2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Page 7 additional work to achieve those requirements, as would other development projects as 302 they came forward. 303 Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road 304 In addition to questioning if this development fit with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. 305 Kotecki further questioned whether this development would be part of a Tax Increment 306 Financing (TIF) District. 307 Mr. Paschke advised that the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area was currently 308 within a TIF District; however, he clarified that the developer had not requested any TIF 309 financing for their project. 310 Mr. Kotecki further questioned how much retail was currently within a two (2) mile radius 311 of the Rosedale Mall and including this area. Mr. Kotecki further questioned the ratio of 312 shoppers anticipated from within the confines of Roseville, and those anticipated from 313 outside Roseville. Mr. Kotecki questioned how many Wal-Marts had been built to-date in 314 the Twin Cities area, and how many had closed in that same area since 2001. 315 Sue Steinwall, Land Use Attorney for Wal-Mart in Minnesota, with the firm of 316 Frederickson, Byron, et al 317 In response to Mr. Kotecki’s questions, and with recognition by Chair Boerigter, Ms. 318 Steinwall advised that her client anticipated this Roseville Wal-Mart would serve primarily 319 Roseville residents within a two-mile radius of the store. In the Twin Cities area, Ms. 320 Steinwall estimated twenty (20) existing Wal-Mart stores; with five (5) of those within a 321 ten (10) mile radius of this proposed store, with the closest locations being on University 322 Avenue in St. Paul and in St. Anthony Village. 323 To her knowledge, Ms. Steinwall was unaware of any Wal-Mart closings in the 324 metropolitan area; and was unable to respond to the amount of retail currently within two 325 (2) miles of the Rosedale Mall area. 326 Mr. Kotecki questioned how Wal-Mart determined where to place a new store; and how 327 much retail space per capita was already in Roseville, opining that it was very high. 328 Chair Boerigter suggested that public comment refocus on the land use issues before the 329 Commission, not proprietary questions of Wal-Mart that they may choose not to respond 330 to. 331 Jonathan Osborne, 1072 Shryer Avenue 332 Ms. Osborne questioned the process or next steps for this proposal, if the Planning 333 Commission chose to approve the Preliminary Plat; and if there would be other forums for 334 citizens to express themselves on the specific Plan for this site and for this specific 335 retailer. 336 Mr. Paschke invited public comment, at any time, by passing them through staff or 337 directly to City Councilmembers; however, he noted that there would be no further formal 338 Public Hearings for approval of the Site Plan for this proposed use. 339 Mr. Osborne opined that this proposal had moved through various channels rather 340 quickly; and wondered if more people had been aware of it, if more people would have 341 been at tonight’s meeting to speak on the proposal. Mr. Osborne reiterated that it seemed 342 to have happened too quickly. 343 Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road 344 Ms. Ramalingam expressed similar concerns to those brought forward by the previous 345 speaker. Generally speaking, Ms. Ramalingam opined that once the Planning 346 Commission approved a Plan, it was rubber stamped at the City Council level and 347 became action. 348 Ms. Ramalingam expressed a number of concerns with this particular proposal, opining 349 that new business in Roseville should be locally-based to reach a regional consumer 350 base. Ms. Ramalingam further noted that there had been no discussion on additional 351 costs generated by this retailer (e.g. additional police, fire personnel, employee services 352