My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:44:44 AM
Creation date
2/27/2007 3:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/29/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
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 />Roseville City Council <br />Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 36 of 38 <br />ary 26, 2007 regular Council meeting; with the CAG scheduled to receive <br />and discuss public comment at the Planning Commission's regular meetings, <br />and any other meetings as applicable, to discuss issues identified in the study <br />scope through the Community Development Director recommendations in <br />staff reports dated November 20,2006 and January 29, 2007, and study sug- <br />gestions from Councilmember Ihlan dated January 17,2007, related to sin- <br />gle-family lot split issues, with preliminary findings, conclusions, and rec- <br />ommendations achieved by consensus and provided to the City Council at <br />the City Council Study Session of April 16, 2007, with anticipated City <br />Council formal action at their April 23, 2007. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke against the motion; citing the need for com- <br />munity input directly to the City Council, not specifically the Planning <br />Commission or Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion; but concurred with Chair <br />Bakeman that interested people contact staff; expressed concern with the <br />Planning Commission taking on this study in addition to their current and fu- <br />ture workload (i.e., land use cases; and Comprehensive Plan Update); and <br />emphasized the need to make citizens aware of the study and to hold as <br />many meetings as possible to receive public input. <br /> <br />Councilmember Roe spoke to the need for public input, but recognized the <br />timeframe, and the need to have a smaller, organized group facilitating dis- <br />cussions and public comment; and the detriments oflarge committees with- <br />out clear organization and planning; and the need for someone to take the re- <br />sponsibility for determining meeting, agenda and facilitating meeting logis- <br />tics. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />18. Consider Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC) Planning Commit- <br />tee <br />Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly reviewed the history of <br />the HANC over the last 17 years; and the need to undertake a comprehensive <br />planning for this vital city amenity to determine needs, priorities and direc- <br />tion of the HANC. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.