Commission at their meetings, in an effort to <br />institutionalize the process and close the communication <br />circle. <br /> <br />Further discussion included the different roles of the <br />Commission and the City Council; and how to approach <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.