2014_0421_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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