My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2002_1021
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2002
>
CC_Minutes_2002_1021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:42:09 AM
Creation date
11/1/2006 8:38:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/21/2002
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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 -10/21/02 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />and decks; <br />· Allow the height of a shopping center or outlot <br />buildings to vary based on Floor to Area (FAR) and <br />its horizontal separation from residential districts <br />with two (2) stories allowed for any building less <br />than 100 feet from property line with the maximum <br />height to be 7 stories. Outlot buildings on a <br />shopping center site should have the same setbacks <br />as in a B-3 zone; <br />· Allow Floor to Area (FAR) ratios of up to 1.0. <br />· A Planned Unit Development (PUD) should be <br />required for any master plan or building or site plan <br />expansion that increases by more than 10% over the <br />existing master plan which consists of the <br />improvements on the site as of January 1,2000. <br /> <br />Councilmember Klausing asked that the Planning <br />Commission provide a historical perspective in <br />determining impacts of shopping centers to residential <br />properties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka concurred. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn stated he would be voting against the <br />motion; recommending more Planning Commission work, <br />including dialogue with the Chamber of Commerce, as the <br />Roseville business representative, in a review of all of the <br />issues. Mayor Kysylyczyn's opinion was that the motion <br />presented did not encourage the Chamber of Commerce's <br />involvement in the process, and suggested a wider view <br />was needed in making any determinations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka responded that this situation was <br />part of the evolution of government and review of <br />processes over time, and reflected changes in how <br />commerce is conducted now from the concept and timing <br />of the original code when adopted. Councilmember <br />Maschka stated that the purpose of the Public Hearing <br />process was that everyone was encouraged to comment. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn reiterated his desire for the Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.