My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03359
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3300
>
pf_03359
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:54:26 PM
Creation date
5/13/2005 3:07:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3359
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
Address
Twin Lakes
Project Name
Twin Lakes
Applicant
City of Roseville
Status
Denied
Date Final City Council Action
10/21/2002
Date Final Planning Commission Action
10/2/2002
Additional Information
Twin Lakes Rezoned to B-6, Mixed Use Business Park District
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
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
<br />Roseville Planning Commission <br />September 24, 2002 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />would have been permitted under previous zoning (subject to the one-year <br />cessation limitation set forth in the State statute). <br /> <br />4. The one-year period to resume a discontinued nonconforming use has <br />been extended by the time required for the City to process an application for a <br />variance or conditional use permit requested by the owner to put another use in <br />the space which is not a continuation of the prior nonconforming use, but which <br />does not fall within the permitted uses under the B-6 zoning provisions. <br /> <br />In addition, we understand that City planning staff will propose additional changes to the B-6 <br />text, including a definition of the term "ancillary." <br /> <br />The proposed revisions bring the "rules" for continuation of nonconforming uses closer to the <br />rules that existed under the previous text of the 1987 B-6 ordinance (before the ordinance was <br />amended in December, 2001), which allowed extension, expansion or intensification of <br />nonconforming uses so long as such actions would have been permitted prior to adoption of that <br />ordinance. The reasons the Owners think: these changes are important and appropriate are as <br />follows: <br /> <br />1. The permitted uses in the B-6 zone should conform to the previously- <br />approved comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />2. The Owners agree that a clear definition of the term "ancillary" will <br />increase certainty for property owners and the City in the implementation of the <br />code. <br /> <br />3. The Owners recognize they will have difficulty finding and keeping <br />tenants in these buildings if tenants know that their operations may not be <br />expanded, and that they will be limited in "intensity" to historic operations, rather <br />than having flexibility to expand and modify their operations to meet market <br />demands. The Owners further believe that a zoning code requiring them to secure <br />variances or conditional use permits for each new tenant or expansion of an <br />existing tenant will put them at a severe competitive disadvantage with respect to <br />other facilities in the Metropolitan area where the delays necessary to obtain <br />variances or conditional use permits are not required. <br /> <br />4. The Owners believe that granting an extension to the one-year period <br />during which nonconforming uses may be resumed after discontinuance will <br />provide more incentive for the Owners to attempt to bring less industrial uses into <br />their buildings, which more closely (but not fully) conform to the permitted uses <br />desired in the B-6 zone, without risking the loss of an economic use of their <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.