My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0514_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0514_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:17 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:22:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
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
How should Roseville accommodate new household r� owth? <br />Results: Multi-family housing only, 0 votes; single-family housing only, 0 votes; and a mixture <br />of multi- and single-family housing, 20 votes <br />Lot Design Activity <br />What we learned from this activity <br />■ Difficult to make general conclusions <br />■ Context is important <br />■ Density should not be assumed to be bad <br />■ Private roads can be acceptable <br />■ Current grid zoning does not address the preferences indicated in the exercise <br />(Attached are the results of this activity.) <br />Comment Sheets <br />A summary sheet listing the comments provided by community members who attended the open <br />house was handed out to Advisory Group members. Some people added comments responding to <br />the three questions listed above. <br />DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR LOT SPLIT POLICY <br />Aimee Gourlay led the Advisory Group in beginning to narrow down potential alternatives in <br />answering the questions put forward by the City Council. Items discussed included: lot <br />dimensions, code uniformity, lot shape, other standards (e.g. tree preservation, open space <br />preservation, etc.), public streets, variable densities, and housing affordability/housing stock <br />diversity. The following summarizes the issues for further discussion put forward by the group. <br />Lot Dimensions <br />■ House siting options <br />■ Smaller required lot size <br />■ Cluster homes <br />Communitv-Wide UniformitX <br />■ Non-uniform <br />Shape <br />■ Gerrymandering lot boundaries to <br />meet minimums <br />Other Standards/Ordinances <br />■ Stormwater <br />Neighborhood character <br />Environmental impact <br />Tree preservation (some people left <br />prior to this suggestion) <br />Required Public Streets <br />■ Eliminated from future discussion <br />Decreasin� Densitv in One Area to Increase <br />Densitv in Another <br />■ Eliminated from future discussion <br />Housin� Affordabilitv/Housin� Stock <br />Diversitv <br />■ City cannot regulate this under the <br />current single-family standards <br />Other Policies <br />■ Coverage ratios <br />Lot recombination <br />March 22 Meeting Summary Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.