My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_0323_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_0323_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2015 2:27:38 PM
Creation date
3/19/2015 2:01:19 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
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
was viewed to be only mildly unpopular. 24 hour businesses (i.e. gas stations), fast food, <br />206 <br />and affordable housing were often some of the more consistently unpopular uses. <br />207 <br />5.Uses that consistently fell in the slightly positive to slightly negative range tend to be <br />208 <br />those that the community may view to be acceptable with the additional controls that <br />209 <br />come with Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Some uses that fell into that category <br />210 <br />included light/limited industrial uses, high density housing, and smaller scale retail. <br />211 <br />6.If the City Council also has the level of concern regarding new Big Box retail and 24 <br />212 <br />hour businesses that were expressed by the community (particularly in Subareas 1 – 6), it <br />213 <br />may be preferable to set this item as a priority since Big Box retail and gas stations are <br />214 <br />uses that will pay high enough prices for land that development can occur without any <br />215 <br />sort of significant City control. Most other uses will require some sort of subsidy which <br />216 <br />provides another level of City control. <br />217 <br />7.Subareas 2, 5, 6 and 7 were the subareas where all or virtually all residential options were <br />218 <br />viewed to be unpopular which could imply a need to look at whether another commercial <br />219 <br />zoning district would be more appropriate than CMU in some or all of those subareas. <br />220 <br />8.Subarea 4 (north of Terrace Drive) is the only site that is not currently zoned CMU and <br />221 <br />the responses for this subarea indicate there are far fewer community acceptable uses in <br />222 <br />this subarea than in other parts of Twin Lakes. This subarea is also the area that was the <br />223 <br />subject of a petition to the City Council in January seeking a rezoning to MDR – Medium <br />224 <br />Density Residential. <br />225 <br />The public input for subarea 4 seems to still call for some sort of mixed use district since <br />226 <br />two of the top three uses are office uses. Medium density residential uses do make up <br />227 <br />most of the remainder of community acceptable uses, but senior apartments and luxury <br />228 <br />apartments are both considered to be positive, which would be high density uses. It <br />229 <br />appears there may be some justification for creation of a new zoning district for subarea 4 <br />230 <br />that would be some sort of “CMU – lite” which allows mixed uses, but with less <br />231 <br />flexibility than is found in the rest of the CMU district. <br />232 <br />9.Although it was not specifically asked during the input process, height was raised <br />233 <br />repeatedly in the open ended questions. Height concerns were also part of one of the <br />234 <br />petitions submitted by the neighborhood in January. Not surprisingly, height is a concern <br />235 <br />on the north side of Terrace Drive where redevelopment sites back up on existing <br />236 <br />residential property. Height concerns were also expressed in Subarea 5 (Fairview <br />237 <br />Avenue) which were often mentioned in relation to the proposed Sherman apartment <br />238 <br />project. <br />239 <br />10.There was also a significant amount of feedback received about possibly expanding <br />240 <br />Langton Lake Park. If the City Council would like to consider that possibility, it would <br />241 <br />be preferable to have plans in place before developments are proposed on the PIK <br />242 <br />property. Plans would also facilitate any requirements to dedicate park land with <br />243 <br />development of that property. <br />244 <br />11.Finally, the open ended comments mentioned concerns about code enforcement, <br />245 <br />particularly on the Dorso site on Cleveland.Staff had already made the determination to <br />246 <br />initiate code enforcement actions on the Dorso site in response to repeated complaints <br />247 <br />and was waiting for the snow cover to recede as well as a decision on the potential <br />248 <br />redevelopment project on that site. This enforcement action should be initiated in the <br />249 <br />next two weeks and will likely be one of the more challenging code enforcement actions <br />250 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.