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 18 <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated he had an opportunity to watch the Planning <br /> Commission meeting and was more comfortable with the language staff presented <br /> versus what ultimately came out of the Planning Commission meeting. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan referenced Attachment C, the proposed Ordinance, line <br /> 16, referencing brew pub, and suggested 'who' be replaced with 'at.' On Line 36, <br /> regarding site screening, he suggested replacing `attractive' with 'not inappropri- <br /> ate.' He noted in the RCA on page 204, line 56, it discusses this and he was not <br /> sure if the Planning Commission removed or put it in,but in any event, it is not in <br /> the Resolution. He suggested the wording from RCA page 204, line 56 replace <br /> the word `attractive.' Similarly, Lines 37 and 38 of Attachment C, discusses a <br /> fence between six and six and a half feet in height whereas what was before the <br /> Planning Commission was at least six feet in height. <br /> Mr. Paschke believed as it relates to the first question, compatible materials to the <br /> building, one thing that could be challenged is on an all brick building there <br /> would not be an all brick fence constructed or screening wall. He thought staff <br /> and the Planning Commission saw that and that was the reason it was removed <br /> and talked about what would be a screened fence to go in. Attractive is the cur- <br /> rent verbiage the City Code currently has, and it mirrored the current Code. He <br /> agreed this is very subjective and could be removed as long as it is kept in that <br /> staff can review and approve it as the Community Development Department. He <br /> stated as it relates to the change in height, the Planning Commission wanted a <br /> maximum and a minimum. <br /> Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment. <br /> Public Comment <br /> Mr. Tim Callaghan, <br /> Mr. Callaghan stated he was confused in reading through this about the twenty- <br /> five feet from residential. He asked if the twenty-five feet was from the property <br /> line or the building. <br /> Mayor Roe stated it would be from the property line. <br /> Mr. Callaghan thought that should be clarified because someone may argue about <br /> that in the future. <br /> Mayor Roe closed the public comment with no one else coming forward. <br /> Council Discussion <br /> Councilmember Etten stated in regard to minimum parking standards, he wanted <br /> to move the language found in attachment B, page 2 of 4, with one change. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.