CC_Minutes_2013_1209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,December 9, 2013 Page 27 Interim City Manager Trudgeon introduced this topic, noting that it was only the first step in additional discussions with no intended resolution tonight; and as de- tailed in the RCA dated December 9, 2013. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the main points that would be addressed by City Planner Thomas Paschke, seeking a sense of direction from the City Council for staff to continue working toward. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff continued to field inquiries and interest in property development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; however, it was difficult to provide answers on what is allowed or not allowed until these bigger issues are addressed. City Planner Paschke provided a project overview and timeline to-date with the Roseville 2013 Comprehensive Plan adopted in October of 2009, and subsequent adoption of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance in December of 2013; and Communi- ty Mixed Use (CMU) Regulating Plan adoption in October of 2011. Mr. Paschke noted that initial concerns arose regarding CMU land use designa- tions and zoning classifications when the Wal-Mart development platting process was proposed, and questions on the specific type of retail uses allowed. Mr. Paschke advised that the City Attorney responded to those questions and related those findings in 2012; however, Mr. Paschke noted that some items remained un- resolved. Mr. Paschke advised that Planning Division staff and the City Attorney were cog- nizant and had determined that there were inconsistencies between the CMU defi- nitions in the Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Ordinance that served to create ambiguities and challenges in interpreting those documents. Additionally, Mr. Paschke advised that Planning Division staff had encountered similar ambiguities and interpretation issues in the Regional, Community, and Neighborhood Busi- ness Plan designations in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance defini- tions and/or language. Mr. Paschke reviewed three specific areas for attention or needing clear direction from the City Council to staff included: Community Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan definition; specific classifications for Regional Business, Community Busi- ness, and Neighborhood Business Comprehensive Plan categories and Zoning Or- dinance; and future preferred uses and regulations for the Twin Lakes Redevel- opment Area. Mr. Paschke noted those issues as detailed in the RCA, lines 18 — 30 indicating the issues and factors to consider; and lines 41 — 55 offering staff's proposed and revised definition for CMU designation. City Council Discussion Counmm MG opined ht h who t mr further opining cil that e ber one o cf the ehee more pressing ta t issues is in le the opic discussion needs ore was wo clarification