CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 46 Member McGehee stated that she would maintain the opposite and find in the chart, both at- tached to City Attorney Bartholdi's letter and that displayed by Mr. Trudgeon, that retail and service uses were highlighted by an asterisk, and included with those items along the side of the table, with it never stated anywhere or encouraged that those listed uses should or were the same application if all merged under one roof in one store. Member McGehee opined that you could have any or all of those uses, but they were intended as independent units as part of the CMU district, with housing above those uses. Member McGehee further opined that this is where some of the original B-6 was implemented and now an argument is being attempted that those businesses were set aside and identified as unique, and can exist as unique entities else- where in Roseville and was the same as having them all under one roof and under one compa- ny served to misrepresent the intention of that zoning. Chair Roe, in taking discussion a step further, questioned whether Member McGehee would consider those uses in a CMU zoning district if they were independent businesses put together in a shopping center, with each one under different ownership, but under one management company. Member McGehee opined that she understood CMU as mixed use with residential above it, not like a strip mall,but with some integration, not all under one roof as a big box. Without any embellishment, Member Johnson spoke in support of staff's findings, concurring that this was a permitted use; and opined that he had heard no argument to sway him otherwise. Chair Roe clarified that Member Johnson was basing his decision on the staff analysis in the RCA dated July 16, 2012, with Member Johnson responding affirmatively. Member Pust opined that there was a problem with the zoning code definitions from her per- spective in reviewing the Regional Business, Community Business, and CMU Districts, recog- nizing that in highlighting those three(3) districts, discussions were ignoring the Neighborhood Business District. When looking at zoning as a whole and what categories things fit into, Member Pust opined that if she didn't do that and read each designation of the three (3) busi- ness districts, it was not indicative of how the zoning code was intended to read, since there were distinctions and differences of each district. Member Pust noted that this was what had led her to the same problem she'd had for weeks, opining that it was only the Regional Busi- ness District that talked about large format stores, while Community Business Districts talked about moderate-scaled stores and access to arterial streets. If she placed this proposed use, Member Pust opined that she would place in the Community Business District; however she further opined that it didn't fit in Community Business or under application in the CMU Dis- trict. Therefore, Member Pust stated that this made her question what that meant, since the definitions of each designation were vague, and her rationale in turning to the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding document, and to provide more understanding than she was able to find in the zoning code.