2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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