Laserfiche WebLink
AttachmentF <br />PLANNING FILE 12-001 <br />1 <br />Request by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of the land area <br />2 <br />bounded by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue <br />3 <br />Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at 6:35 p.m. <br />4 <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in conjunction with <br />5 <br />Roseville Properties, owner of the subject property, seeking approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of the <br />6 <br />land area as identified and detailed in the staff report, and creating three (3) lots. <br />7 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the request also included the transfer of ownership of a small portion of City- <br />8 <br />owned land adjacent to the Mount Ridge Road roundabout. Mr. Lloyd clarified that this request for a <br />9 <br />disposal of land by the City, was NOT a Vacation request, per se; but in lieu of a public hearing, and in <br />10 <br />accordance with State Statute, the Planning Commission must review the proposed disposal of land and <br />11 <br />determine whether it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />12 <br />Staff recommended approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the land area bounded by <br />13 <br />County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue; along with the <br />14 <br />recommendation that the Commission determine that the proposed transfer of ownership of land area <br />15 <br />specified in the Preliminary Plat is in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; based on the <br />16 <br />comments and findings of Section 4-7, and the recommendation of Section 8 of the staff report dated <br />17 <br />February 1, 2012. <br />18 <br />Chair Boerigter sought clarification on the original intent in the City acquiring the property for creation <br />19 <br />of Twin Lakes Parkway, and now the City’s determination that it was no longer needed and could be <br />20 <br />disposed of. <br />21 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the property had been originally acquired from the property owner for its <br />22 <br />potential use in connection with the roundabout as access to the redevelopment property, but had not <br />23 <br />been intended to create a public street south of the roundabout. <br />24 <br />Chair Boerigter requested more detailed information from the City’s Engineer. <br />25 <br />City Engineer Debra Bloom <br />26 <br />Ms. Bloom concurred with Mr. Lloyd’s analysis of the City’s original intent in using the property as the <br />27 <br />fourth leg of the roundabout for landscaping treatments. However, Ms. Bloom noted that this was prior <br />28 <br />to the City knowing final roadway design, the type or size of the development that may occur in this <br />29 <br />area, and that acquisition was for the most part precautionary in planning ahead; however, the City’s <br />30 <br />need ended at the crosswalk and this property was no longer needed. <br />31 <br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that the overall acreage of the <br />32 <br />Walmart/Roseville Properties property was approximately fourteen (14) acres. <br />33 <br />Member Strohmeier asked how staff responded to his interpretation of various areas in city-wide plans <br />34 <br />versus Planning District 10 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 4 and 7) and development of a <br />35 <br />big box retailer in the Twin Lakes area. <br />36 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted staff comments that it was odd for a given development proposal to be reviewed by the <br />37 <br />Planning Commission against the Comprehensive Plan, since it was not intended for that purpose, and <br />38 <br />provided a misapplication of individual goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan if it were used as <br />39 <br />a lens for this or any development. Mr. Lloyd noted that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to <br />40 <br />serve as a guide for creating specific requirements attempting to meet its policies, for instance the <br />41 <br />zoning code update now addressing goals like walkable communities that were not addressed in <br />42 <br />previous code. Mr. Lloyd opined that no one business was going to achieve entirely the goal of walkable <br />43 <br />streets; however, walkable communities remained an overarching goal. <br />44 <br />Page1of14 <br /> <br />