My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0811_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0811_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2014 4:02:20 PM
Creation date
8/7/2014 4:18:11 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
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
39 Mayor Roe stated that this discussion had been held at a previous meeting, a vote <br />40 taken, and majority prevailing as noted. <br />41 Councilmember Etten, having participated in that discussion and pushed for <br />42 Conditional Use, expressed his understanding that the conversation was not finished <br />43 and the issue would return for a broader discussion; and his understanding that <br />44 nothing was in black and white nor options crossed out yet. Councilmember Etten <br />45 opined that discussions indicated additional consideration as to whether conditions <br />46 made sense in the future, even though they didn't matter in the specific University of <br />47 Northwestern application, at which time the text amendments were also not changed. <br />48 Mayor Roe, and Councilmember McGehee, concurred with Councilmember Etten?s <br />49 recollection; however, Mayor Roe advised that this was tonight?s discussion, and the <br />50 other referenced discussion would occur at a future time. <br />51 Councilmember Etten agreed to that, stating that his key point was that it was that the <br />52 issue had not been decided, and would be coming back for further discussion. <br />53 Mayor Roe advised that the City Council could take action on these proposed changes <br />54 tonight, or table those changes for the broader discussion. <br />55 Councilmember McGehee expressed further questions related to multi-family <br />56 dwellings in upper stories of mixed-use buildings (pages 2 and 3 of the RCA) and <br />57 rationale for them going from not permitted to permitted uses. Councilmember <br />58 McGehee stated that she had a problem visualizing where RB-2 areas were located in <br />59 the City, since CMU was previously defined with retail below and housing above, <br />60 based on how the buildings were laid out and parking lot structure. Councilmember <br />61 McGehee suggested further discussion as part of the broader discussion on those <br />62 aspects as well. <br />63 Mayor Roe opined that it would be appropriate to have those discussions yet tonight. <br />64 Councilmember McGehee stated that for most of the Table, she had no issues, other <br />65 than housing, and whether individual or dorms in RB-2 and RB-2 Districts. <br />66 Mayor Roe pointed out that CMU Districts did not specify housing above retail or <br />67 office, but simply stated mixed uses, and then not necessarily stacked units. <br />68 Mr. Paschke noted that the Comprehensive Plan directed more mixed use projects, <br />69 which were currently only supported in CMU Districts, while other corridors in CB, <br />70 RB-1 or RB-2 may be much more better situated to support them and provide an <br />71 allowance for mixed use, whether such a development would ever occur or not in <br />72 those districts. <br />73 Mayor Roe noted that the definitions in the Comprehensive Plan didn?t preclude <br />74 housing from NB, CB or RB Districts, with housing listed in all to his recollection. <br />75 Mr. Paschke opined that if found appropriate in CMU Districts, staff thought they <br />76 were reasonable in RB Districts as well. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.