My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0718_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0718_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 10:29:57 AM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:03:13 AM
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.
/
249
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
• Develop design assistance programs for seniors—ideas for upgrades to their homes so <br />they can live on one floor, make the house more s�lla�b�� when they leave. <br />What can citizen do to respond to these issues? (Source:Small group discussion reports) <br />The group did not generate ideas for citizens. <br />What action ideas were participants willing to support? (Source: Feedback sheets) <br />Seven (7) persons indicated that they could personally support one or more of the issues <br />solution ideas/projects discussed. The ideas/projects included: <br />. Require code inspection and disclosure (Truth in Housing Disclosure) before sale of <br />home— even if home need not be brought up to code before it could be sold (mentioned 2 <br />times) <br />. Develop programs to help with utility upgrades. (Items Ll'.71 don't add market value to <br />home, but a needed.) (mentioned 2 times) <br />. Encourage development of housing that matches "customer" wants. <br />. Publish information about codes in the Roseville Wrap or send a notice to new owners. <br />Moratorium on senior housing. <br />• Encourage housing re-development. <br />. Develop walking paths that are more pedestrian friendly. <br />Were participants satisfied with the meeting? (Source: Feedbacksheets) <br />. Ten (10) persons agreed that they had an opportunity to voice their thoughts during small <br />group discussions. <br />. Eight (8) persons thought that the dialogue was informative. <br />. Five (5) participants indicated interest in similar dialogues on other citywide topics. No <br />one topic was mentioned more than once. Topics mentioned included: <br />o Architectural control on remodeling <br />o Housing redevelopment <br />o Refraining from over regulation <br />Narth East Area Dialogue Sunwlary p� <br />Apri119,2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.