My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0827_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0827_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 2:55:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
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.
/
851
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
�. <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />City Council Study Sessinn <br />li�Ianday, August 24, 2Qp'� <br />Page 10 <br />Councilmemhez Pust advised that, prior to her recom�mendation a� to- <br />nigh�'s meetzng, �he had reviewed her copious notes from pa�� public <br />hearing and meeting comments; noting that the pub�ic didn'� express <br />opposition to thase amendments she was proposing; fii�th�r noting <br />that she was no� proposing action on those items not supported by the <br />con�unity to-date, allow�ng for furthez s�.idy andlor considera�ion. <br />8 Couneilmember Ihlan opined that there was fa: <br />9 proposed by ci�ize�s during public input, spec��i <br />1� mula calculat�ons; and furthex opined �hat.if t�i <br />11 not to waste the time o�' concerned cit�zens cho� <br />����� <br />12 to decision-making, a�te�native 1an �ge��'��- B-1 <br />13 Council revi�w and considexatia��� � <br />�4 <br />�. 5 <br />16 <br />�7 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />2� <br />30 <br />3 ]. <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />35 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />y speeifzc language <br />�p s�iding scale �or- <br />�ity Councz� chos� <br />ng to p�ovide input <br />aning be dra:��ed �'or <br />Counci�member Roe clarified tl�at; a: a���°���ounci�member Th1an`s <br />comments on B-� zoning, the stui��oup had recommended no <br />chang�s �o current ordinance in terms o����spli�s; and opin�d that the <br />recommendation o� a cii�zen group for sl�� � scale lot siza calcula- <br />tions was nat being disaregarded; �ust,not, a��d upon a� this time and <br />with thx� recornrnendation of �ounciliiiember Pust. <br />�le-f� <br />mazn <br />xnclud�d des�gnatlor� o£ an overlay �on�ng d�st�zct �or s1nT <br />ots p�atted prior �o � 959 to c�ari�'y and en,su:re that th�y re� <br />� nonco�f�ornung ` lots, wi�h a de�ermaination that such <br />iegislation had' alr�ady be�n adopted; and distinct xniex- <br />� znc�:�vidual Counci�members on proposed amendments. <br />Mayor K��ing r�viewed the process to-date for amending zoning <br />��. <br />andior lanc���se eodes again, noting that the Study Croup had received <br />��t�nsive �����c comment pxio� �o the�� repo�t: sta�� preparation o� a <br />��� � <br />x��� ��� ining proposed ordinance Ianguag� con��s�en� w�th Cit�y <br />Cs��dir�ction and based on a t�mp�ate o�' �he sing�e-fami�y xe�i- <br />den�l lot split study group'� consensu� recommendations as defined; <br />those proposed amendments to the Planning Com7nission �or public <br />h�a�ing and xccom�nendation to the City Council, cons�dering public <br />eomment in those recommendations. Mayor KXausing noied �hat citi- <br />zen� were w�lcome to �e�te�rate th�ir argum�nt at the P�anning Com� <br />missaon level on a proppsed s�iding scale, as we11 as duxing pub��c <br />comment to th� City �ouncil. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.