My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0421_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0421_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:43:38 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 2:45:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
14 4.0 CMU LAND USE/ZONING HISTORY <br />15 On October 26, 2009, the City Council adopted the Roseville 2030 Comprehensive Plan <br />16 and on December 13, 2010, the City Council adopted a newly updated (and much <br />17 different than in the past) Zoning Ordinance. Over the next few years, the Planning <br />18 Division proceeded as if these two documents were consistent with one another. <br />19 In the summer of 2011, however, the Planning Division began discussions with <br />20 representatives from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regarding their desire to develop in Twin <br />21 Lakes at the northeast corner of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, issues arose <br />22 concerning the consistency between the Community Mixed Use (CMU) land use <br />23 definition and Zoning Ordinance Statement of Purpose <br />24 In the fall of 2011, Mayor Roe sought clarification regarding the CMLJ in the <br />25 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, concerns/issues were raised <br />26 regarding whether a Walmart store was a"regional" or "community" business and how <br />27 that fit within the CMU definition within Chapter 4, Land Use, of the Roseville <br />28 Comprehensive Plan. On December 9, 201 l, the City Attorney provided an opinion <br />29 regarding three questions pertaining to CMU designations under the Roseville <br />30 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Attachment A). <br />31 While there was a lot of discussion on the City Attorney's opinion during the Wal-Mart <br />32 approval process on how it impacted that development, it is clear that inconsistency <br />33 and/or ambiguity in the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning definitions needs to be <br />34 rectified. To that end, since September of 2012, the Community Development <br />35 Department has been seeking modifications to many of the nuances controlling Twin <br />36 Lakes, including the land use and zoning definitions to advance a"plan" so that <br />37 development can occur. <br />38 5.0 STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION <br />39 Land use definitions in comprehensive plans by nature are not supposed to be specific <br />40 and detailed, especially in the area of use; rather they should be broad and nondescript to <br />41 provide guidance for the desired future rather than dictate specific uses. Such broadness <br />42 allows for the details and specifics to be addressed by the Zoning Ordinance. In order to <br />43 avoid varying interpretations, it is vital that the land use definition in the Comprehensive <br />44 Plan and a zoning statement of purpose in the Zoning Ordinance are consistent. <br />45 To attain this consistency, the Community Development Department has reviewed and <br />46 considered changes to each definition so as to alleviate any ambiguity. In addition, it is <br />47 believed that this approach will reduce or eliminate the City's need to analyze use <br />48 consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance each time a building <br />49 permit is submitted for a development within the CMLT District. Such analysis, no matter <br />50 how well intentioned, can be subjective and thus challenged if the outcome is not <br />51 favorable to the desired end-user. <br />52 It is the Planning Division's position that the broad land use categories listed in the land <br />53 use definition were never intended to limit possible uses in the manner discussed in the <br />54 Attorney's opinion or by Council Members, both of whom hold that Regional Business <br />55 cannot be developed under the CMU District and that only those uses generally thought <br />56 of as Community Business can be allowed. Further, it is the belief of the City Planner <br />57 that such a position would make any development/redevelopment in Twin Lakes difficult <br />58 at best, since most uses that this area has been designed to accommodate are of a regional <br />PROJ0021 RCA_042ll4 (2).doc <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.