My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 01292024
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2024
>
CCP 01292024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2024 2:18:21 PM
Creation date
3/20/2024 2:17:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/29/2024
Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
256
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
Attachment 2 <br />E XTRACT OF THE J ANUARY 3, 2024, P LANNING C OMMISSION D RAFT M EETING M INUTES <br />1 a. Troys Automotive LLC requests a Zoning Code text amendment to Table 1005-1, Table <br />2 of Allowed Uses, to support “motor vehicle repair, auto body shop” as a Conditional <br />3 Use in the Neighborhood Mixed-UseDistrict <br />4 Chair Pribyl opened the public hearing at approximately 6:35 p.m. and reported on the <br />5 purpose and process of the public hearing. She advised this item will be before the City <br />6 Council onJanuary 29, 2024. <br />7 City Planner Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated January 3, <br />8 2024. <br />9 Member Bauer asked if Mr. Paschke could expand on why staff feels that the MU3 would <br />10 not be the appropriate choice in this case. <br />11 Mr. Paschke explained that MU3 allows for manymore uses, not that those uses could ever <br />12 develop or redevelop this site given the different rules and regulations, but it opens up more <br />13 opportunities for uses that might not be appropriate for this area or for these small <br />14 neighborhood nodes. Keeping this neighborhood business and going through a process that <br />15 allows staff and the Planning Commission to review based on a number of different factors <br />16 seems far better than opening it up to being a permitted use and having other uses come in. <br />17 Ms. Gundlach indicated this particular site is surrounded by low density residential property <br />18 and the MU1 Zoning is really set aside for properties that are in closer proximity to some of <br />19 that more low-density residential property. <br />20 Member McGehee asked if staff has any more site plan information for how it would be laid <br />21 out on the site. <br />22 Mr. Paschke indicated he has a site plan that he had worked with initially. He explained how <br />23 the site plan was arranged. <br />24 Member McGehee asked why the applicant has had to come forward to the Planning <br />25 Commission to change the building. <br />26 Mr. Paschke indicated the building is not permitted and the building cannot be expanded <br />27 under the standards for non-conforming use, thus the reason for the proposed text <br />28 amendment. <br />29 Member McGehee did not think the applicant was going to expand the business massively. <br />30 Mr. Paschke agreed and noted if this is approved the applicant will need to get a conditional <br />31 use and then he believed there is at least one variance that will be required because of where <br />32 the existing building lies and tying into that. There are still some more steps to this. <br />33 Member Aspness indicated she was thinking about unintended consequences, if the City <br />34 added car repair to MU1, where else could the City see that become a potential issue for <br />35 Roseville. She wondered if there are other places where this could occur and did staff look <br />36 into this. <br />Qbhf!32!pg!367 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.