My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0609_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0609_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:53:18 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 1:38:57 PM
Metadata
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.
/
378
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
100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />103 <br />104 <br />105 <br />106 <br />107 <br />108 <br />109 <br />110 <br />111 <br />112 <br />113 <br />114 <br />115 <br />116 <br />117 <br />118 <br />119 <br />120 <br />121 <br />122 <br />123 <br />5.5 Although these uses are similar, there may be some impacts that need to be mitigated <br />with specific standards; density is one such item. A hotel can be developed on property <br />zoned CB, RB-1, RB-2, and CMLJ, and is restricted only by height and the development <br />standards provided in each district. Housing uses, however, appear to be misplaced <br />and/or not appropriately allowed, and limited by density. Specifically, less dense, more <br />neighborhood like, apartments could be supported on small business nodes versus on <br />more commercialized nodes where they may be out of place and the property geared for <br />something that generates greater taxes; currently the less dense residential uses are not <br />permitted in the NB District. On the other hand, an apartment with 8 or more units is a <br />conditional use in the NB district, but not allowed in any other commercial districts, <br />which seems odd since as one moves up the commercial designation scale traditionally <br />the impacts of the use become greater and their location is better suited for greater <br />density and traffic volumes and the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning districts <br />themselves advocate mix of use. <br />5.6 The Planning Division concludes that there is a very slight difference between a hotel and <br />a market rate apartment complex; an occupant may stay longer and there is a defacto <br />ownership component in the apartment that typically does not get associated with a hotel. <br />In the end, however, both are a form of living quarters and tend to have similar traffic <br />volumes. Nursing home/assisted living also falls into this category, but such uses <br />typically have a care component that adds to the complexity of the use, generally <br />identifying the use as more commercial business type than true residential type. <br />Nevertheless, the impact of such uses may lie more with the potential transportation <br />issues than it does with the type of structure or whether the renters are students or market <br />rate professionals. <br />�24 5.7 Student Housing Standards <br />�25 The Planning Division has developed specific standards for student housing to address <br />�26 potential impacts of reuse or newly constructed use; these would be contained Section <br />�27 1010.12.E, Property Perfarmance Standards, of the Zoning Ordinance under the Business <br />�2� and Commercial Uses subsection. <br />� 2g 5.8 The proposed standards would address reuse differently than new construction, since <br />� 3o reuse will occur in a building with an existing impact on a neighborhood, whereas new <br />� s � construction would add a potential impact not yet realized by a neighborhood. The <br />� 32 standards would be as follows: <br />133 <br />�s� <br />135 <br />136 <br />137 <br />a. Student housing seeking to reuse an existing hotel, apartment building/complex, or <br />nursing care/assisted living facility shall be a permitted use. <br />b. Reuse sites that are currently adjacent to residentially zoned or used property shall be <br />reviewed by the Community Development Department for screening/fencing needs to <br />mitigate parking and/or drive lane impacts. <br />�38 c. New construction of student housing shall be limited to a maximum height of 35 feet <br />�3� and a minimum setback of 30 feet when adjacent to LDR-1 or LDR-2 district; a <br />�4o maximum height of 45 feet and a minimum setback of 20 feet when adjacent to MDR <br />�4� district; a maximum height of 65 feet and minimum setback of 15 feet when adjacent <br />142 High Density Residential-1 district; and a maximum height of 95 feet and minimum <br />��3 setback of 15 feet when adjacent to High Density Residential-2 district. <br />PF14-006 RCA 060914 final.doc <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.