Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 <br />Page 25 <br />zones.Chair Gisselquist questioned if this would preclude anyone from coming forward <br />1218 <br />with a multi-tenant building overlooking Oasis Park. <br />1219 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that they could still do so, as this designation created greater <br />1220 <br />flexibility. <br />1221 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke confirmed that there was currently <br />1222 <br />in process at 2785 Fairview Avenue N a proposal for HDR by Sherman and Associates, <br />1223 <br />which would be coming before the City Council in the near future for their consideration. <br />1224 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that staff continued to hear from potential developers in other portions <br />1225 <br />of the Twin Lakes area, and everything remained open to discussion. <br />1226 <br />Public Comment <br />1227 <br />Lisa McCormick <br />1228 <br />Ms. McCormick stated that she wanted to go on record that she had some concerns with <br />1229 <br />the proposed rezoning, but had no good solutions for the Commission to consider at this <br />1230 <br />time.However, Ms. McCormick expressed her concerns in moving to CMU, while <br />1231 <br />providing more flexibility and permitted uses, it also seemed to provide less control for the <br />1232 <br />City to monitor uses going in there, and seemed more lenient for other bordering uses <br />1233 <br />and park properties or commercial office uses. <br />1234 <br />Ms. McCormick advised that her biggest concern is the small residential area on the <br />1235 <br />north, and suggested carving out something to provide a Conditional Use situation or <br />1236 <br />something allowing the City more control in evaluating uses. <br />1237 <br />Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 10:18p.m.;no one else spokefor or against. <br />1238 <br />MOTION <br />1239 <br />Member Murphymoved, seconded by Member Boguszewskito recommend to the <br />1240 <br />City Council APPROVAL of the proposed COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP <br />1241 <br />CHANGE AND ZONING MAP CHANGE, pursuant to Title 2 (Commissions), Title 10 <br />1242 <br />(Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of Roseville City Code, for the following <br />1243 <br />addressed properties within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area:1633 –1776 <br />1244 <br />Terrace Drive (along the north side of Terrace Drive adjacent to Oasis Park);2830 <br />1245 <br />Fairview Avenue (at the north corner of Terrace Drive and Fairview Avenue);2805 – <br />1246 <br />2823, 2825, and 2833 –2837Fairview Avenue (the west side of Fairview Avenue <br />1247 <br />adjacent to Langton Lake Park);and based on the commentsandfindingsof <br />1248 <br />Sections 4 -6, andrecommendationof Section 7of the staff report dated June 4, <br />1249 <br />2014. <br />1250 <br />Member Cunningham questioned if the concerns expressed by Ms. McCormick were <br />1251 <br />valid and if the City was indeed losing some of its discretion on future uses; and asked <br />1252 <br />that staff review the process for a building and/or use and who would be the responsible <br />1253 <br />party in setting those guidelines with this proposed motion. <br />1254 <br />Specific to uses, Mr. Paschke noted that many of the current uses in this area were pre- <br />1255 <br />existing conditions (e.g. warehouse south of Acorn) limiting what could be done even if <br />1256 <br />the Zoning Ordinance changed.Mr. Paschke noted that the buildings were limited in use, <br />1257 <br />had only so much capacity, and were not zoned currently for retail, but or similar uses <br />1258 <br />such as the “Bridging” operation, and use as Warehouse/Distribution, or Production/ <br />1259 <br />Processing, similar to the “Pour Decisions” brewery usepreviously in that area. <br />1260 <br />As it relates to new development or redevelopment, Mr. Paschke noted there was not <br />1261 <br />broad discretion, as the Code remained strict on what could or could not be done, with <br />1262 <br />this proposed zoning opening the area up to other things beyond HDR-1 for 24 units per <br />1263 <br />acre, through permitted or conditional use; and still required to meet standards as well as <br />1264 <br />other things embedded in code for the CMU District, and allowing staff the administrative <br />1265 <br />discretion to monitor those things.Mr. Paschkereiterated that other sections of City Code <br />1266 <br />limit and restrict certain uses, therefore not creating a situation where the City was losing <br />1267 <br />its jurisdiction to control or regulate things.Mr. Paschke noted that the only thing the <br />1268 <br />action was doing with the zoning text amendments and reasoning was opening it up to <br />1269 <br /> <br />