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 19 <br /> McGehee opined that the City had good design standards in general around the <br /> City with nice looking buildings brought forward by developers, recognizing <br /> some excellent plans brought forward in the last few years. As far as the last <br /> piece if this was divided and referencing Mayor Roe's comments, Councilmem- <br /> ber McGehee opined that regarding the large PIK terminal parcel, from the stand- <br /> point of the park if residential use was dropped next to the line partway across the <br /> map, she would prefer more of a buffer on the south end of the lake while still <br /> giving the owner more options. If a consensus, Councilmember McGehee spoke <br /> in support of a predominant CMU with residential and minimal tweaks, noting <br /> that there was also a ditch running through that helped to buffer the lake as well. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon offered to bring this item back for a final look before adoption. <br /> Mr. Paschke displayed a copy of current uses under the current CMU. <br /> Mayor Roe sought consensus to consider looking at a division of the CMU today <br /> minus a few things to describe it. <br /> Councilmember McGehee supported that in the purple designated map display <br /> with a few restrictions. <br /> Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the two-color concept; but questioned <br /> what would not be permitted there, and if questioned if the PIK property was di- <br /> vided would it create development issues; expressing his preference to leave it <br /> open as long as he was clear on what was not a permitted use and allow greater <br /> flexibility. <br /> To revisit previous discussions, Mayor Roe noted it could include residential from <br /> 12 units up per acre, office/retail, civic, institutional — all permitted uses — while <br /> not allowing warehouse, production, or light manufacturing./ <br /> Councilmember Etten questioned if the preference was to make it conditional to <br /> allow for that, with definition of when permitted without actually excluding it. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon advised that it would a permitted use with conditions. <br /> Councilmember Willmus questioned if the goal would be met in providing a big- <br /> ger buffer around Langton Lake since the Conditional Use would run with the <br /> land. <br /> Councilmember Etten recognized the park dedication option to encourage devel- <br /> opment as it occurred, and creating a buffer by expanding the park in that area as <br /> part of that development. Councilmember Etten recognized the amount of coor- <br /> dination required between multiple owners and the City,but expressed confidence <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.