My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0504
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2015 1:09:19 PM
Creation date
5/21/2015 12:23:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/4/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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,May 4, 2015 <br /> Page 32 <br /> endeavor, even though the neighborhood had organized, been courteous and <br /> played by the rules, they continued to be discounted and things remained prede- <br /> termined from her perspective,just like Twin Lakes Parkway, as well as moving <br /> from HDR to CMU zoning even though the neighborhood asked by petition that it <br /> not occur. Ms. Erickson noted that she didn't have a 750' buffer between her <br /> property and adjacent property, but abutted on the business directly behind here, <br /> and would have preferred MDR in that area to protect her single-family parcel. <br /> Ms. Erickson stated her love for the neighborhood, and the desire of her and her <br /> neighbors not to see it urbanized, nor did they desire to become an Oakcrest that <br /> was cut off from the rest of the community. <br /> At a minimum, Ms. Erickson thanked the City Council for the process that al- <br /> lowed her to get to know her neighbors much better. However, Ms. Erickson not- <br /> ed that neighbors had yet to receive one response to the petitions submitted to the <br /> City Council; and reiterated her request that their neighborhood's desire to be <br /> heard. <br /> Brooke Tosi, 1766 Millwood Avenue <br /> Echoing what some are saying, Ms. Tosi opined that multi-family uses in Subarea <br /> A should remain as NP uses. Ms. Tosi thanked the City Council for the good dis- <br /> cussion about CU's and how that would allow the City to have input on the kind <br /> of development for a particular area, which she saw working in Subareas B and C. <br /> However, Ms. Tosi opined that Subarea A was different in that regard, and refer- <br /> enced the positive and/or neutral survey responses for duplexes in Subarea A <br /> (former Subarea 4) and could support P with CU near those residential areas. <br /> Mayor Roe emphasized that work on the Table of Uses and map lines remained <br /> preliminary and would be subject to further public input; and at a minimum a pub- <br /> lic hearing before the Planning Commission as required by state law and city <br /> code. Mayor Roe noted there would also be opportunities for additional feedback <br /> by other means, as usual, as discussions continued. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte stated that she remained clear about her perspective on <br /> the various conversations; and she reminded the public that she had asked for and <br /> was confident that the City Council would get to a discussion about HDR. Coun- <br /> cilmember Laliberte stated that, from her perspective, she felt there was still too <br /> many permitted uses even though other grandfathered uses were in place at this <br /> time. Also, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to address opportunities to <br /> get more MDR in the City, as there were many current residents who may be <br /> ready to move from their single-family homes. Councilmember Laliberte advised <br /> that she may give further consideration as to whether to support multi-family resi- <br /> dential as a P use and encourage MDR next to single-family homes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.