CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 28 prehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance took such a use into account, and that the Zoning Ordinance didn't make it explicit, even though the vision would be for Mixed Use Residential and Ancillary Uses to support Office Use, and favoring small, local businesses. Mr. Grefen- berg opined that the Comprehensive Plan reflected the changes expressed by Roseville resi- dents for their community moving forward, and represented a contract between the City and its residents and was therefore more than just a vision and window dressing. Mr. Grefenberg cau- tioned that the concept that the Comprehensive Plan should direct the Zoning Ordinance, and serve as a framework or tool for future development was being lost. Mr. Grefenberg noted that whether the Zoning Ordinance was in conflict with the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan had been a recurring topic of discussion at Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meetings; and recalled that following adoption of the Plan by the City Council, it residents had been assured that a review of the various Master Plans would be reviewed and future development proposals based on those official controls, one of which was the Twin Lakes Master Plan in District 10. From SWARN's perspective, as well as those having served on the Steering Committee, Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was part of the compact or prom- ise made by the City Council that this previous work would be respected and adhered to. Mr. Grefenberg advised that this was the primary inconsistency between the Zoning Ordinance with the promises contained in the Comprehensive Plan. In referencing the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan (page 9), Mr. Grefenberg noted that Ms. Dushin of SWARN had discovered that future land use was for 0% retail. While respecting staff's opinion that retail was not prohibited in that District in the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Gre- fenberg advised that it had raised another question as to the role of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg opined that other cities did not view their Comprehensive Plan as an index of forbidden buildings, and the fact that it isn't listed as a prohibited use is a misunderstanding function of the Comprehensive Plan to give direction to the Zoning Ordinance (e.g. potential uses of mining or oil extraction) and served as an easy out, but didn't not adhere to the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, even if not specifically listed in its language. Mr. Grefenberg opined that part of the crux between staff recommendations and findings, from his perspective, and his interpretation that big box retail is not explicitly recommended, is based his concern that if such a use is not prohibited, it starts the City on a slippery slope and brings into question why a Comprehensive Plan is needed at all. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the City of St. Paul and their interpretation that just because a use may not be explicitly prohib- ited doesn't mean that is automatically approved as a project. Mr. Grefenberg opined that there were sufficient salient contradictions in staff's definition of CMU to suggest that the City Council had some discretion in its interpretation of the Zoning Code, and those apparent ambi- guities provided sufficient discretion to those office-holders to make a judgment as to whether a proposed use is permitted or not. Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was the desire of SWARN to move forward as well, and their intention was to express the perception of many Roseville residents on this important issue and the credibility of the process within the wider community. Mr. Grefenberg opined that those