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 20 <br /> that a buffer could be created in a different way, seeking park dedication and <br /> green space, even in the purple area containing the PIK terminal area. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned if two districts were needed, or simply to define uses as <br /> conditional where restrictions took place. <br /> Councilmember McGehee noted residential uses and building where things made <br /> sense, based on past input from developers, brokers, and Mr. Lamb in develop- <br /> ment of the regulating map. Councilmember McGehee spoke strongly for hous- <br /> ing serving as the best buffer round the park, while not trying to impose some- <br /> thing on the market that was not uniformly agreed upon. <br /> Mayor Roe pointed out that everything else could be a permitted use there as well <br /> as in the CMU, such as a nice corporate headquarters <br /> Mr. Paschke questioned how Councilmembers were thinking regarding a buffer, <br /> noting that since the regulating plan seemed to be falling out of flavor, it had still <br /> provided an additional ten foot buffer to the City as part of any park dedication <br /> which would add to the park, and/or pedestrian connections to get to the park, <br /> adding another buffer inherent in that. Mr. Paschke noted that, while some could <br /> built into the code versus requiring a conditional use, it was not clear to him when <br /> the buffer was eliminated with the regulating plan. Mr. Paschke noted that this <br /> had served to reduce impacts from one use to another, with current code providing <br /> mitigation for those impacts from one use to an adjacent one. Mr. Paschke ques- <br /> tioned how this fit with his perception of the City Council's direction to staff to <br /> proceed with the current CMU and tweak other areas. <br /> Mayor Roe recognized that point, noting that some people thought of buffers as <br /> strips of vacant land, while others thought of buffers as less-intensive uses. For <br /> purposes of creating appropriate buffers in this case, the Conditional Use ap- <br /> proach could make sense, creating conditions that would establish buffers for cer- <br /> tain uses when adjacent to certain other uses. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon summarized current directive to retain the one CMU District with <br /> some uses conditioned around Langton Lake Park; opining that this would pro- <br /> vide a good framework moving forward and what was needed for tweaks, which <br /> should not prove complicated and get to the point quicker than the various colors. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned if staff was proposing certain uses allowed <br /> across the entire area as a conditional use, or only in the area closest to the lake. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon, using retail as an example, if at or over 20,000 square feet, it <br /> would require a conditional use, and would go through the process on design, lo- <br /> cation and other conditions for the City Council's review. While the City Council <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.