2015_0323_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was viewed to be only mildly unpopular. 24 hour businesses (i.e. gas stations), fast food, 206 and affordable housing were often some of the more consistently unpopular uses. 207 5.Uses that consistently fell in the slightly positive to slightly negative range tend to be 208 those that the community may view to be acceptable with the additional controls that 209 come with Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Some uses that fell into that category 210 included light/limited industrial uses, high density housing, and smaller scale retail. 211 6.If the City Council also has the level of concern regarding new Big Box retail and 24 212 hour businesses that were expressed by the community (particularly in Subareas 1 – 6), it 213 may be preferable to set this item as a priority since Big Box retail and gas stations are 214 uses that will pay high enough prices for land that development can occur without any 215 sort of significant City control. Most other uses will require some sort of subsidy which 216 provides another level of City control. 217 7.Subareas 2, 5, 6 and 7 were the subareas where all or virtually all residential options were 218 viewed to be unpopular which could imply a need to look at whether another commercial 219 zoning district would be more appropriate than CMU in some or all of those subareas. 220 8.Subarea 4 (north of Terrace Drive) is the only site that is not currently zoned CMU and 221 the responses for this subarea indicate there are far fewer community acceptable uses in 222 this subarea than in other parts of Twin Lakes. This subarea is also the area that was the 223 subject of a petition to the City Council in January seeking a rezoning to MDR – Medium 224 Density Residential. 225 The public input for subarea 4 seems to still call for some sort of mixed use district since 226 two of the top three uses are office uses. Medium density residential uses do make up 227 most of the remainder of community acceptable uses, but senior apartments and luxury 228 apartments are both considered to be positive, which would be high density uses. It 229 appears there may be some justification for creation of a new zoning district for subarea 4 230 that would be some sort of “CMU – lite” which allows mixed uses, but with less 231 flexibility than is found in the rest of the CMU district. 232 9.Although it was not specifically asked during the input process, height was raised 233 repeatedly in the open ended questions. Height concerns were also part of one of the 234 petitions submitted by the neighborhood in January. Not surprisingly, height is a concern 235 on the north side of Terrace Drive where redevelopment sites back up on existing 236 residential property. Height concerns were also expressed in Subarea 5 (Fairview 237 Avenue) which were often mentioned in relation to the proposed Sherman apartment 238 project. 239 10.There was also a significant amount of feedback received about possibly expanding 240 Langton Lake Park. If the City Council would like to consider that possibility, it would 241 be preferable to have plans in place before developments are proposed on the PIK 242 property. Plans would also facilitate any requirements to dedicate park land with 243 development of that property. 244 11.Finally, the open ended comments mentioned concerns about code enforcement, 245 particularly on the Dorso site on Cleveland.Staff had already made the determination to 246 initiate code enforcement actions on the Dorso site in response to repeated complaints 247 and was waiting for the snow cover to recede as well as a decision on the potential 248 redevelopment project on that site. This enforcement action should be initiated in the 249 next two weeks and will likely be one of the more challenging code enforcement actions 250 Page 6 of 8