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
Aegular.qty Council Meeting AND <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> Monday,July 16,2012 <br /> Page 30 <br /> 1 W.-gin Ms Dushin questioned the rationale of Wal-Mart stating that they will only draw <br /> 2 from a two (2) mile radius; and on what that data was based, and how it could be proven; and <br /> 3 how the threshold of community business would be monitored. <br /> 5 Z summarized some arguments and provided her personal perspective on them. <br /> 6 a —B may' <br /> 7 M .D rin opined that it should be clear to a casual observer that the Wal-Mart proposal is in <br /> 8 conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan. Ms. Dushin <br /> 9 opined that the Twin Lakes Master Plan included 0% retail, specifically "big box retail;" and <br /> 10 sought to attract head of household or living wage jobs. Ms.Dushin opined that the Wal-Mart <br /> 11 proposal was incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan in a variety of ways,providing for no <br /> 12 additional commercial development for District 10 and employment as a primary orientation, <br /> 13 which she read as living wage jobs and providing a different kind of employment goal. <br /> 14 !� aek. �e-der <br /> 15 More to the present point, Ms. Harshin opined that, under the Comprehensive Plan, the CMU <br /> 16 designation excluded regional business; and further opined that anyone who believes that a 24- <br /> 17 hour, large-scale store with its own dedicated freeway exit was not a regional business was se- <br /> 18 riously out-of-touch with reality. Basing her opinion on 2008 comments as well,Ms. Dushin <br /> 19 opined that it was equally absurd that Target was not also a regional business. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Referencing the RCA dated July 16,2012, specifically Section 2.6 (Comprehensive Plan), Ms. <br /> 22 Dushin opined that it provided a good summary of the process to-date,with the Comprehensive <br /> 23 Plan not used to enforce identified goals and objectives, and using the Zoning Code to imple- <br /> 24 ment those goals and objectives. r opined that, from her perspective,this meant the <br /> 25 Zoning Code should be subservient • a e C omprehensive Plan; and as further addressed in the <br /> 26 December 9, 2011 Bartholdi letter confirming that conflict. Ms. Dushin questioned the tor- <br /> 27 tured logic of considering a use not recommended against being the same as not prohibited. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Ms. Dushin questioned if this proposed monstrosity was the vision of the Comprehensive Plan <br /> 30 to be implemented by the proper use of the Zoning Code of planners for this showplace of <br /> 31 thoughtful, innovative development. Ms. Dushin opined that the Comprehensive Plan is to be <br /> 32 used as a Plan providing comprehensive review to address all issues, not simply a wish list. <br /> 33 Ms. Dushin clarified that she did not use the term "monstrosity" to disparage Wal-Mart, and <br /> 34 opined that these arguments would apply to any big box retailer,whether Home Depot,Lowes, <br /> 35 another Target Store,Fleet Farm,or Costco. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Ms. Dushin asked that the Board to consider how this proposed use would fly in the face of the <br /> 38 intention of previous plans to improve this part of the City. <br /> 39 /'A-„,o. Dash <br /> 40 Ms. Dushin stated that she totally respected Mr. Trudgeon, and referenced his comments that <br /> 41 when the zoning changes were being made, they were during the thick of the asphalt plant dis- <br /> 42 cussion and development of performance standards; and this ambiguity may not have been no- <br /> 43 ticed at this time in that broader discussion. However,Ms. Dushin opined that it is now being <br /> 44 noticed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.