CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 39 On behalf of staff and the public, Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation for the Board's time and attention; and referenced staff's agenda materials and attachments provided in the RCA dated July 16, 2012. Based on tonight's presentation, Mr. Trudgeon expressed his personal appreciation, as well as that of staff, for comments from SWARN members. Mr. Trudgeon opined that, from his perspective, he thought this process had provided for good and open dis- cussions; and recognized the appellants' passionate concern for their community. For the benefit of the public and the Board, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed and clarified staff's role in enforcing the City's existing Zoning Code governing development in Roseville, represented by their response and reaction to the request from Wal-Mart dated June 8, 2012. Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff was mandated to use City Code to enforce development in the community, and did not, nor could they enforce code based on personal preference, but through use of the strict letter of the law. Mr. Trudgeon, in an effort to make it crystal clear for everyone, reassured all that the City's Planning staff had approached this review the utmost integrity and objectives and had completed their analysis and without any advocacy or partiality. In Section 2.0 of the RCA dated July 16, 2012, staff findings and analysis of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance (Title 10), the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2006 Court of Appeals ruling, 2011 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, add the Twin Lakes AUAR were detailed. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this analysis had been further detailed in staff's June 21, 2012 response to Wal-Mart's letter of June 8, 2012, and included in meeting materials. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff found the arguments of the appellants more about the Compre- hensive Plan, not the actual Zoning Code. However, it remained staff's determination that the Zoning Code clearly allowed for retail in designated areas, whether it appeared consistent with the appellant's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. In reference to the City Attorney letter from Mr. Bartholdi dated December 9, 2011 and refer- enced frequently by the appellants, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it was erroneous to state that the City Attorney recognized a conflict. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Council had recently reviewed that correspondence again, and found that there was no conflict indicated. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the letter was responding to question#3 from Mayor Roe as to remedies if any inconsistency was ever found to exist, and the Mr. Bartholdi's response in such an eventu- ality. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would let City Attorney Gaughan provide any additional comments related to that opinion. Since the Comprehensive Plan is not used as a regulatory document, even though in sync with the Zoning Code, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff's overall conclusion that the zoning code was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the zoning code contained significant things (Section 1007.05e) and the context of design standards laid out in the Regulating Plan for pedestrians, relationship to open and public spaces, as well as requiring a higher level of architectural elements to address General Policy Statements of the Comprehensive Plan.