Laserfiche WebLink
<br />most uses as new or expanded tenants. The condition some of the buildings and <br />development is as follows: <br /> <br />2.1 Northco which owns 7 parcels consisting of 30.15 acres and approximately 455,000 s.f. <br />of building space, states that of its estimated 33 tenants, only 11 % would be considered <br />"permitted uses" within the new "B-6" zoning district. Because these buildings are more <br />than 20 years old, none of the buildings entirely meet the existing zoning requirements. <br /> <br />2.2 St. Paul Companies, which owns 5 parcels consisting of21.6 acres and approximately <br />339,000 s.f. of building space, states that of its 18 tenants, approximatelyhalfofthe <br />current users would be considered permitted uses in the new "B-6" zoning district. <br />Because these buildings are more than 30 years old, none of the buildings entirely meet <br />the existing zoning requirements. <br /> <br />2.3 Reco/Regan, which owns 3 parcels consisting of21.3 acres and approximately 121,700 <br />s.f. of building space, as well as options on an additional 6.2 acres that (as of August 7, <br />2002) is vacant. Reco/Regan states that of its 10 vehicular repair and transportation <br />related tenants, most may not have proper permits under the existing codes and few <br />would be considered permitted uses in the new "B-6" zoning district. Because these <br />buildings are more than 34 years old, none of the buildings entirely meet the existing <br />zoning requirements. <br /> <br />3.0 AL TERNATIVES: <br /> <br />3.1 The Commission should discuss and consider all aspects of the property owners' <br />proposed permissive language amendments that provides for pre-existing uses to remain <br />and expand (even if nonconforming) in the "B-6" "Mixed Use Business Park District". <br /> <br />3.2 The Commission should provide the City Council with a recommendation to amend, <br />clarity, rewrite or retain the "B-6" "Mixed Use Business Park District" text. <br />Alternative solutions include: <br />a. Accept all language as proposed by owners. <br />b. Accept some of clarified language as proposed by owners and City Attorney <br />c. Recommend that specific parcels owned by the applicants be removed from <br />the B-6 zoning district proposed for Twin Lakes until some future time when <br />there is market demand for more upscale and flexible redevelopment <br />regulations. <br />d. Recommend retaining the existing language (i.e.,do nothing), allow existing <br />language to remain. <br />e. No changes at this time, allowing time for the market to recover: <br />1. Recommend retaining the existing language (do nothing to <br />change the Code language for "B-6" districts). <br />2. Recommend tabling indefinitely (do nothing) to not approve <br />the zoning map amendments from 1-1,1-2, and B-1 and B-4, <br />which are currently awaiting a second reading at the City <br />Council level. <br /> <br />PF3359-RCA(102102) Page 5 of 13 <br />