My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_1021_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_1021_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 10:00:31 AM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:49:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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.
/
253
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
most uses as new or expanded tenants. The condition some of the buildings and <br />development is as follows: <br />2.1 Northco which owns 7 parcels consisting of 30.15 acres and appro�mately 455,000 s.f. <br />of building space, states that of its estimated 33 tenants, only 11% would be considered <br />"permitted uses" within the new `B-6" zoning district. Because these buildings are more <br />than 20 years old, none of the buildin�s entirely meet the e�sting zoning requirements. <br />2.2 St. Paul Companies, which owns 5 parcels consisting of 21.6 acres and approximately <br />339,000 s.f. of building space, states that of its 18 tenants, appro�mately half of the <br />current users would be considered permitted uses in the new `B-6" zoning district. <br />Because these buildings are more than 30 years old, none of the buildin�s entirely meet <br />the e�sting zoning requirements. <br />2.3 Reco/Regan, which owns 3 parcels consisting of 2 13 acres and approximately 12 1,700 <br />s.f. of building space, as well as options on an additional 62 acres that (as of August 7, <br />2002) is vacant. Reco/Regan states that of its 10 vehicular repair and transportation <br />related tenants, most may not ha�e proper permits under the e�• stin� codes and few <br />would be considered permitted uses in the new `B-6" zoning district. Because these <br />buildings are more than 34 years old, none of the buildin�s entirely meet the e�sting <br />zoning requirements. <br />3.0 ALTERNATIVES: <br />3.1 The Commission should discuss and consider all aspects of the properiy owners' <br />proposed permissive language amendments that provides for pre-e�sting uses to remain <br />and expand (even if nonconforming) in the `B-6" "Mixed Use Business Park District". <br />3.2 The Commission should provide the City Council with a recommendation to amend, <br />clarity, rewrite or retain the `B-6" "Mixed Use Business Park District" te�t. <br />Alternative solutions include: <br />a. Accept all language as proposed by owners. <br />b. Accept some of clarified language as proposed by owners and City Attorney <br />c. Recommend that specific parcels owned by the applicants be removed from <br />the B-6 zoning district proposed for Twin Lakes until some future time when <br />there is market demand for more upscale and fle�ble redevelopment <br />regulations. <br />d. Recommend retaining the e�sting language (i.e.,do nothing), a11ow e�sting <br />language to remain. <br />e. No changes at this time, allowing time for the market to recover: <br />1. Recommend retaining the e�sting language (do nothing to <br />change the Code language for `B-6" districts). <br />2. Recommend tabling indefinitely (do nothing) to not approve <br />the zoning map amendments from I-1, I-2, and B-1 and B-4, <br />which are currently awaiting a second reading at the City <br />Council level. <br />PF3359-RCA(102102) Page 5 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.