2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentF Mr. Kotecki questioned how Wal-Mart determined where to place a new store; and how much retail 265 space per capita was already in Roseville, opining that it was very high. 266 Chair Boerigter suggested that public comment refocus on the land use issues before the Commission, 267 not proprietary questions of Wal-Mart that they may choose not to respond to. 268 Jonathan Osborne, 1072 Shryer Avenue 269 Ms. Osborne questioned the process or next steps for this proposal, if the Planning Commission chose to 270 approve the Preliminary Plat; and if there would be other forums for citizens to express themselves on 271 the specific Plan for this site and for this specific retailer. 272 Mr. Paschke invited public comment, at any time, by passing them through staff or directly to City 273 Councilmembers; however, he noted that there would be no further formal Public Hearings for approval 274 of the Site Plan for this proposed use. 275 Mr. Osborne opined that this proposal had moved through various channels rather quickly; and 276 wondered if more people had been aware of it, if more people would have been at tonight’s meeting to 277 speak on the proposal. Mr. Osborne reiterated that it seemed to have happened too quickly. 278 Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road 279 Ms. Ramalingam expressed similar concerns to those brought forward by the previous speaker. 280 Generally speaking, Ms. Ramalingam opined that once the Planning Commission approved a Plan, it 281 was rubber stamped at the City Council level and became action. 282 Ms. Ramalingam expressed a number of concerns with this particular proposal, opining that new 283 business in Roseville should be locally-based to reach a regional consumer base. Ms. Ramalingam 284 further noted that there had been no discussion on additional costs generated by this retailer (e.g. 285 additional police, fire personnel, employee services borne by the City; education for employee children; 286 or food subsidies to feed those children required as a result of parents working in this particular low- 287 wage situation). Ms. Ramalingam noted that those considerations were not included in the Government 288 Decision triangle included in the staff report; and questioned whether there was any venue to address 289 these concerns. 290 Mr. Paschke reiterated that the decision before the Commission tonight was not whether to support the 291 Site Plan or the size of the proposed retail use on that site per se; but for their consideration of and 292 potential recommendation to the City Council supporting this land division to create or reassemble lots 293 in place into three (3) lots. From a process standpoint, Mr. Paschke advised that staff based the Planning 294 Division recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval based on the lot lines, easements, 295 and additional right-of-way meeting requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinances of the City. 296 Related to disposal of the 4,300 square feet of property currently owned by the City, Mr. Paschke 297 advised that this action required a slightly different analysis for determination; but reiterated that those 298 two items were not tied directly to a specific project or a given lot in Roseville; and therefore, no forum 299 was available for vetting them, or any Public Hearing process to review and approve them based on 300 those concerns raised, other than those provided to staff and forwarded to the City Council or received 301 directly by the City Council. 302 Ms. Ramalingam thanked Mr. Paschke for the thoroughness of his response; however, she opined that it 303 clearly showed a gap in the process itself. 304 Mr. Paschke recognized Ms. Ramalingam’s opinion; however, he noted that staff’s charge and 305 instructions were based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Codes in place that were used by the 306 Planning Division to enforce, as well as the Regulating Plan designed and governing the Twin Lakes 307 Redevelopment area, that didn’t instruct staff differently than the process currently used and as recently 308 adopted. Mr. Paschke advised that the Planning Division was unable to fundamentally change the 309 Page7of14