My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2012 12:59:07 PM
Creation date
8/17/2012 12:58:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/16/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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 AND <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> Monday,July 16,2012 <br /> Page 39 <br /> On behalf of staff and the public, Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation for the Board's time <br /> and attention; and referenced staff's agenda materials and attachments provided in the RCA <br /> dated July 16, 2012. Based on tonight's presentation, Mr. Trudgeon expressed his personal <br /> appreciation, as well as that of staff, for comments from SWARN members. Mr. Trudgeon <br /> opined that, from his perspective, he thought this process had provided for good and open dis- <br /> cussions; and recognized the appellants' passionate concern for their community. <br /> For the benefit of the public and the Board, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed and clarified staff's role in <br /> enforcing the City's existing Zoning Code governing development in Roseville, represented by <br /> their response and reaction to the request from Wal-Mart dated June 8, 2012. Mr. Trudgeon <br /> noted that staff was mandated to use City Code to enforce development in the community, and <br /> did not, nor could they enforce code based on personal preference, but through use of the strict <br /> letter of the law. Mr. Trudgeon, in an effort to make it crystal clear for everyone, reassured all <br /> that the City's Planning staff had approached this review the utmost integrity and objectives <br /> and had completed their analysis and without any advocacy or partiality. <br /> In Section 2.0 of the RCA dated July 16, 2012, staff findings and analysis of the Roseville <br /> Zoning Ordinance (Title 10), the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2006 Court of Appeals ruling, <br /> 2011 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, add the Twin Lakes AUAR were detailed. Mr. <br /> Trudgeon noted that this analysis had been further detailed in staff's June 21, 2012 response to <br /> Wal-Mart's letter of June 8, 2012, and included in meeting materials. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff found the arguments of the appellants more about the Compre- <br /> hensive Plan, not the actual Zoning Code. However, it remained staff's determination that the <br /> Zoning Code clearly allowed for retail in designated areas, whether it appeared consistent with <br /> the appellant's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> In reference to the City Attorney letter from Mr. Bartholdi dated December 9, 2011 and refer- <br /> enced frequently by the appellants, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it was erroneous to state that the <br /> City Attorney recognized a conflict. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Council had recently <br /> reviewed that correspondence again, and found that there was no conflict indicated. Mr. <br /> Trudgeon noted that the letter was responding to question#3 from Mayor Roe as to remedies if <br /> any inconsistency was ever found to exist, and the Mr. Bartholdi's response in such an eventu- <br /> ality. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would let City Attorney Gaughan provide any additional <br /> comments related to that opinion. <br /> Since the Comprehensive Plan is not used as a regulatory document, even though in sync with <br /> the Zoning Code, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff's overall conclusion that the zoning <br /> code was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the zoning <br /> code contained significant things (Section 1007.05e) and the context of design standards laid <br /> out in the Regulating Plan for pedestrians, relationship to open and public spaces, as well as <br /> requiring a higher level of architectural elements to address General Policy Statements of the <br /> Comprehensive Plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.