My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:31:57 PM
Creation date
8/17/2016 1:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/25/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
� <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 15 <br />hin currently being built on HDR-2 zoned <br />height allowed. Since there isn't anyt S <br />arcels, Mayor Roe noted this allowed the lelfami�rparcelsy Mayor,Roe noted <br />p arcel next to sing Y <br />every proposed HDR-2 p that way and may make sense for <br />this may have been the rationale for setting it up <br />some parcels while not with others, all unknhan estaccord ngly.dFor his pecufic <br />City Councils the discretion to make those S <br />Good Samaritan project, Mayor Roe opined HDR-1 was what lan uddate d s- <br />ested HDR-2 may be part of the compreheny verovidin broader <br />parcel; and sugg rocess within the communit , p g <br />cussion and MDR and HDR p <br />discussion and more public input. <br />Discussion ensued related to the CU process and ability of the City Council to <br />make decisions on a case by <br />case basis and as part of public health, safety and <br />welfare considerations to review surrounding land uses. <br />Specific to the calculations for the Good Samaritan project, if around 30%, it <br />would allow for 33 plus units, not much different than the reyuested 36 units; and <br />suggested that number was appropriate for this particular proposal. <br />Councilmember Etten stated his preference toif cl�ro'ect, butlt address�the build <br />not change the chart (paSe 2) for just this spec p J <br />ing height concern at a maximum of 50' to a that hmayasat sfytboth n�eds and <br />LDR-2 parcels. Councilmember Etten opine <br />give more latitude for the city. <br />Mayor Roe clarified that there was no recomm� ons addregsed in c dert ndlpre� <br />and agreed he would like to see height res <br />ferred that this recommendation come no ed bth staff before go ge through the <br />finement and research of those rtems Y <br />planning Commission process with that additional information included. <br />Mayor Roe also asked that an increase to 36 der ds cus ion and dev ation fr o <br />the CU lens for o t her p r o p e rt i e s r e c e n t l y u n <br />H D R-1 for their specific acreage. If the O � o f t hosel h e r p o pertiestfellcwrthin <br />and CU approva l, i f i t w a s f o u n d t h a t 8 <br />that range, Mayor Roe opined that it would provide helpful in forma tion w i t h i n <br />that context and for su bseyuen t d i s c u s s i o n. <br />Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to reviepw citunitseer acre at 36 <br />guage, building heighci lc tos bsequent HDR-1 discuss on . p <br />without conditions sp <br />Councilmember McGehee asked if there was a way to simply tweak the PUD or- <br />dinance for those projects offering much ineerm�s nf o the numbe of s telamen - <br />low a 10% increase in residential densrty d p g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.