My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0212_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0212_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:37:15 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:20:01 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.
/
227
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 />� <br />� <br />�� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />�� <br />11 <br />1� <br />i3 <br />Roseville City Council <br />DRAFT Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 36 of 38 <br />deadline of February 16,2007; and City Council appointment at their Febru- <br />ary 26, 2007 regular Council meeting; with the CAG scheduled to receive <br />and discuss public comment at the Planning Commission's regular meetings, <br />and any other meetings as applicable, to discuss issues identified in the study <br />scope through the Community Development Director recommendations in <br />staff reports dated November 20,2006 and January 29,2007, and study sug- <br />gestions from Councilmember Ihlan dated January 17,2007, related to sin- <br />gle-family lot split issues, attached hereto and made apart Phereof, with <br />preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations achieved by con- <br />sensus and provided to the City Council at the City Council Study Session of <br />April 16,2007, with anticipated City Council formal action at their Apri123, <br />2007. <br />��+ Councilmember Kough spoke against the motion; citing the need for com- <br />1;� munity input directly to the City Council, not specifically the Planning <br />1� Commission or Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). <br />1'� <br />7� Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion; but concurred with Chair <br />�� B�keman that interested people contact staff; expressed concern with the <br />��� Planning Commission taking on this study in addition to their current and fu- <br />�� ture workload (i.e.� land use cases; and Comprehensive Plan Update); and <br />�� emphasized the need to make citizens aware of the study and to hold as <br />�� many meetings as possible to receive public input. <br />�� <br />�� Councilmember Roe spoke to the need for public input, but recognized the <br />�� time�rame, and the need to have a smaller, organized group facilitating dis- <br />�'� cussions and public comment; and the detriments of large committees with- <br />�� out clear organization and planning; and the need for someone to take the re- <br />� 9 sponsibility for determining meeting, agenda and facilitating meeting logis- <br />�Q <br />;� � <br />;� � <br />�`3:� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�6 <br />�� <br />3�3 <br />�{� <br />tics. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust and K�ausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br />] t�. Consider Harriet Alexander Nature Center ���C} Planning Commit- <br />tee <br />Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly reviewed the history of <br />the HANC over the last 17 y�r�; and the need to undertake a comprehensive <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.