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 40 <br /> Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there were actually four (4), not three (3) business zoning designa- <br /> tions: Regional, Community,Neighborhood, and a hybrid defined as Community Mixed Use. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon noted that the appellants had used various sections as a litmus test to determine <br /> and support their perceptions of inconsistencies that could be construed as specifically arbitrary <br /> to a Wal-Mart development. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this method had never been done with <br /> other developments in the City; and reiterated his comment that inconsistencies could be per- <br /> ceived with any use within the community. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon reiterated the intentional lack of retail restrictions; even though in other areas <br /> (e.g. residential) there were very specific development limits; indicating that this must have <br /> been a conscious decision to not limit commercial development. <br /> Given recent court action, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the current Twin Lakes Infrastructure <br /> Funding Plan no longer had any standing to address the proposed Wal-Mart development. <br /> However, in staff's review, Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff felt the proposed development was <br /> consistent with the parameters and scenarios detailed in that AUAR, as well as the Twin Lakes <br /> Business Master Plan and incorporated into the Regulation Plan, the Twin Lakes Overlay Dis- <br /> trict, and Design Standards. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was the intent to incorporate those <br /> elements of the Master Plan to better enforce code, not as a stand-alone document, since it was <br /> hard to enforce those. <br /> In conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff stands behind their analysis date June 21, 201; <br /> and sees no reason presented by the appellants to change that staff opinion. No compelling rea- <br /> sons from appeals to change our recommendation <br /> Mr. Trudgeon opined that, while there appeared to be similarities between the proposed asphalt <br /> plant and this use, there was a distinct difference, since at that time an asphalt plant was a per- <br /> mitted use, but had been updated to make it a non-permitted use, with the updated Zoning <br /> Code eliminating that use. Unless the Zoning Code is revised, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the <br /> proposed Wal-Mart was a permitted use under that current Code. <br /> Regarding comments that there was too much retail in Roseville already, and not enough diver- <br /> sification of taxes, Mr. Trudgeon opined that this was up to debate from both sides. However, <br /> Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that neither he nor Planning Division staff could base a land use de- <br /> termination on that factor. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were several pending applications <br /> currently coming before staff for their initial review; and asked whether those applications <br /> should be rejected because they didn't meet something in the Comprehensive Plan, rather than <br /> considering the broad-reaching goals and policies outlined in that Plan. <br /> In the SWARN appeal, and staff's argument that Wal-Mart was not explicitly prohibited, Mr. <br /> Trudgeon assured the public and Board that staff's analysis went much deeper than that. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.