My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_1022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_1022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2018 10:37:16 AM
Creation date
11/30/2018 10:37:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/22/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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, October 22,2018 <br /> Page 17 <br /> Mr. Paschke thought initially when this went before the Planning Commission, <br /> the thought was CMU1 would act similar to neighborhood business given its <br /> proximity to residential. Whatever the City was recommending for neighborhood <br /> business was proposed in CMU1 and then whatever was supported in the remain- <br /> der of the districts would have been consistent across the board that way. Other <br /> than that, he was not sure there was any magic to what is being seen other than the <br /> potential impacts that one use may have over another in those districts. <br /> Mayor Roe stated he would like staff to make sure this is correct because the in- <br /> creasing intensity of use and increasing number of uses types that are allowed <br /> moves from one to two to three to four and it seems odd it would show condition- <br /> al and then not allowed, etc. He thought staff needed to look specifically at dis- <br /> tillery, tap room, and tasting room listed as non-permitted in CMU2 and make <br /> sure that is the direction the Council wanted to go. <br /> Councilmember Etten asked if the Mayor was thinking about doing not permitted <br /> for CMU1 and conditional for CMU2. <br /> Mayor Roe thought it would be somewhere between conditional and permitted, <br /> depending on what is on either side in the CMU1 and CMU3. He did not think it <br /> made sense to have it the most restrictive, the way it is presented now. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated what caught his eye was some of the inconsisten- <br /> cies as the Mayor has pointed out, going from a lesser intensive use to a more in- <br /> tensive use. He stated in Section 4 of Table 105-5, he would have the same con- <br /> cerns. Another thing that he did have a concern about is the parking space to seat <br /> ratio and that stepping aside or abandoning the patio seating. He thought the patio <br /> seating was something the City needs to have in play. <br /> Mayor Roe asked if the Council wanted to bring outdoor seating into the discus- <br /> sion or move forward with whatever the Council wants to move forward with and <br /> have this further reviewed or amended down the road. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated he would like to think about this now and would be <br /> in favor of using the restaurant number but include the outdoor seating. He <br /> thought one of the points to consider is people may be going to the business by <br /> themselves after work for happy hour and not as a family for dinner. If anything, <br /> he thought the parking requirements should be more than the average restaurant. <br /> Mayor Roe thought staff could add microbreweries, tap rooms, tasting rooms or <br /> cocktail rooms to the restaurant item already in place if that is the direction the <br /> Council is going. <br /> The Council agreed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.