2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Page 3 Based on his personal review, Member Strohmeier opined that the staff report’s 97 contention that this proposal was consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan (page 11) 98 suggests that the area should not be recommended for large scale, big box retail, and 99 sought staff’s response. 100 Mr. Lloyd advised that the simplest response would be that it was also not prohibited; and 101 that it was not a goal of the Master Redevelopment Plan to prohibit big box retail as it 102 prohibited some industrial uses. As with any review, Mr. Lloyd noted that this 103 development proposal may not fully achieve every goal and aspiration of the document, 104 but this proposal was more or less consistent, and this specific retail use provides for 105 some of the same things recommended in the Plan. 106 Member Wozniak questioned if this was the only Public Hearing on this development; 107 with Mr. Lloyd responding that it was the only legally required hearing. Mr. Lloyd advised 108 that the only reason for the Public Hearing requirement was due to the applicant’s 109 request for the disposal of the property and the Plat itself, and the need for discussion in 110 this venue and format. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Preliminary Plat would not live or die with 111 the analysis of the land proposed for disposal by the City; with nothing else in the 112 proposed development triggering a Public Hearing, unless Wal-Mart found the need for a 113 variance or other site issue in the future as the project developed. 114 Chair Boerigter sought clarification of the interaction of Preliminary Plat approval with the 115 Comprehensive Plan, AUAR and Twin Lakes Plan. Chair Boerigter questioned if 116 additional traffic control measures were part of the Preliminary Plat approval. 117 Mr. Lloyd advised that, as for the Plat itself, there was really no correlation with any of 118 those documents, other than superficially, since the Comprehensive Plan addressed 119 transportation, but the AUAR addressed transportation more specifically. Mr. Lloyd noted 120 that when Twin Lakes Parkway was constructed as part of the City of Roseville’s 121 proactive infrastructure investment to facilitate redevelopment in the Twin Lakes area, it 122 was not related to this specific development but the overall Twin Lakes Redevelopment 123 Area, with each project, including this proposed Wal-Mart development, reliant on 124 roadway connections. Mr. Lloyd advised that the traffic analysis for this particular 125 development, as a requirement for all proposals, was still under preparation, to determine 126 if additional traffic amenities were indicated (e.g. signals or additional turn lanes), staff did 127 not anticipate that this particular project would trigger those additional amenities, but that 128 they would realistically be triggered as additional developments came forward. Mr. Lloyd 129 advised that roadway and traffic control considerations would be considerations for any 130 development as they related to the Comprehensive Plan and AUAR, but had no bearing 131 to other documents. 132 Chair Boerigter referenced Section 6.1 of the staff report, the last sentence, related to the 133 Planning Commission’s review of the requested City property disposal to make a 134 determination about whether the proposed development facilitated by the disposal was in 135 compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and asked that staff explain it more 136 clearly. 137 Mr. Lloyd explained that the staff report talked about the proposed use in general, not the 138 specific site plan design under consideration, but whether the proposed retail use was 139 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 140 Chair Boerigter confirmed the language of that sentence again, clarifying the applicable 141 standard for which the Commission needed to make its determination. 142 Member Gisselquist questioned how intertwined the two recommended actions are, and 143 whether the development could be platted without the disposal of City property. 144 Mr. Lloyd opined that the Plat could probably be designed without the additional property. 145 Mr. Paschke advised that the request for disposal of the land was not so much a platting 146 issue as a site plan design issue; and opined that the developer could engineer the site if 147