My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0514
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0514
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:46:24 AM
Creation date
5/25/2007 9:20:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/14/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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 <br />Minutes of Monday, May 14, 2007 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned that rationale for the recommenda- <br />tion of the CAG in proposing creation of three levels of zoning for <br />single-family residential lots and whether that wouldn't in effect cre- <br />ate spot zoning and create smaller lots. <br /> <br />Members of the CAG responded that their recommendation was in- <br />tended to meet the mandate for affordable housing; that the recom- <br />mendations were intended city-wide and within the context of the <br />overall report; and noted that the CAG did not attempt to, nor was <br />there time, to define which neighborhoods would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Ms. Bakeman noted that some people, when their lots didn't meet <br />City standards (i.e., those platted prior to May 21, 1959) may have <br />difficulty in getting insurance and/or mortgages if their lots were non- <br />conforming; and the rationale of the CAG was that by recognizin~ the <br />smaller lots it would make it easier for them to be residents of the <br />City. <br /> <br />Mr. Grefenberg concurred, noting that the CAG attempted to balance <br />everything throughout the City; didn't want to remove the diversity of <br />lot sizes; however, didn't have time to apply to specific neighbor- <br />hoods, nor was the CAG given that authority. Mr. Grefenberg opined <br />that he didn't believe that this proposed new zoning district was an at- <br />tempt on the part of any member of the CAG to get around minimum <br />lot sizes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan advised that she was simply attempting to in- <br />terpret the upshot of the report. <br /> <br />Ms. Ramalingam responded that it was the intent of the CAG to pro- <br />vide spots to provide the protections property owners were entitled to <br />maintain. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough noted that CAG member Mr. LeBarron was a <br />developer and was probably looking forward to splitting a lot some- <br />day. Councilmember Kough questioned whether the current Council <br />was required to follow the jurisdiction of past City Councils; using <br />Mr. Art Mueller's lot as an example, and noting that he didn't vote for <br />that lot split. Councilmember Kough opined that when property own- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.