My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0220
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0220
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2014 1:22:23 PM
Creation date
3/26/2014 1:35:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/24/2014
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Special City Council Meeting <br /> Thursday, February 20, 2014 <br /> Page 21 <br /> may approve it adjacent to retail versus Langton Lake Park, it would be possible <br /> to consider it and set up sufficient mitigation at that location. <br /> To add to that, currently in code, Mayor Roe noted that conditional uses were re- <br /> quired with certain uses with specific conditions attached and broader conditions <br /> applied to all scenarios. Mayor Roe opined that a similar situation could occur if <br /> going this route. <br /> Mr. Paschke noted that certain uses and proximity to residential or other uses <br /> could be considered to mitigate potential impacts. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte used the example of Iona and exclusion of warehouse <br /> and distribution; and if remaining CMU that would be an excluded use creating a <br /> buffer and uses around Langton Lake and everything else. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted that conditions would be applied to such a use. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that such uses couldn't happen, but only in some areas; with <br /> staffs response to allow more limited warehousing, but not industrial. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that the CMU identified multiple uses, and could end up on <br /> the PIK site adjacent to the park, and questioned if that was appropriate, opining <br /> that it did if mitigating impacts were applied and then made sense. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte questioned what was needed to work back in if the <br /> regulating plan was eliminated. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon suggested one more refinement to come back to the City Council <br /> with this discussion and ideas to be followed by the official process once a con- <br /> sensus was determined and opportunities for public comment. At that point< Mr. <br /> Trudgeon suggested an accelerated process to keep momentum going for property <br /> owners. Mr. Trudgeon opined that this discussion had been helpful even though it <br /> went from separate districts back to basically the same framework. <br /> Staff reviewed the potential time frame for the process for Comprehensive Plan <br /> amendment and CMU text change, approximately two months if the City Council <br /> accepted proposed definitions drafted by staff and detailed in the RCA, initiating <br /> the formal process to amend the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan in that <br /> same timeframe; returning to the City Council with a modified use chart and cer- <br /> tain uses identified as conditional. <br /> Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that process. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding indication of preferences for the use chart revisions, <br /> with the zoning ordinance becoming the regulating document. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.