My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-02-01_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-02-01_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2012 3:35:42 PM
Creation date
6/5/2012 3:35:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/1/2012
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 <br />Page 5 <br />this portion was approximately fourteen (14) acres. Mr. Matzeck noted that the zoning <br />199 <br />designation and AUAR both looked at the possibility of a retail site in the Redevelopment <br />200 <br />Area, anticipating 175,000 square feet of retail at this location; noting that the actual area <br />201 <br />of the proposed Wal-Mart was somewhat less than that square footage. Mr. Matzeck <br />202 <br />advised that Wal-Mart intended to comply with all Zoning requirements and conditions as <br />203 <br />proscribed by staff in their report. <br />204 <br />Member Boguszewski questioned if, for whatever reason, the Commission did not concur <br />205 <br />with disposing the City parcel of land, how that would affect Wal-Mart’s plans or whether <br />206 <br />they could work around that. <br />207 <br />Mr. Matzeck advised that, generally speaking, the rationale for their request was that the <br />208 <br />additional parcel would allow the site to function better and operate in a better and more <br />209 <br />efficient manner for the City of Roseville as well as Wal-Mart. Mr. Matzeck opined that the <br />210 <br />roundabout and City infrastructure in place will work well whether the City-owned <br />211 <br />property was purchased or not, and Wal-Mart engineers could modify the Site Plan <br />212 <br />accordingly, while that would not be their preference. Mr. Matzeck clarified that he didn’t <br />213 <br />anticipate that failure to transfer the property would not halt the project. <br />214 <br />Public Comment <br />215 <br />Chair Boerigter opened the meeting to public comment at this time. <br />216 <br />Written comments received by staff to-date via various sources were included in the staff <br />217 <br />report dated February 1, 2012, and included as Attachment F. Written comments via <br />218 <br />various sources received after distribution of the agenda packet, are also included for the <br />219 <br />record, will be attached hereto and made a part hereof, from the following residents: <br />220 <br /> <br />Wendy Thompson <br /> , no address given (in opposition to Wal-Mart as the choice <br />221 <br />retailer); <br />222 <br /> <br />Cary and Shannon Cunningham <br /> , 2920 Fairview Avenue N (in opposition to the <br />223 <br />development of a big box retailer); <br />224 <br /> <br />Doug Nonemaker <br /> , 2179 Dellwood Avenue (in opposition to the development of a big <br />225 <br />box retailer); and <br />226 <br /> <br />Gary Grefenberg <br /> , 91 Mid Oaks Lane (requesting delay of action at this time for <br />227 <br />further review of the proposed development with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan). <br />228 <br />Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane <br />229 <br />As noted in Mr. Grefenberg’s written comments, and for full disclosure purposes, Mr. <br />230 <br />Grefenberg serves on the City’s Human Resources Commission, and as Chair of that <br />231 <br />Commission’s Civic Engagement Task Force as a subcommittee. <br />232 <br />Mr. Grefenberg’s written comments and excerpt of the City’s Comprehensive Plan <br />233 <br />(Economic Development and Redevelopment Sections 7.2, 7.3 and page 7.5) were <br />234 <br />provided by and included in the agenda packet attachments to the staff report. Mr. <br />235 <br />Grefenberg verbalized his written comments, and displayed the excerpted portion of the <br />236 <br />2030 Comprehensive Plan during his comments; and referenced portions of the staff <br />237 <br />report that he opined were not sufficiently vetted by staff and allegedly inconsistent with <br />238 <br />the intent and goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg asked that <br />239 <br />a decision on this request be deferred until that additional vetting was done, and various <br />240 <br />areas specifically evaluated and addressed by staff and Wal-Mart representatives. <br />241 <br />Mr. Grefenberg noted the specific concerns in his neighborhood, and asked that staff <br />242 <br />address how this development would not destroy his quality of life or provide rationale as <br />243 <br />to why specific questions were not addressed by staff. Opining that Wal-Mart represented <br />244 <br />one of the richest companies in the country, Mr. Grefenberg questioned why this <br />245 <br />development should be allowed to negatively impact Roseville residents; and opined that <br />246 <br />the community deserved more than a shallow and superficial statement by staff that the <br />247 <br />proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />248 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.