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 20 <br /> Councilmember Willmus indicated it did not make any sense for there to be a not <br /> permitted use in CMU-2. These changes would bring CMU-2 in line with CMU- <br /> 1. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated she had a question regarding the fence height, <br /> wondering if the Council wanted to do anything with that. She appreciated that <br /> the height would be at least six feet and would be a Conditional Use. She could <br /> see where this could be by a residential area and possibly the property being built <br /> upon higher than what was adjacent or vice versa. She stated she would like to <br /> see the original language, which stated at least between 6 and 6.5 feet. She <br /> thought that would provide more flexibility to protect residential property owners. <br /> Mayor Roe thought the wording specified the fence would need to be at least six <br /> feet. <br /> Councilmember Etten asked if there was a height limit to fences in the City. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated it depended on what District the business is in. <br /> Councilmember Etten thought if he was a neighbor to one of the listed businesses, <br /> he would not want a ten-foot fence. He thought it would be an obstruction. A 6 <br /> to 6.5-foot fence makes it seems less aggressive. <br /> Councilmember McGehee thought if there is a situation where there are significan <br /> differences in height between two adjacent parcels, 6.5 feet might not be ade- <br /> quate for screening. She would like to have the flexibility under Conditional Use <br /> to change the height. <br /> Mayor Roe preferred the wording to be "At least six feet" and removing the lan- <br /> guage of"to 6.5 feet". <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that was correct. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted in Table 1006-1, under the brewery in office business <br /> park, one of the changes made by the Planning Commission was making the <br /> brewery/distillery conditional versus not permitted. He wondered if the Council <br /> wanted that designation in the office business park or does the Council not want a <br /> brewery operating in that situation. <br /> Mayor Roe thought this is conditional so there would be some flexibility to ap- <br /> prove or disapprove it,but it could become quite large. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.