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 43 <br /> Therefore, Member McGehee opined that this had created the situation the City now found it- <br /> self in. <br /> Beyond that, Member McGehee stated that she had followed the Har Mar Mall issue closely; <br /> and concurred with SWARN's interpretation of how that compromise came about. As she has <br /> often mentioned to staff and residents, she was pleased in attending the first Steering Commit- <br /> tee meeting to find assigned square footages for each business designation to allow people to <br /> grasp each potential development. While some had argued aggressively, including herself that <br /> those square footages should remain to avoid any ambiguity, Member McGehee noted that by <br /> not doing to, the City no longer had a ledge to stand on in their decision-making. Member <br /> McGehee suggested that staff's determination appeared to be an attempt to remove any remain- <br /> ing ledges. <br /> Member McGehee noted that she did not imply that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was a control- <br /> ling document that provided legal ramifications. <br /> Member McGehee reiterated her ongoing support for B-6 Zoning in this area and her support <br /> of the use of Planned Unit Developments (PUD's), since the entire Twin Lakes planning and <br /> zoning was based on that designation. Using that designation in Section 1105.05 of the Zoning <br /> Code, Member McGehee noted that retail was not then a permitted use, and not even listed in <br /> the two-(2) page listing of permitted uses in a B-6 Zone. Member McGehee opined that she <br /> had been led to believe by staff that the entire B-6 Zoning had been carried forward into the <br /> Zoning Code update; however, she had since found this not to be accurate. Member McGehee <br /> opined that the flexible zoning tool allowed through use of PUD's was now gone; and further <br /> opined that the Regulating Map did not replace it sufficiently. <br /> Chair Roe asked staff to respond to Member McGee's comments about the former B-6 Zoning <br /> and use of PUD's. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon stated that he never said the B-6 Zoning and PUD applications were included in <br /> the new Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code, with no direct reference between the old and <br /> new Codes. <br /> Member McGehee questioned the purpose of calling the Twin Lakes Master Plan a controlling <br /> document. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon clarified that, "no," every word of the former document was not contained in the <br /> updated documents; and the specific standards and zoning code had been adopted by the ma- <br /> jority of the City's policy makers. <br /> Chair Roe directed Members to several administrative matters for Board consideration before <br /> moving forward. Chair Roe noted that a bench handout had been provided by SWARN as a <br /> completion of their appeal document, with their suggestion to the Board allowing it into the <br /> record. Chair Roe noted that his review of the document did not change the substance of their <br /> appeal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.