2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentF Mr. Lloyd advised that open houses are mandated for would-be applicants or applications that deviated 134 from City Code, or those things not in the usual realm of a particular Zoning District. Mr. Lloyd noted 135 that this plat had more to do with the Subdivision Code and realignment of parcels, and provided several 136 examples of developments requiring open houses. 137 Member Strohmeier opined that the community, as well as he, had been caught off guard by this 138 proposal. 139 Member Lester questioned what other land uses were proposed for this parcel in the future. 140 Mr. Lloyd advised that the overall Site Plan indicated several smaller restaurant uses on the smaller lots, 141 but the Plan also facilitated ownership of parcels for other allowable uses. Mr. Lloyd opined that 142 restaurant uses would typically follow a Wal-Mart development, but the buildings illustrated on the Site 143 Plan presented were simply included to address potential zoning requirements as an example, but may 144 not be their exact use as the parcel develops in the future. 145 At the request of Member Wozniak as to what other uses may occur, Mr. Lloyd advised that whatever 146 was allowed as a use in a Community Mixed Use District. 147 Applicant Representatives: 148 Will Matzek, Engineer of Record for Wal-Mart development team 149 Mr. Matzeck thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration of the two requested 150 actions, and concurred with staff’s review of the proposal details. Mr. Matzeck advised that of the 151 overall Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area of approximately 179 acres, this portion was approximately 152 fourteen (14) acres. Mr. Matzeck noted that the zoning designation and AUAR both looked at the 153 possibility of a retail site in the Redevelopment Area, anticipating 175,000 square feet of retail at this 154 location; noting that the actual area of the proposed Wal-Mart was somewhat less than that square 155 footage. Mr. Matzeck advised that Wal-Mart intended to comply with all Zoning requirements and 156 conditions as proscribed by staff in their report. 157 Member Boguszewski questioned if, for whatever reason, the Commission did not concur with 158 disposing the City parcel of land, how that would affect Wal-Mart’s plans or whether they could work 159 around that. 160 Mr. Matzeck advised that, generally speaking, the rationale for their request was that the additional 161 parcel would allow the site to function better and operate in a better and more efficient manner for the 162 City of Roseville as well as Wal-Mart. Mr. Matzeck opined that the roundabout and City infrastructure 163 in place will work well whether the City-owned property was purchased or not, and Wal-Mart engineers 164 could modify the Site Plan accordingly, while that would not be their preference. Mr. Matzeck clarified 165 that he didn’t anticipate that failure to transfer the property would not halt the project. 166 Public Comment 167 Chair Boerigter opened the meeting to public comment at this time. 168 Written comments received by staff to-date via various sources were included in the staff report dated 169 February 1, 2012, and included as Attachment F. Written comments via various sources received after 170 distribution of the agenda packet, are also included for the record, will be attached hereto and made a 171 part hereof, from the following residents: 172 Wendy Thompson , no address given (in opposition to Wal-Mart as the choice retailer); 173 Cary and Shannon Cunningham , 2920 Fairview Avenue N (in opposition to the development of a 174 big box retailer); 175 Page4of14