My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 08222022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2022
>
CCP 08222022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2022 10:00:56 AM
Creation date
8/18/2022 10:00:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
8/22/2022
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
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
RCA Attachment D <br />wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲWǒƌǤЏͲЋЉЋЋ <br />tğŭĻЏ <br />230 opening up the CityÓs Zoning Code and allowing different housing types, specifically <br />231 missing middle housing types into their single-family neighborhoods would, over <br />232 time, to peal back what the City can actually have for affordable ownership units like <br />233 a duplex. That was the intention behind opening up two family dwelling units in the <br />234 LDR District and to be honest, it was going to be an even larger challenge to try and <br />235 take existing LDR District and rezone it to medium density to achieve a similar <br />236 density type. She explained this is going to happen with infill projects. The City was <br />237 very upfront with that. Where there are larger lots, that is an infill project and she <br />238 does understand and sympathizes with the neighbors who live next to these infill <br />239 projects because that is where it will be felt most. <br />240 <br />241 Member McGehee indicated because the City is always talking about different <br />242 housing types, there are large lot areas in Roseville and she did not particularly like <br />243 them referred to as infill projects, that it is the goal to chop up all of the large lots in <br />244 Roseville because there are people who like large lots and she was one of them and <br />245 she explained she has one but she thought those areas and large lots should also be <br />246 available in Roseville unless it is the plan to have Roseville consist of all missing <br />247 middle and affordable rental housing. She thought the City did have to careful not to <br />248 chop up all of what the City has because there are some areas in Roseville that are <br />249 very desirable and carry a lot of the tax weight from the housing standpoint. <br />250 <br />251 Ms. Gundlach explained the City is not the developer and not developing any land or <br />252 chopping up any parcels. The City is responding to developers, property owners who <br />253 wish to develop their land in accordance with Zoning Code requirements. The City is <br />254 just applying the code. If there is a large lot neighborhood that wants to maintain their <br />255 large lots and nobody wants to sell or subdivide, the City is not going to force that <br />256 upon anybody. <br />257 <br />258 MOTION <br />259 Member Bjorum moved, seconded by Member Pribyl, to recommend to the City <br />260 Council approval of the Proposed Brama Vistas Preliminary Plat, based on the <br />261 content of the RPCA, public input, and Planning Commission deliberation with <br />262 the three conditions listed in the RPCA (PF22-005). <br />263 <br />264 Member Bjorum indicated he was recommending approval because it is based on all <br />265 of the required criteria as set forth by the CityÓs Zoning Code and Comprehensive <br />266 Plan. He noted he did not like the plan either but there is no reason to deny it because <br />267 it meets all of the requirements and the issues that were brought up by Member <br />268 McGehee are very important and he hoped the City Council does consider those as <br />269 well. <br />270 <br />271 Member McGehee indicated for the sake of the Council; she will be opposing this. <br />272 She agreed this meets all of the conditions but she was going to oppose it so that it <br />273 stands out when it goes to the Council so that it is not a unanimous things and is not <br />274 put on the Consent Agenda and does get the review that the Commission would like it <br />275 to have. <br />276 <br />Page 24 of 50 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.