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 48 <br /> with specific findings before they were heard from the Board, and a majority decision brought <br /> forward. <br /> Member Johnson confirmed that his findings were based on the staff analysis, and referenced <br /> them in the staff report without taking time at this meeting to reiterate them in detail. <br /> Chair Roe clarified, for the benefit of the public and Board that the infamous City Attorney let- <br /> ter of December 9, 2011 was entirely his fault. Chair Roe advised that his attempt was to get <br /> an understanding of the issues at that time and how the City Council may need to address them <br /> moving forward. Chair Roe noted that the theoretical basis for the opinion of that letter at that <br /> time was to get a handle on various zoning designations. Chair Roe advised that, from his un- <br /> derstanding of that letter, and his subsequent discussions with City Attorneys Bartholdi and <br /> Gaughan,provided his basis for the way he was using various documents and official controls. <br /> Chair Roe reviewed his analysis of the Zoning Code and the language in the Statement of Pur- <br /> pose for the CMU designation, and the three (3) other business designations that by and large <br /> capture the language of the Zoning Code. Chair Roe spoke specifically to Member Pust's <br /> comments, opining that his interpretation was that there was not a conflict or problem to ad- <br /> dress, and in his review of the Comprehensive Plan for more clarity on those distinctions and <br /> his analysis, he had found the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan to be complimentary of <br /> each other during his deliberations. Chair Roe noted that this was important as it related spe- <br /> cifically to land use types in the Comprehensive Plan, not individual goals and policies <br /> throughout the plan. <br /> Chair Roe noted in his review of the CMU designation and uses in a common site or redevel- <br /> opment area, those uses were not stacked. Chair Roe stated that this told him that the CMU is <br /> talking about Community Business. Then in looking to that designation, and reference to a <br /> shopping center or free-standing, moderate scale store, he had found that somewhat problemat- <br /> ic. However, Chair Roe advised that the Comprehensive Plan language helped him to clarify <br /> that, as he reviewed the Regional Business definition, noting the distinction between the Com- <br /> munity and Regional Business Districts and that informing him through the market area topic, <br /> noting a distinct definition in the Comprehensive Plan with the Community Business designa- <br /> tion serving the local market area, and Regional Business usually serving a regional market <br /> area. Chair Roe advised that this helped him understand where to look at this, and as heard <br /> from the applicant and clarified further by the Real Estate expert, perhaps his understanding of <br /> Regional Business from his role serving on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee need- <br /> ed updating, since he had previously considered this type of store (e.g. Wal-Mart, Target) as <br /> Regional Businesses. As he learned more and understood it better, Chair Roe opined that he <br /> thought it best to consider them Community Businesses; and therefore he supported the desig- <br /> nation of this proposal as a permitted use in the CMU Business District. <br /> Member Pust noted this was an example of how people could look at the same thing and form <br /> p P p g o <br /> two different opinions. While Chair Roe picked out the distinction between regional and local <br /> market areas, Member Pust stated that she looked at regional as large, free-standing retail <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.