CC_Minutes_2010_0823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Margaret Driscoll From: Thomas Paschke Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 3:53 PM To: 'RVCouncil Cc: Pat Trudgeon; mdushin@gmail.com Council Members; I thought I would provide a response to Ms. Dushin's questions prior to the meeting this evening. Some of these same questions were presented at the Planning Commission public hearing on August 4 at which meeting the Planning Staff attempted to answer -the questions and responses are reflected in the draft minutes attached to the Council's report. First, let me state once again that we are not seeking approval of any of the draft zoning districts tonight. We are only seeking comments and attempting to clarify as best as possible, the changes from our current Code to the proposed Code. Our goal as stated in the past is to obtain as many comments as possible in advance of the Official Zoning Map, all zoning districts, and other applicable districts (such as supplemental and/or performance standards) being forwarded to the City Council for approval in the fall. Regarding buffering or creating a buffer zone/district along highway 35W across from the residential neighborhood directly south across 35W, the Planning Division considers the interstate highway as a buffer to the residential and business uses that lie on the other side of the freeway. Changing the land use guiding and subsequent zoning of the southern parcels along Walnut Street would be a dramatic change from previous conversations and would reduce viable industrial land by many acres. As to performance standards for the industrial zoning district, these requirements will be in a separate section of the Code. One of the main reasons for this is that standards that may apply to industrial uses should also apply to other uses in other districts, and the appropriate way to capture this is to have a separate and distinct section the includes all performance and/or supplemental regulations. As to the specific question regarding chemicals - it is my interpretation that the performance standard could apply to both the manufacturing as well as storage of chemicals. Keep in mind that our current Industrial Districts is predicated on manufacturing and processing and my understanding of the performance standards listed are as an enforcement measure after a use is in place and operating allowing a means to appropriately and adequately measure the standards. Our proposal to have a single industrial district is predicated on three main points. The first is a direct result of the Comprehensive Plan -Land Use Map and how it has guided former light industrial as Community Mixed Use, Regional Business or Office/Business Park. There is a very good reason why office showroom and high-tech/flex space is more appropriate in either of these two district than the new industrial district -manufacturing and processing. Even with our current district designations, the planning staff is challenged in how we allow non-manufacturing and/or processing uses. The change also better addressed retail uses the proliferate the office showroom spaces throughout Roseville. Secondly, once you separate out the "light industrial uses" that are now guided (and to be zoned) Community Mixed Use, Office/Business Park and Regional Business there is only I-2 and I-2A zoning and the only difference between the two is that a restaurant that is not allowed in the I-2A district. Lastly, if our goal is to not dramatically change what we currently have guided in Roseville for general industrial (I-2) land area, then the current proposal does just that. It should be noted that most all