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 50 <br /> Chair Roe asked City Attorney Gaughan to provide comment on the official controls issue for a <br /> better understanding by the public and Board of official controls in the context of the Twin <br /> Lakes Business Park Master Plan. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan advised that this terminology typically takes on the form of the Zoning <br /> Code as an instrument putting into effect the Comprehensive Plan. At its most important level, <br /> City Attorney Gaughan noted that State Statute stated that if an official control conflicts with a <br /> comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan controls. In essence, City Attorney Gaughan not- <br /> ed that this is most important for official controls, and the assumption that they are not in con- <br /> flict with land use decision-making. <br /> Chair Roe questioned, to the extent of any apparent conflict, if the official controls or the com- <br /> prehensive plan would then be amended. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan responded affirmatively, that the official control should then be <br /> amended to conform to the comprehensive plan. <br /> Member McGehee opined that it was her understanding all along that the Twin Lakes Business <br /> Park Master Plan was not consistent with the current Zoning C ode. <br /> Chair Roe noted that the question is whether the designation of the proposed Wal-Mart use as a <br /> big box was being compliance with the Zoning Code, and opined that there didn't seem to be <br /> consensus of the body. <br /> Member Pust suggested that the question be moved to a motion, since sufficient discussion had <br /> been held. <br /> Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, DENIAL of the appeal of Ms. Schaffer. <br /> Chair Roe clarified with Member Willmus that he was basing that denial on his findings in <br /> general pointed out earlier in his position statement; to which Member Willmus responded af- <br /> firmatively, clarifying that they were found in the July 16, 2012 staff report, subdivided in Sec- <br /> tion 2 of that report. <br /> Member McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, and specific issues listed; referencing her <br /> comments made at the beginning of tonight's City Council meeting. <br /> Chair Roe spoke in support of the motion, primarily because as he read Ms. Schaffer's appeal, <br /> it dealt significantly with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and how this proposal <br /> may or may not relate to those. From his perspective, Chair Roe opined that the Comprehen- <br /> sive Plan should be used more broadly than specific proposals, especially when considering the <br /> economic goals on a city-wide basis, and under the CMU designated area since this is only one <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.