Laserfiche WebLink
7� 6.0 <br />72 6.1 <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />�7 <br />�s <br />79 <br />80 <br />81 <br />THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE <br />The descriptions of the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan are included <br />with this staff report as Attachment D. Churches, like all other uses identified as <br />institutional land uses, are explicitly allowed in areas guided for Institutional uses and, by <br />more implicit reference, in Community Mixed Use areas. While many other land use <br />designations promote rather broad mixes of uses, all of the other land use designations <br />are silent on the topic of institutional land uses. That is, none of the other designations <br />explicitly or implicitly allows institutional land uses; this omission, whether accidental or <br />intentional, contributed significantly to the determination by Planning Division staff that <br />institutional uses like churches were inappropriate in areas guided by the Comprehensive <br />Plan for Regional Business land uses. <br />82 62 Several Councilmembers maintained, however, that churches were not intentionally <br />83 excluded from other land use designations, including Regional Business. If the City <br />84 Council determines that all land use designations are meant to allow institutional uses <br />85 even though the final definitions of most of them fail to include institutional land uses, <br />8s then perhaps a Comprehensive Plan amendment is not necessary for approving the <br />87 <br />88 7.0 <br />proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. <br />THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS <br />89 If institutional uses are, in fact, excluded from everywhere except the Community Mixed <br />so Use and Institutional areas, the only way to allow institutional uses in more areas is to <br />s� amend the Comprehensive Plan. The process to amend the Comprehensive Plan would <br />s2 require the City to hold an open house meeting, a public hearing held by the Planning <br />s3 Commission, and subsequent action by the City Council. Given the application <br />s4 submission requirements (even if Roseville is the applicant) and schedule of City <br />s5 meetings, the process could not take less than 45 days. More realistically, the timeline is <br />ss apt to be closer to 60 days but, if begun promptly, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />s7 process could be completed by the extended deadline for action on the current zoNiNG <br />98 TEXT AMENDMENT appllCatlOri. <br />99 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED ACTIONS <br />100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />103 <br />104 <br />105 <br />106 <br />107 <br />108 <br />109 <br />110 <br />111 <br />112 <br />8.1 Give due consideration to the guidance of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, based on <br />the comments in Sections 5-7 of this report, and determine that Institutional uses are not <br />appropriate in areas guided for Regional Business land uses. In this case, Planning <br />Division staff suggests passing a motion to deny the proposed zoNiNC TExT <br />aMENnMENT for Twin City Chinese Christian Church to allow churches in the General <br />Business District. <br />or <br />82 Give due consideration to the guidance of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, based on <br />the comments in Sections 5-7 of this report, and determine that Institutional uses are <br />appropriate in areas guided for Regional Business land uses, but that the Comprehensive <br />Plan must first be amended to allow such uses. In this case, Planning Division staff <br />suggests determining which land use categories ought to include institutional uses <br />ari(1 (I1reChrig Staff t0 lrilhate the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT prOCeSS. <br />or <br />PF10-006 RCA_032910 (3).doc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />