My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 9:52:39 AM
Creation date
12/8/2015 10:22:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/16/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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, November 16, 2015 <br />Page 35 <br />was designated by DBH. Councihnember Etten opined that they needed to be <br />consistently ineasured. <br />Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Rehder, that it was height to inch- <br />es, based on the height criteria on page 4, then broken down yet further. <br />On page 9, line 300, Councilmeinber Etten questioned if it should state a com- <br />plete updated or new plan versus only pieces of a plan. Councilmember Etten <br />opined that an updated plan may be necessary depending on how old the previous <br />plan was and related to the new impact on the property. <br />Mr. Gozola responded that the intent was to try to keep the avenue open if the de- <br />veloper or property owner could show upfront that they were meeting those re- <br />quirements. <br />Councilmember Etten questioned how that was different from any lot or coining <br />in the first time. <br />Mr. Gozola stated that a simplified plan set was another option; however, he un- <br />derstood the concerns expressed by Councilmeinber Etten. <br />Councilmember Etten opined that it left a door open for people jumping past the <br />plan and thereby reducing their work, depending on the language used, sliggesting <br />if an "updated" plan was designated it would provide more clarity. <br />On page 8, (Section I, Allowable Tree Removal), line 283, Councilmember Etten <br />aslced Mr. Gozola to correct to read "will be" subject to preservation, duly noted <br />by Mr. Gozola. <br />Specific to exempting the City for allowable tree removal for repairs for city im- <br />provements or any city improvements, Councihnember Willmus asked for com- <br />parisons from Mr. Gozola with other communities he'd worlced with. <br />Mr. Gozola advised that he found that it varied, and voiced his main concern was <br />centered on any exemption that took the overall number down. Once included in <br />the tree inventory and loss of trees, Mr. Gozola advised that his concern was <br />about the numbers in the ordinance being amplified. However, until he actually <br />saw it in action, Mr. Gozola noted it would be difficult to determine if it was ap- <br />propriate or not. <br />Councilmember Willmus expressed concern with running into a scenario where it <br />may prove prohibitive, especially in commercial areas versus residential devel- <br />opments. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.