My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0211
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2013 9:52:01 AM
Creation date
3/5/2013 9:48:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/11/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,February 11, 2013 <br /> Page 25 <br /> At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that "junk" or <br /> undesirable trees had been recommended and brought to staffs attention by the <br /> City Forester. <br /> Page 2, lines 73-74 <br /> Discussion included clarification of impervious surface options, current zoning <br /> code not specifying residential stormwater permits; existing lots and homes versus <br /> new lots and construction and how to accommodate each, as well as addressing <br /> pre-existing conditions. <br /> Page 3, line 90 <br /> Councilmember McGehee sought definition of "benign" outdoor storage, with <br /> Mr. Trudgeon suggesting this was based on passive versus actively used storage; <br /> and Mr. Paschke noting that this code restriction was intended to be far-reaching <br /> to differentiate between which have more impact or needed screening versus <br /> those that didn't, and in consideration of adjacent property uses as well. <br /> Building Height <br /> Mayor Roe suggested discussion on setback versus height, based on past discus- <br /> sions related to impacts to adjacent properties, such as staggering the height of <br /> taller buildings for less impact to adjacent single-family residential buildings. <br /> Further discussion included height limitations in various zoning designations; and <br /> whether there was or should be any height restriction in the Twin Lakes Area; the <br /> need to provide no height restriction for high-end uses such as office uses; height <br /> restrictions in business use areas close to residential properties or not needed in <br /> areas surrounded by other commercial/industrial uses or near highways/roads; and <br /> possible area west of Rosedale that may be suitable for staggering heights or re- <br /> moving height restrictions in Regional Business districts, unless accommodated <br /> through a Conditional Use. <br /> Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee re- <br /> garding garage setbacks; and suggested it was only appropriate for a new devel- <br /> opment, suggesting a ratio would be more appropriate to serve the aesthetic value <br /> if spoken to at all. <br /> Mr. Paschke noted the infill development most prevalent in Roseville made a dis- <br /> tinction from communities or areas having larger parcels of land available for de- <br /> velopment and new construction. Mr. Paschke advised that the rationale for that <br /> code requirement and design standard was as a result of the Imagine Roseville <br /> 2025 community visioning discussion and that of the updated Comprehensive <br /> Plan moving forward. Mr. Paschke noted there may be flexibility without a step- <br /> back garage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.