My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0220
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0220
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2014 1:22:23 PM
Creation date
3/26/2014 1:35:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/24/2014
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Special City Council Meeting <br /> Thursday, February 20, 2014 <br /> Page 17 <br /> opined that, absent those additional discussions, he would fall back on the option <br /> to update the zoning code and comprehensive plan and not be overly prescriptive <br /> with the exception of a few minor tweaks. <br /> Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus, opining that <br /> she would prefer not to be too prescriptive. However, Councilmember McGehee <br /> opined that she was no fan of the regulating map, and would like to consider re- <br /> turning the Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the City's tool box, not that this <br /> is a PUD,but having available for appropriate applications. <br /> Councilmember Etten expressed preference to not be too specific to one business <br /> but to look to continue if a building was vacant and the owner wanted to redevel- <br /> op it, at which time the City may be able to assist in clearing the land. Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten questioned what was needed to complete Twin Lakes Parkway, <br /> as requested by property owners and developers, suggesting that it be done. <br /> Without memorizing current zoning permitted zoning uses and not having that in- <br /> formation available, Councilmember Etten questioned the best option, opining <br /> that this is more prescriptive than he was willing to accept at this time without <br /> further reviewing the current table of uses, which was subsequently displayed by <br /> Mr. Paschke. Councilmember Etten advised that he was not against the two col- <br /> ored map, recognizing that the current map north of Terrace Drive and east of <br /> Fairview Avenue did not include mixed us, even through property owners would <br /> like that flexibility for the open market to allow them to make positive moved. <br /> Therefore, with minor tweaks, Councilmember Etten suggested looking at the cur- <br /> rent CMU, driven by the fact that it was easier to amend that versus having anoth- <br /> er discussion on how to get to the same goal. <br /> Mayor Roe opined that two versus five columns would be much easier. <br /> Mr. Paschke suggested only one column, not a separate subdistrict CMU-1, in an <br /> effort to be more restrictive of uses adjacent to the park on the PIK terminal par- <br /> cels,but only serving to eliminate opportunities currently available. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that what was being described and the purpose outlined on the <br /> map was basically CMU-2 and all others were CMU-1, with things not allowed or <br /> only allowed at a certain scale. Mayor Roe suggested that may be the next step, <br /> to determine if that was the right delineation and any differences between the two. <br /> Mayor Roe opined that they were identical with few exceptions in the purple area <br /> on the map, located near single-family residential or the park; with the two lists <br /> looking the same except for that. <br /> Councilmember Willmus opined that in essence it was creating a buffer around <br /> the park, which he was fine with, but not the entire area currently shaded as pur- <br /> ple, bur roughly the area south of Iona Lane and blending with the other larger <br /> geographical area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.