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 41 <br /> In response to Member Willmus' question of when the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan <br /> had been reincorporated into the 2030 Comprehensive Plan updated, Mr. Trudgeon advised <br /> that when the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted, it was decided to review and provide an <br /> analysis of all Master Plans; with the determination subsequently made by the City Council <br /> that no additional language represented in any of those Master Plans needed to be included in <br /> the updated Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Extension of Meeting Curfew <br /> At 10:00 p.m. Johnson moved, Pust seconded, extending the meeting for forty (40) minutes to <br /> complete this item. <br /> Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference to hear the remainder of Mr. Trudgeon's <br /> comments; and then to continue this discussion at next week's meeting. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Johnson; Pust;Willmus; and Roe. <br /> Nays: McGehee. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Continuing his comments specific to the Twin Lakes Master Plan, Mr. Trudgeon advised that <br /> the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan components and Twin Lakes Overlay District incorporated <br /> some of the issued identified and for provide relevant enforcement of those important compo- <br /> nents from the 2001 document. Mr. Trudgeon further clarified that there was no particular <br /> mechanism to do so; and noted that if the City owned developable land it would be different, <br /> but that was not the case. <br /> Member Pust thanked staff for their presentation and work throughout this project. <br /> Member Pust questioned staff's interpretation that appellants were not arguing a conflict be- <br /> tween the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon responded that the appellants, and a majority of their respective argument, con- <br /> sisted of whether there was a conflict between those two documents and their language. How- <br /> ever, Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff did not see anything directly related to permitted use with <br /> the Zoning Code. <br /> Member Pust questioned if the only ruling for the Board to consider was that conflict. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon stated that he couldn't comment; but appeals were usually based on zoning code <br /> conflicts. <br /> During 2009 Comprehensive Plan discussions when square footage limitations were dropped, <br /> Member Pust questioned if the conclusion of staff was that the policy makers had made a <br /> choice to allow big box retail. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.