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 33 <br /> Councilmember Willmus reiterated that currently, multi-family use is moving <br /> from a P use to P with CU, a significant step in allowing the City Council review <br /> of individual applications versus a developer simply pulling a permit to build a <br /> building. Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal disappointment that <br /> the neighborhood had not acknowledged that significant step moving forward. <br /> Councilmember Willmus further clarified that the City Council was not prohibit- <br /> ing MDR and that it would be continued as a P use, indicating that the City Coun- <br /> cil may need to do a better job of articulating the steps being taken; opining that in <br /> many areas the City Council and neighborhood were on the same page. <br /> Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments of both Councilmembers <br /> Laliberte and Willmus. To the extent that she was not a supporter of CU, Coun- <br /> cilmember McGehee opined that it provided the City Council with a chance to <br /> look at things. Regardless of the outcome of the future height discussion, and in <br /> light of this being a first touch in addressing the use table, Councilmember <br /> McGehee stated her willingness to favor MDR as a permitted use throughout <br /> Subarea A given the new line drawn on the displayed map; and expressed her <br /> willingness to have multi-family as a NP use in that area. However, Coun- <br /> cilmember McGehee noted that while the CU provided that additional scrutiny, it <br /> left the door open for future Council's to allow proposals that would run with the <br /> land under that CU. <br /> Having gone through tonight's process, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff <br /> be directed to post the results of the discussion on the City's website that allowed <br /> for questions from residents on what future development may look like and pro- <br /> vide their responses before decisions are made. Councilmember McGehee shared <br /> the sentiments about the process and inviting participation by residents; however, <br /> she also noted the challenge in accomplishing everything the way everyone want- <br /> ed. At the end of the process however, Councilmember McGehee expressed the <br /> goal to have people feel they'd been heard, with the difference being in hearing <br /> and doing what they heard, suggesting there was plenty of room for compromise <br /> from the original scenario. <br /> Councilmember Etten concurred with some of the comments of Councilmembers <br /> Willmus and Laliberte, stating the City Council's intent to respond to the desires <br /> of the broader community. Councilmember Etten noted future discussions re- <br /> garding height to protect adjacent single-family homes; but expressed concern in <br /> eliminating multi-family from Subarea A entirely, since there were a number of <br /> positive uses for it in areas. Councilmember Etten reiterated his intent to address <br /> zones that would protect not only Langton Lake but single-family homes to make <br /> sure the neighbors, lake and environment were respected. However, Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten noted that a lot of Roseville residents currently lived with single- <br /> family and multi-family housing abutting each other and typically a setback was <br /> in place to address that co-mingling of housing types, and this type of develop- <br /> ment would not be the first time it happened in Roseville. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.