My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 10:34:29 AM
Creation date
10/6/2016 9:31:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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, September 12, 2016 <br />Page 31 <br /> <br />fix the problem. Because she would like to fast track discussions about those <br />suggestions, she prefers to hold off on this subdivision request. <br /> <br /> Roll Call <br />Ayes: <br />Willmus, Etten, and Roe. <br />Nays: <br />Laliberte, McGehee. <br /> <br />Councilmember Willmus stated not directly related to this as it cannot be a retro- <br />active consideration on this application, but it was mentioned several times previ- <br />ously about having uniform standards within the Minor Lot Subdivision Code. <br />He suggested the Council look at that option and consider whether to put a short- <br />term moratorium into place for minor subdivisions until staff can review the <br />Code. With regard to the application process, he suggested requiring surveys and <br />elevation drawings so the consideration before the Council is not so subjective <br />and it is clear what is being proposed. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe asked about the status of updating the Subdivision Code. Interim <br />Community Development Director Kari Collins stated staff recently received a <br />proposal to start the subdivision review process; however, the consultant typically <br />used is not available until the beginning of 2017 due to staffing issues. Staff has <br />held internal discussions about whether or not, due to the current case load with <br />the Comprehensive Plan update, to wait until that consultant is available or move <br />forward to solicit proposals from other firms if this issue is rising to a top priority. <br />In answer to Mayor Roe’s question, Ms. Collins estimated the Subdivision Code <br />update would take three to four months. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee suggested the application information include a perk <br />test so soil permeability is known. Mayor Roe noted the Council is not drafting a <br />list of requirements tonight. Councilmember Willmus suggested placing the topic <br />of a moratorium on an upcoming agenda for discussion and to determine whether <br />there is support to put something in place. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe asked staff to provide information on what is involved with placing <br />such a moratorium, implications, and next steps for the Council’s future consider- <br />ation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Laliberte requested staff also present a recommendation on <br />whether to wait until 2017 to use the current consultant and timing to look at other <br />firms. <br /> <br />Mr. Trudgeon explained the Subdivision Ordinance update would address more <br />than minor subdivisions but that could be the special focus of a moratorium. <br />Mayor Roe offered the option to address submittal requirements for minor subdi- <br />visions through a text amendment, perhaps referencing the same requirements as <br />required for standard subdivisions. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.