CC_Minutes_2011_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2011 Page 10 • Adopt the Resolution(Suggested City Council Action 4.1, line 288); and • Adopt the Ordinance Summary (Suggested City Council Action 4.3, line 292) Mayor Roe sought any public comment; however, no one appeared to speak for or against. Johnson moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1415 (Attachment E) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Section 1005.02 (Design Standards) and Section 1005.07 (Community Mixed-Use District) of Title 10 "Zoning Code" of the Roseville City Code;" as amended. Mayor Roe offered a MOTION TO AMEND the Ordinance and language of At- tachment E to substitute and insert language as provided in the bench handout, consisting of the e-mail as previously referenced during this discussion. The makers of the motion were agreeable to this revised language, with staff in concurrence, and the motion was amended to insert the following language im- mediately after line 161 of the DRAFT ordinance: "On Flexible Frontage sites located at or near pedestrian corridors or roadway intersections, where building placement is not to be in the build-to area, the City will require additional public amenities/enhancements including, but not limited to, seating areas, fountains or other water features, art, or other items, to be placed in the build-to area, as approved by the Community Development Depart- ment. " Councilmember McGehee questioned why these items were being addressed in separate documents; with Mr.Trudgeon advising that this was the first step, to be followed by more specific concentration on the overlay district. Councilmember questioned where the specific uses would be addressed if not in the regulating map or allocation plan. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning and its "Use Chart" specifically identified the uses; as well as being addressed in other areas of City Code for mitigation efforts and whether or not there was a direct lin- kage to a specific use. Councilmember McGehee opined that in the CMU Zoning was specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; with Mr. Paschke responding that it was cur- rently the only CMU District unless future requests come forward for another area of the community; noting that such a request would require separate action of the City Council and development and approval of another regulating map specific to that area.