My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0325
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0325
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2013 1:26:28 PM
Creation date
4/25/2013 1:15:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/25/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
Kari Collins "P"U04'� ( (' <br /> From: r willmus <rwillmus @msn.com> <br /> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:52 PM <br /> To: Bill Malinen; Pat Trudgeon <br /> Cc: *RVCouncil <br /> Subject: 10/22/2012 Council Minutes/3/25/2013 Item 9a -9b Additional Info <br /> 12.General Ordinances for Adoption <br /> a.Adopt an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code to Add Limited Processing and <br /> Production to the Regional Business District's Permitted Uses <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized requested text amendments recommended by <br /> staff, allowing limited production and processing within the Regional Business (RB) District <br /> as a permitted use; as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 22, <br /> 2012. Mr. Paschke noted that this text amendment was prompted by staff's ongoing <br /> monitoring of the practical application of the updated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Codes <br /> Mr. Paschke highlighted the definition, currently defined in City Code, for"Limited <br /> Production/Processing (lines 51-56 of the RCA). <br /> At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke advised that this use was currently <br /> allowed in Office Business Park (OBP) and Industrial (I) zoning districts, as detailed in <br /> Attachment A to the report. <br /> Councilmember Pust questioned the original rationale as to why this use was allowed in <br /> some zones, but not in others, and why a determination wasn't found at that time to <br /> identify non-conformities to consider the vision for a particular zoning district. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that, if the Comprehensive Plan was to serve as an overall <br /> guide of the City's vision and the goal of where it wanted to move in the future, could <br /> memorializing this text amendment serve to move away from that guidance and back away <br /> from the overall plan to move particular uses to particular areas. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated that this was not an accurate depiction from staff's perspective. <br /> Councilmember Pust further opined that she was surprised to see these proposed text <br /> amendments come forward before a recommendation to amend the text based on recent <br /> discussions with the Wal-Mart development use, since that had created so much discussion <br /> as far as a regulated use, causing preference by many to correct an apparent disparity from <br /> the perspective of many in the community. Councilmember Pust questioned how these <br /> recommended text amendments had risen above that other issue. <br /> Mayor Roe refocused the discussion on the requested action currently before the City <br /> Council. <br /> Councilmember Willmus expressed his potential opposition to allowing light manufacturing <br /> in the Rosedale area. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that he didn't see that as a result of the requested action; noting that <br /> there were other uses currently in the zoning code where manufacturing wouldn't be <br /> appropriate at a number of sites. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.