My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Agendas
>
2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2016 11:46:07 AM
Creation date
4/22/2016 11:45:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
80 Enhanced Buffering (Page 5, paragraph 3) <br />81 Mayor Roe noted along property lines abutting different use types, this was more specific <br />82 from the City Council’s point of view (e.g. single-family, medium density residential or <br />83 parks/open space) and specific areas needing more focus on buffers and adjacencies. Mayor <br />84 Roe suggested talking about those specific districts as a starting point, but still stating the <br />85 possibility for more or additional districts. <br />86 Open House Meeting Requirement (Page 8) <br />87 Mayor Roe stated he was not aware of a slightly different requirement in several areas; and <br />88 asked that code be reviewed for consistency to provide a single open house process for all, an <br />89 area of organizational consideration for staff and the City Council. <br />90 Preliminary Plan and Timeframe <br />91 Mayor Roe noted the 365 day and 3 month issue had already been addressed. In other land <br />92 use issues, Mayor Roe recalled language of not less than 15 days and not more than 45 days, <br />93 and for consistency, suggested justifying one or the other, based on that previous detailed <br />94 discussion. <br />Councilmember McGehee <br />95 <br />96 Regarding cancellation of a PUD, Councilmember McGehee stated she found that strange, <br />97 since the City could amend PUD’s, but didn’t have the ability to do anything else according <br />98 to this document to restrict a PUD, expressed her confusion as to why the City Council had <br />99 the ability to cancel a PUD, and asked that the next discussion would provide more <br />100 background on that point. <br />101 Discussion <br />102 Single Entities (page 3) <br />103 Mr. Gozola advised that he understood the questioned raised, and the City Council needed to <br />104 be comfortable with the language of their ordinance and that it met the needs of the applicant <br />105 process in Roseville. <br />106 Using Rosedale Center as an example, Mr. Gozola questioned how to address and avoid <br />107 separate agreements with separate entities. <br />108 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta suggested language indicating that all parties, <br />109 who are owners, have to be part of the PUD contract. <br />110 City Attorney Gaughan advised, if the City Council wasn’t comfortable in requiring some <br />111 formal partnership, a similar approval process to that of Rosedale Center could be used <br />112 requiring consent from all ownership interests; with that provision made rather than the City <br />113 acquiring partnership interests on a PUD. <br />114 Without objection, this language was agreed to by City Council consensus. <br />115 Mayor Roe clarified that he had no objection of working with a single conglomerate or <br />116 document, simply how best to express it. <br />117 2 acre versus other sizes <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.