My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2017_0925
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2017
>
CC_Minutes_2017_0925
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2017 11:11:11 AM
Creation date
10/19/2017 11:10:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/25/2017
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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, September 25, 2017 <br /> Page 25 <br /> Willmus moved, McGehee seconded DENIAL of the request for concept <br /> PUD, an amendment to PUD Agreement 1177, as recommended by the Plan- <br /> ning Commission, modifying the permitted uses on the subject property to <br /> include college or post-secondary school, office-based, as deemed not appro- <br /> priate for the Centre Pointe Business Park; based on the following findings: <br /> ■ The proposed use does not meet the city's economic goals; <br /> ■ The proposed use does not conform with the language or intent of the cur- <br /> rent PUD; <br /> ■ The proposed use is not supported by past underlying zoning of B-4 permit- <br /> ted uses. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte questioned how development of a solid work force was <br /> in opposition to the city's economic development plan as laid outing the 2017 <br /> Priority Planning Plan(PPP). <br /> Councilmember Etten opined that it may be arguable as a finding against amend- <br /> ment to the PUD, but agreed that the first finding was the existing PUD surround- <br /> ing job creation. Councilmember Etten also noted that the intent was to encour- <br /> age job creation or expand business in that area; however, he saw this differently <br /> in reading the original intent when the PUD was created, thus his support for the <br /> motion to deny. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan sought further clarification by the maker of the motion as <br /> to the findings and further expansion of them, including: <br /> ■ The requested use does not conform to the city's economic goals for the <br /> broader geographic area; <br /> ■ The requested use does not conform to the original intent of the PUD agree- <br /> ment; <br /> ■ The requested use is not consistent with underlying zoning requirements. <br /> Based on his interpretation of tonight's discussion related to the first finding, City <br /> Attorney Gaughan asked if the maker of the motion agreed with amending the <br /> first finding that to state the current proposal does not conform to the original <br /> PUD's economic development goals for expected job creation and the use's in- <br /> consistency for quantity of jobs the city desired for that area. <br /> Councilmember Willmus, as the maker of the motion, agreed with City Attorney <br /> Gaughan's interpretation of his intent. <br /> As a result, City Attorney Gaughan clarified the findings as follows: <br /> ■ The requested PUD amendment does not conform to the City's economic <br /> development goals for the relevant geographic area because the expected job <br /> creation is not of a sufficient quantity desired by the City <br /> ■ The requested PUD amendment does not conform with the intent of the ex- <br /> isting PUD agreement regarding permitted use of this geographic area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.