My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2011 11:42:01 AM
Creation date
10/11/2011 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 12, 2011 <br /> Page 35 <br /> Mayor Roe sought clarification from staff that the AUAR implementation, <br /> through the allocation plan and overlay district, was based on the original Master <br /> Plan scenarios; and that uses were based on that Master Plan and dictated the <br /> AUAR analysis. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that the Master Plan pre-dated the updated <br /> AUAR. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the Master Plan didn't take into account specific details <br /> about traffic counts; but made broad assumptions; and the AUAR then took those <br /> and fleshed them out into numbers and impacts. <br /> Councilmember McGehee reiterated her opinion that the Master Plan predated all <br /> of this, and was similar to Rosedale and other general developments calling for a <br /> Planned Unit Development (PUD)process. <br /> Councilmember Willmus noted that this was the issue that was litigated a number <br /> of years ago based on objections of a neighborhood group, bringing the situation <br /> to this point; and questioned whether it was beneficial to rehash that issue and <br /> suggest that it needed to be revisited or revert to where the development area and <br /> City were in 2005. <br /> Councilmember McGehee disputed that interpretation; opining that a lot of the <br /> Master Plan had been incorporated into the allocation study and certainly into mi- <br /> tigation strategies; but the piece that seemed to be most noticeably missing was <br /> the piece on uses. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that the uses were dictated by the CMU zoning in the Zoning <br /> Code, as well as in the Comprehensive Plan designation. At the request of Coun- <br /> cilmember Johnson, Mayor Roe advised that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was not <br /> intended to be included in the updated Comprehensive Plan; but that the AUAR <br /> was based on the Master Plan map from 2001, the basis or foundation upon which <br /> everything else built. While note being an official part of the updated Compre- <br /> hensive Plan document, Mayor Roe stated that it was still referenced and in- <br /> grained in the entire AUAR process. <br /> Councilmember Pust recalled that during the Comprehensive Plan Study group <br /> meetings, the Master Plans had been discussed and a process for bringing them <br /> back to the City Council if they were still considered viable; and questioned if <br /> there had been followed-up. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that, while no Master Plans were included in the Comprehen- <br /> sive Plan update (2008/2009) that was not a decision that they would all go away. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.