My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2022_1128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2022
>
CC_Minutes_2022_1128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2023 2:36:48 PM
Creation date
1/10/2023 2:36:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/2022
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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,November 28, 2022 <br /> Page 8 <br /> e. Consider a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Request to Allow Resi- <br /> dential Density Greater Than 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre in Support of a Pro- <br /> posed Apartment Project <br /> Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the Request <br /> for Council Action and related attachments dated November 28, 2022. <br /> Mayor Roe wanted to touch on the impact related to traffic and the fact that there <br /> was a traffic study done in 2016, when there was another proposal being looked at <br /> by the City and it appears that the analysis from the Engineering Department is that <br /> the impact of the potential eighty-six units that could be built is significantly lower <br /> than the two hundred fifty units scenario that was looked at with the traffic study. <br /> He thought the original traffic study did not recommend any geometric changes to <br /> the Albert Street/County Road B intersection,such as a signal or anything like that, <br /> different than what is there now or even lane configuration changes or turn lanes. <br /> So certainly,with fewer trips per day from a smaller number of units,none of those <br /> potential changes to that intersection would be required with this as well. <br /> Mr. Lloyd explained that was correct, noting that during the conversation at the <br /> Planning Commission about the traffic and its potential impacts,one thing staff did <br /> not know at that meeting, the City Engineer has since clarified and it is part of the <br /> memo mentioned. The background traffic in this area has not risen since the 2016 <br /> study. Even though there are reduced trips,people were not entirely sure that traffic <br /> wouldn't still be a problem if background traffic had risen substantially since then <br /> but since the background traffic is about the same and potential trips far fewer than <br /> what the study analyzed, the study remains valid with the recommendation of no <br /> changes or improvements necessary would hold. <br /> Councilmember Strahan asked what is the total acreage of this space? <br /> Mr. Lloyd explained the site is about two acres. <br /> Councilmember Strahan stated on this proposed alignment, she did not see any pro- <br /> posed greenspace at all and wondered if the City had any requirements on green <br /> space in an HDR environment. <br /> Mr. Lloyd indicated there are requirements but he did not have the figure off hand <br /> for that. Rather than having a green space requirement per se, it is regulated the <br /> other way around and limits the amount of improvement which is typically imper- <br /> vious coverage on properties like this. He reviewed the proposed plan with the <br /> Council. <br /> Councilmember Strahan indicated there is no children's play area or anything like <br /> that. Certainly, those thirty-eight feet has busy traffic on County Road B with a <br /> bus stop and bank drive-through just to the east of that so she did not see it would <br /> be useable as child space. Yet, some of these configurations of spaces seem like <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.