My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0818_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0818_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2014 4:02:47 PM
Creation date
8/14/2014 1:54:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
the location and access to the regional transportation system make District 10 a <br />56 <br />desirable development area, classic redevelopment issues (e.g., obsolete, existing, <br />57 <br />underutilized property, poor site configuration, and site contamination) create <br />58 <br />challenges in attracting investment. <br />59 <br />Previous planning has envisioned a master-plan approach to redevelopment. A large- <br />60 <br />scale project would allow the City to work with a single developer to guide land uses <br />61 <br />and public improvements. Such a project has not materialized, especially since the <br />62 <br />lending and developing markets coming out of the recession have made master <br />63 <br />developer situations extremely rare throughout the country. Future development will <br />64 <br />more likely be a series of smaller projects. This approach places more responsibility <br />65 <br />on the City for creating an appropriate mix of uses and a sustainable development <br />66 <br />pattern. <br />67 <br />Future Land Use <br />68 <br />The Twin Lakes area is designated as Community Mixed-Use, a new land-use <br />69 <br />category for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The mixed-use designation for this area <br />70 <br />reflects several factors: <br />71 <br />The need to retain flexibility in working with developers over an extended period <br />72 <br />of time to create high-quality and sustainable new development <br />73 <br />The recognition that the ability to correct site pollution will influence the type and <br />74 <br />location of development <br />75 <br />The desire to have employment as the primary orientation of future development, <br />76 <br />balanced with the recognition that commercial and residential uses help to support <br />77 <br />business development <br />78 <br />Twin Lakes should not be developed with shopping as the primary focus of future <br />79 <br />land use <br />80 <br />5.3Since the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss the Terrace Drive area and <br />81 <br />the future High Density, the Planning Division has concluded the proposed <br />82 <br />CLUP can be made without affecting other <br />83 OMPREHENSIVE ANDSELAN MAP CHANGE <br />portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the proposal would result in a slight <br />84 <br />adjustment in the future uses allowed by decreasing residential density and by providing <br />85 <br />a broadened mix of uses to create a larger mixed-use redevelopment allowance. The <br />86 <br />change would also assist with potential on-going nonconformity issues with the Terrace <br />87 <br />Drive and Fairview Avenue parcels. <br />88 <br />5.3ZMC: Assuming that the change to the Comprehensive Plan are <br />89 ONINGAPHANGE <br />supported and approved, the requested becomes a clerical step to <br />90 ZONING MAP CHANGE <br />ensure that the zoning map continues to be “consistent with the guidance and intent of the <br />91 <br />Comprehensive Plan” as required in City Code §1009.04 (Zoning Changes). <br />92 <br />6.0PCPCA <br />UBLICOMMENT AND LANNINGOMMISSIONCTION <br />93 <br />6.1The duly-noticed public hearing for this application was held by the Planning <br />94 <br />Commission at its meeting of June 4, 2014; draft minutes of the meeting are included <br />95 <br />with this RCA as Attachment D. Commissioners expressed support for the proposed <br />96 <br />amendments, however, an adjacent resident did address the Planning Commission <br />97 <br />expressing her concerns over the changes. Specifically, the resident indicated that while <br />98 <br />PROJ0026_RCA_CompPlanZoning_070714.doc <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.