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 42 <br /> Mr. Trudgeon noted that this had been vigorously debated at the Steering Committee level dur- <br /> ing that time, with a 100,000 square foot limit suggested. However, when the discussion ar- <br /> rived at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing level, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the <br /> square footage limitation had been stripped out and other modifications made to the Plan for <br /> recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon advised that further discussion and debate <br /> occurred at the City Council level; however, the City Council didn't conclude any specific lim- <br /> itations based on that discussion. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon advised that his conclusion, while <br /> there may remain an argument to provide some limitations, was that after hearing from both <br /> sides of the issue, the policy makers (City Council) determined that the language, as written, <br /> sufficed as evidenced by their adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update. <br /> Member Pust opined that by the time the City Council had discussed whether or not to keep the <br /> 100,000 square foot limitation, they were focused on Target and the Har Mar Mall, with both <br /> structures already developed well in excess of that limitation, and adding another oddity to the <br /> discussion. <br /> Member Pust noted her understanding of staff's position that it was inappropriate to look at <br /> CMU and focus on this one property since every particular property can't reflect a whole mix <br /> of uses. However, since there was nothing specific in the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan <br /> referencing back to the Court of Appeals ruling, Member Pust questioned how CDD staff <br /> would evaluate future proposals, if this was less than a certain percentage of the entire Twin <br /> Lakes Redevelopment Area; and whether a second applicant could make this same argument. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon noted that another applicant could make that same argument; however, there <br /> would be several limitations then in place, namely the AUAR. While it anticipated retail use <br /> on this site, it did not anticipate it on other sites, and an amendment would need to come for- <br /> ward before considering additional retail. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the AUAR update was im- <br /> minent, and he had always welcomed public discussion of the Twin Lakes area, it was obvious <br /> that this entire process to-date was moving the community to refine how they wanted the area <br /> and the community to develop or redevelopment. While there remained a reasonable disa- <br /> greement on the original intent for development in this area, Mr. Trudgeon opined that absent <br /> anything more definitive, staff relied on current information available. Mr. Trudgeon recog- <br /> nized that the City may need to be more proactive with development through its regulating <br /> documents in the future. <br /> Member Pust expressed her hope, once this process came to an end no matter the results, that <br /> staff keep track of these discussions, and the 2006 Court of Appeals ruling, even though it pro- <br /> vided no comparative factor for consideration. <br /> Member McGehee expressed appreciation to Member Pust for bringing that issue before the <br /> body; and as part of her research advised that she had pulled the appellate decision, and while <br /> not discussing the issue of big box retail on this site, it addressed the Zoning Code and Com- <br /> prehensive Plan not laying out a format across the site and implications of such a format. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.