My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0211
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2013 9:52:01 AM
Creation date
3/5/2013 9:48:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/11/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 <br /> Monday, February 11, 2013 <br /> Page 19 <br /> eon noted the need for further definition of what was mean by "retail," what was <br /> acceptable and what wasn't, and then let the market dictate the results. <br /> Mayor Roe suggested, and Mr. Trudgeon confirmed, that this could be accom- <br /> plished through the permitted uses table. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Councilmember Willmus' observation that this <br /> could be accomplished through creation of a new zoning designation. Coun- <br /> cilmember Willmus suggested that a unique designation could be used for the <br /> Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, without implications for similar zoning desig- <br /> nations in the broader community(e.g. Har Mar Mall). <br /> Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be good to have a unique designation for Twin <br /> Lakes, with consistency in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to clarify <br /> that distinction, steering clear of the Community Mixed Use (CMU) and Commu- <br /> nity Business (CB) zoning designations, and being specific to Twin Lakes. <br /> Mayor Roe opined that the CMU was a good starting point, with more refinement <br /> for approved uses beyond "big box"retail, defining the things being sought by the <br /> City without telling people what use to put on which parcel. <br /> Councilmember Willmus concurred, noting that to do so would end the City back <br /> up back in a courtroom. <br /> Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that the City had learned through <br /> the court process the importance of being highly specific and not leave things <br /> vague to accommodate whatever develops and no recourse. Councilmember <br /> McGehee encouraged individual Councilmembers to review zoning codes in other <br /> cities, most of which include PUD's; opining that the City of Roseville was <br /> unique in not having the PUD tool. Councilmember McGehee referenced her <br /> conversations with land use attorneys, and their opinions that it was an important <br /> tool to have available. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of shared <br /> parking opportunities in Twin Lakes and the Dale Street project, as well as those <br /> community desires for environmental concerns, natural spaces, paths, and not <br /> supporting an urban environment. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon concurred that the PUD discussion was an important one and that <br /> PUD's should be on the table. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City's previous zon- <br /> ing code was so antiquated, the reset button had been hit, with citizens complain- <br /> ing that they couldn't live up to the code. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the <br /> code had been fixed to allow more flexibility, and suggested that there may be a <br /> place for the PUD tool in a situation not currently existing. However, Mr. Trudg- <br /> eon advised that, while he could recommend a PUD tool specific to the Twin <br /> Lakes Redevelopment Area with specific parameters and how to deviate, he could <br /> not recommend a broad PUD for the entire community. Mr. Trudgeon advised <br /> that his rationale was based on the points addressed for providing some control <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.