My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2017_1106
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2017
>
CC_Minutes_2017_1106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2017 2:02:53 PM
Creation date
12/13/2017 2:01:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/6/2017
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 6, 2017 <br /> Page 17 <br /> Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approved the PRELIMINARY PLAT at 2315 <br /> Chatsworth Street (PF17-009) for Rose Place, a six-lot and two-outlot subdivision <br /> for six townhomes and common area; based on the information contained in the <br /> RCA of today's date and related attachments. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Recess <br /> Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately7:57 p.m., and reconvened at approximately <br /> 8:05 p.m. <br /> C. Discuss Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development(PUD) <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke introduced this discussion seeking City Council di- <br /> rection to staff, as detailed in the RCA of today's date. Mr. Paschke referenced <br /> and displayed a map showing Centre Pointe Properties and areas affected by the <br /> PUD. Mr. Paschke further referenced Attachment A, outlining permitted uses and <br /> design standards as current permitted uses. <br /> City Council Discussion <br /> In an effort to organize tonight's discussion and decision-making, Mayor Roe <br /> suggested first to determine if the council wanted to keep the existing PUD or <br /> move to something else; and asked that be the first order of business before focus- <br /> ing on uses and design standards. <br /> Retain the Existing PUD (no changes) <br /> There was no preference forthis possibility. <br /> Change the Existing PUD <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that she found enough value in the existing PUD <br /> with some changes in permitted uses, opining that the PUD had yielded a nice <br /> looking layout as well as building design, noting that the current PUD provided <br /> for building heights taller than typically allowed in the current Office/Business <br /> Park designation. Councilmember McGehee opined that the exterior architectural <br /> finishes set the mood, and liked the PUD provision for structured parking lots ver- <br /> sus that in existing city code for structure parking as a better approach than more <br /> impervious surface. Councilmember McGehee opined that the green space provi- <br /> sion in the PUD was similar to other city code; and with a careful change to per- <br /> mitted uses, the existing PUD could continue to be viable. <br /> Councilmember Willmus echoed many of Councilmember McGehee's comments <br /> to-date. <br /> Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that the intent appeared to be to address <br /> uses versus changing design standards of the existing PUD. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.