2014_06_04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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