My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2023_0130
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2023
>
CC_Minutes_2023_0130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2023 2:45:20 PM
Creation date
2/28/2023 2:45:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/30/2023
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 30, 2023 <br /> Page 14 <br /> lot sizes and widths for non-riparian lots go to the Code. One benefit of this ap- <br /> proach is that they were able to only focus on the riparian and not have to deal with <br /> all of the non-riparian elements,which would have normally been different lot size <br /> requirements. They were able to use the underlying, which is a positive because it <br /> makes things easier, even over time as adjustments are made. <br /> Mayor Roe asked whether,in moving some of this to Title 8,the City is potentially <br /> putting some zoning requirements outside of the Zoning Code. <br /> Ms. Trapp believed everything that is moving is stuff that staff was already admin- <br /> istering. It is not creating new stuff other than what was desired to be created new. <br /> Mayor Roe thought a reference might need to be included in the Zoning Code to <br /> potential buffer areas that are in Chapter 8. <br /> Mr. Jeff Miller, HKGi, presented Phase Two of the Zoning Code update including <br /> sustainability. He asked if there were any questions on the EV portion of his presen- <br /> tation. <br /> Councilmember Etten thought this was an important move forward for the City. He <br /> had talked with Ms. Gundlach about the definition of improved and that this talks <br /> about more than twenty percent of the parking area. He believed that was refer- <br /> enced now to another part of the City Code. He appreciated that because he knew <br /> it was a question brought up by the Planning Commission. <br /> Councilmember Etten asked if nonresidential will apply to all other uses, institu- <br /> tional, such as Roseville High School if the parking lot is redone by more than <br /> twenty percent. <br /> Mr. Miller stated with the way this is written, he believed it is so. <br /> Ms. Gundlach noted all residential and non-residential would include everything. <br /> Councilmember Etten explained when looking at the handicap portion, it states ac- <br /> cess to one and sometimes these come with potentially two sides to them. He won- <br /> dered if that is what is being talked about and not necessarily dedicated right in <br /> front of a single handicap stall but could be split into different areas. He also won- <br /> dered if it is a requirement to have one EV charger and it would be placed right in <br /> front of a handicap spot the majority of users would not be able to get to it. He <br /> stated there needed to be some thought about what that access means, how they <br /> operate, and how access works. <br /> Ms.Gundlach indicated that was not their intent as discussing this. It was originally <br /> discussed as the five- or ten-percent requirement. Then the handicap discussion <br /> started and they wanted to make sure there was access for handicap persons. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.