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
4.0B <br />ACKGROUND <br />14 <br />Since October 2012, the Planning Division has been working with the City Council on <br />15 <br />the Twin Lakes Re-Envisioning process and specifically on the potential of re-guiding <br />16 <br />and rezoning areas within Twin Lakes and on modifications to the Zoning Code <br />17 <br />pertaining to the types of uses allowed in the Community Mixed-Use (CMU) district. <br />18 <br />Most recently the Planning Division and City Council have focused on keeping the CMU <br />19 <br />district intact rather than splitting it into separate areas/districts. This approach will <br />20 <br />broaden or expand the types of uses allowed in the district to address pre-existing non- <br />21 <br />conformity concerns, be more receptive to market trends, and support greater flexibility <br />22 <br />when redevelopment opportunities are pursued. The proposal also looked into slight <br />23 <br />modifications within other Districts to clarify a few uses. <br />24 <br />HA <br />IGHLIGHTS OF MENDMENTS <br />25 <br />The following items may be somewhat complicated to understand and/or to decipher <br />26 <br />exactly what is different from existing to proposed or new. For that reason and because <br />27 <br />this begins the formal process and discussions regarding changes to the thoughts and <br />28 <br />ideas surrounding redevelopment in Twin Lakes, the City Planner has elected to list and <br />29 <br />provide some general understanding of the specific items that are new or different. <br />30 <br />Office change <br />31 <br />Retail change <br />32 <br />Limited production/processing <br />33 <br />Limited warehousing/distribution <br />34 <br />Food truck <br />35 <br />Restaurant definitions <br />36 <br />EAW requirement <br />37 <br />Regarding office changes, the proposal seeks to broaden the types of office uses as well <br />38 <br />as the districts they are allowed, since not all office uses are the same. <br />39 <br />Regarding retail, the proposed change seeks to create a split between retail buildings <br />40 <br />under 40,000 and retail buildings over 40,000 sq. ft.; further changes include retail <br />41 <br />buildings 300 feet or less form a City park or low density residential requiring a <br />42 <br />Conditional Use where all other sites and sized buildings are permitted. <br />43 <br />Another proposed change is to include limited production and processing and limited <br />44 <br />warehousing and distribution as a permitted use, much like in the Regional Business 2 <br />45 <br />District. This will legalize some non-conforming uses and also allow development of <br />46 <br />new light industrial uses in these categories. <br />47 <br />A new proposed addition to the table is that of a food truck, which is a use we have <br />48 <br />supported, but which use is not identified anywhere in the Code. The proposal seeks to <br />49 <br />allow a food truck as a permitted use with standards. The Planning Commission <br />50 <br />recommended approval with food truck as a permitted use, but deferred discussion on <br />51 <br />standards to a later date. <br />52 <br />PROJ0026_RCA_TextAmdts_070714 <br />Page 2 of 12 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.