My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_0212
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_0212
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2018 12:37:03 PM
Creation date
3/1/2018 12:36:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/12/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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, February 12, 2018 <br /> Page 19 <br /> Mayor Roe noted these are being proposed as conditional uses. Regarding solar <br /> access, looking at setbacks, especially above 40 feet in height, maybe the setback <br /> should be 100 percent rather than 50 percent of building height. One option is to <br /> revert to a lower height limit, if that helps the situation. There is also the ability <br /> to conditionally approve taller heights. Or the Council can leave the 120 feet, and <br /> increase setbacks. He asked the Council about height and setbacks. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated he is open to increasing setbacks. Regarding solar <br /> access,he would be interested in greater protection for single-family. <br /> Councilmember Willmus commented when the Council starts to discuss this <br /> height of building, he has concern about existing commercial uses. It is some- <br /> thing he would like to think about a little more. The overall height can be miti- <br /> gated by pushing it back further through increased setbacks. The overall height of <br /> 120 feet concerns him. He might look at a cap of 8 stories at 12-foot ceilings <br /> which gets it down to approximately 100 feet of overall height. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated she is much more comfortable with 100 feet, or <br /> 8 stories, than with the 120-foot cap. She would like to think more about the ap- <br /> propriate setbacks. <br /> Mayor Roe discussed setbacks further. He noted that in the HDR-2 table, the max <br /> height is 65 feet; and there is a footnote saying buildings over 65 feet require con- <br /> ditional use approval. That could be an option, to provide conditions to go up to <br /> 100 feet. Right now,because this has conditional approval, the Council does have <br /> ability to look at setbacks on case-by-case issues, which might help alleviate con- <br /> cerns as well. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated he is supportive of that kind of thing. He does defer <br /> to the folks on the Planning Commission, who have development experience. <br /> Underground parking might be part of the multi-family. But it has to be econom- <br /> ically feasible for a developer. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated he would like to explore a hard cap at 100 feet <br /> and maintaining setbacks as height increases. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated she is happy with keeping it the same, with the <br /> conditional use provision. She agrees that the Planning Commission has devel- <br /> opment knowledge. The conditional use requires them to follow the design, and <br /> the Council has discretion. The hard cap could become problematic as well. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated there should be a conversation to take out the <br /> hard cap and let them potentially go higher on a conditional approval. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.