My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2019_0128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2019
>
CC_Minutes_2019_0128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2019 10:08:49 AM
Creation date
2/13/2019 10:08:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/28/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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,January 28, 2019 <br /> Page 17 <br /> Councilmember Etten stated his considerations are the number of trees taken <br /> down if putting in more housing pads and the pond to the north. He stated if the <br /> City is allowing a greater density on the space in a relatively more sensitive and <br /> compact space. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated the applicant is only looking at four houses and he did not an- <br /> ticipate them asking for more. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated once this is approved, the City cannot tell the appli- <br /> cant no. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated the City could reject the applicant's plat. <br /> Mayor Roe asked if the plat will include splitting off the LDR portion. <br /> Mr. Paschke indicated the four lots would be on one piece. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated the applicant could come in with more units than <br /> what is depicted but at the same time, four units is what has been depicted all <br /> along and if it is changed to LDR-2 and suddenly there are eight or twelve units, it <br /> would probably give the City pause to approve that plat. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan stated if a plat application conforms to all of the City's <br /> design standards, setbacks, and requirements, it cannot be denied because it is <br /> compliant. The recourse would be to rezone it back to an LDR-1 and that would <br /> not be grandfathered in. This has been approved by the Council, went to the Met <br /> Council for approval, and is still under a sixty-day requirement so the Met Coun- <br /> cil could submit their approvals. He thought the City was in a little bit of a time <br /> crunch. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated he did not know off the top of his head where the sixty-day <br /> process was at. <br /> Mayor Roe thought it might be nice to consider zoning and the plat simultaneous- <br /> ly. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon stated the original application was September 6 and sixty days <br /> would expire November 5. The City took action on October 22 to send the Comp <br /> Plan down and the City can still extend this another sixty days under State Statute. <br /> So, if the Council wanted to table this, he thought staff would have time to com- <br /> municate to the applicant that this is being extended for another sixty days. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated he would like to have the applicant before the <br /> Council for questions to find out what the applicant was thinking in terms of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.