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
Attachment A <br />Extract of the April 10, 2014 Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />a. PLANNING FILE 0017 — PROJECT 0021 <br />Request by the City of Roseville for TEXT AMENDMENTS to Chapter 4, Land Use of the <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and Section 1005.07.A, Statement of Purposes, of the ZONING <br />ORDINANCE, regarding the Community Mixed Use definition <br />Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-007 at approximately 7:59 p.m. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report dated April 10, <br />2014, as a result of the City Council's request to address ambiguities and inconsistencies <br />between the Comprehensive Plan, Section 1005.07/a, Statement of Purpose, and the current <br />Zoning Ordinance, specific to Community Mixed Use definitions. Mr. Paschke advised that this <br />review was a direct result of issues that came up during the Walmart Development project, as <br />well as at the expiration of the AUAR formerly addressing and regulating development or <br />redevelopment in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Paschke advised that part of this <br />review included cross-referencing other land use designations to assist in that guidance and as <br />applicable uses came forward; and upon the advice of the City Attorney (Attachment A), some <br />reference were eliminated and a mix of uses and connections were achieved in smaller area <br />development plans rather than depending on or referencing a broader Master Plan, particularly as <br />some of those were no longer relevant and had been predicated from the old zoning code. <br />At the prompting of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke clarified that the intent was to avoid any <br />perception of ambiguity or inconsistencies, and the legal opinion from the City Attorney was <br />requested by Mayor Roe to address any misconceptions that had come up during the Walmart <br />proposal. Mr. Paschke further clarified that the key was to focus on cleaning up the land use <br />definitions to eliminate any components that are or could be problematic in the future; and from <br />that standpoint, he was not overly concerned that the current Statement of Purpose language <br />was actually inconsistent, but in an effort to ensure it wasn't, consistent language was suggested. <br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke assured the Commission that the City <br />Attorney had been involved in the proposed language revisions and their development throughout <br />the process and was involved in the City Council discussions as text revisions were continuing to <br />evolve as the City Council sought to re-envision the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br />Member Keynan pointed out several typographical errors and inconsistencies in the staff report <br />and agenda, and suggested they be corrected for future reference. <br />In his review of these proposed text revisions, Member Keynan questioned whether it was more <br />prudent to make these changes in a piecemeal fashion or to hold them all for a broader and <br />systematic review for revision all at one time. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that, as review continued or as issues came up, it seemed more prudent to <br />make changes at that time for those items that may have an impact versus holding them to avoid <br />any inconsistencies in development proposals continuing to come forward during that time. <br />As part of the original Zoning Ordinance review committee, Chair Gisselquist noted the intent to <br />address every issue, with considerable time spent over a number of months reviewing the Code <br />in mind-numbing detail. While the committee felt everything had been addressed, Chair <br />Gisselquist observe that in reality and as circumstances come along, questions were raised and <br />inadvertent inconsistencies found. Chair Gisselquist opined that he would advocate that as they <br />came up or were found, they be addressed at that time rather than waiting for a wholesale <br />refinement process. <br />Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that often the issues were based on interpretation as well as the <br />complexities of an actual project were identified or potential uses considered and the <br />Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code practically applied to that use or how either document was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.