CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 21, 2012 Page 9 In follow-up, Mayor Roe asked staff to clarify that the update of the Zoning Code now in place was based on the updated Comprehensive Plan and previous discussions related to use in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, with staff concluding that the evolutionary nature of the community indicated the CMU Zoning designation, consistent with the AUAR. Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that in terms of Comprehensive Plan designation and CMU and previous Business Park (BP) designation for development of an AUAR, once the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2009 it superseded the previous iterations; however, he noted that the substance of that update was that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area guided in the Comprehensive Plan update was essentially intended to replicate the Comprehensive Plan. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Lloyd expounded on the basis of that interpretation of the definition or description of a CMU Zoning District in the Comprehensive Plan, allowed for walkability. Mr. Lloyd noted that this was the same premise of the former master redevelopment plan for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, anticipating the same nature of development; however, the Zoning Code applied the actual metrics to that intent. Councilmember Pust questioned whether staff had listened to the tapes of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force or Subcommittee recommendations for those specific changes and their intent to the Comprehensive Plan; and the specific differences in BP and CMU designations. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had not reviewed the actual tapes, but from previ- ous Public Hearings related to the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent City Council actions, and staff's review of those resulting documents, the similar land use designation were indicated. Prior to proceeding with further discussion, Councilmember Pust requested the definition of the BP designation from the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, which was provided by staff as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof (page 3, Land Use Section—2003 Comprehensive Plan Update). Councilmember Pust clarified that staff did not believe the City, as the RGU, had the legal authority to find that the AUAR was not valid. Mr. Lloyd responded that if the proposed project didn't fall within approved parameters and the AUAR was not valid, an EAW would be required. Based on staff's determination, Councilmember Pust clarified that there was no real distinction, thus their recommendation.