My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0413
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0413
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2015 2:58:40 PM
Creation date
5/4/2015 1:53:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/13/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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,April 13,2015 <br /> Page 25 <br /> From his point of view, Mayor Roe asked that the starting point be some synthesis <br /> by subareas, providing a broad discussion overall in that same discussion, but <br /> broken down versus jumbling them all together, which could create more wheel <br /> spinning. Mayor Roe stated that he was supportive of the initial discussion on <br /> May 4 and subsequent decisions or direction coming out of that first meeting. Af- <br /> ter that, Mayor Roe advised that he anticipated neighborhood or community <br /> workshops to obtain their feedback prior to a public hearing at the Planning <br /> Commission level, in an effort to keep the public in touch throughout the process. <br /> As mentioned by Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe noted that the process for <br /> this line of discussion needed to ensure the public was not surprised by the pro- <br /> cess, a key for what the City Council was attempting to accomplish. <br /> Mr. Bilotta duly noted this direction. <br /> Councilmember Etten advised that he agreed with the points brought forward, <br /> opining there was significant discussion needed about the various zones. Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten expressed appreciation for the timetable developed by staff over <br /> the next few months, as well as discussion points without formal Council action <br /> dates identified. Councilmember Etten spoke in support of addressing zoning by <br /> subarea versus the general Twin Lakes area, allowing everyone to zero in on par- <br /> ticular areas. While many things will end up at the Planning Commission, Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten noted that also allowed for additional input; however, he clari- <br /> fied that he was not looking for any immediate or final decisions early on in the <br /> process. <br /> Councilmember McGehee offered her agreement with the comments of Mayor <br /> Roe, supporting breaking down discussion to permitted or not permitted uses per <br /> subarea. Based on use discussion in the past, Councilmember McGehee opined <br /> that it was necessary to figure out how to move more uses in those subareas. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that she was having a hard time envisioning or <br /> understanding the columns and permitted uses, and how to mold that into a way <br /> that was visibly understandable while addressing each subarea in that table of us- <br /> es. <br /> Mr. Bilotta noted that, until City Council discussions were held, staff had not yet <br /> scheduled any community meetings; and since there was no City Council <br /> Worksession scheduled in May, there may only be a short time on May agendas <br /> to have that discussion. Therefore, Mr. Bilotta anticipated meeting with neigh- <br /> bors in June to receive their input. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the table of uses would probably include columns for each <br /> subarea for what it is now, what was considered or discussed before, feedback re- <br /> ceived to-date, and a proposed decision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.