My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1120
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1120
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:43:07 AM
Creation date
12/6/2006 5:31:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/27/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 Study Session - 11/20/06 <br />Minutes - Page 8 <br /> <br />structures; neighborhood character definitions; how overlay <br />districts would work; requirements of properties to front a road; <br />water management plans; review of ordinances for the City of <br />Bloomington and Edina; shape and size of lots versus <br />mathematical calculations and size of surrounding lots; balancing <br />proportionality to the environment of neighborhoods as good <br />policy compared to strict adherence to the code; and the <br />possibility of mechanical application increasing neighborhood <br />opposition. <br /> <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson addressed problems identified <br />from a legal perspective; application of various scenarios and <br />City Council discretion; factors to take into account from a <br />broader sense; the need to adequately define "neighborhood" for <br />any code revisions; and the need for rules to be uniform related <br />to land use and size. Mr. Anderson offered his preference of the <br />overlay district, from a legal perspective. <br /> <br />Further discussion included personal perspectives of <br />neighborhoods; needs of and changes to inner ring suburbs; <br />distinctive neighborhoods with similar housing size and style; <br />density issues; proportionality and recombination issues; <br />uniformity of neighborhoods across the City; eclectic variations <br />of housing sizes and styles, rather than density; need to not adopt <br />policies in conflict with Metropolitan Council/Comprehensive <br />Plan issues; need to understand laws in order to comply with <br />them; and identifiable housing stock as it relates to the <br />Metropolitan Council projections and requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark reviewed options for meeting the Metropolitan <br />Council's requirements and adoption of the City's <br />Comprehensive Plan related to funding for projects; and the need <br />to make up the projected 542 housing units through adoption of <br />more multi-family housing units, which would invoke another <br />City Council policy decision related to density. Mr. Stark further <br />addressed other communities and various associations and their <br />experience in communities that are fully developed, by looking <br />at more tools to increase density, cluster home developments and <br />decreasing lot widths. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that tonight's discussion was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.