2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentF similar uses, if Wal-Mart chose to locate in Roseville, he could think of no better spot. Member 488 Boguszewski suggested that Roseville citizens could choose whether or not to shop at Wal-Mart, but if 489 they were concerned that Wal-Mart was going to bring detritus to Roseville, this proposed location was 490 at the most extreme edge of the community as possible. 491 3)Based on his personal bias, Member Boguszewski stated that he did not consider and remained 492 unconvinced that Wal-Mart was similar to a nuclear waste plant. 493 Member Boguszewski advised that he took his role as a Planning Commissioner very seriously, and 494 therefore had sought the advice of a market professor friend and was made aware of a number of articles 495 on both sides of the issue, with as many saying that Wal-Mart was a positive for a community as those 496 saying it was a negative. Member Boguszewski advised that his research of those articles and various 497 opinions indicated that the impact to a community was based on a number of issues including, but not 498 limited to, the area itself, existing retail, highway access, and existing “Mom and Pop” stores. Member 499 Boguszewski advised that it would depend on Wal-Mart’s business plan and their market research as to 500 whether this store was a success or a failure; and was ultimately not the business of Roseville citizens 501 anyway, since they had a right to develop in Roseville in compliance with City Codes. 502 While not believing that it was necessary to address the merits and/or demerits of a Wal-Mart in 503 Roseville, since the Planning Commission’s task was based on technical issues, Member Boguszewski 504 advised that he had done so for the benefit of Roseville citizens, recognizing the importance to them. 505 Member Boguszewski advised that he would be voting in support of the requested actions. 506 Member Wozniak thanked the audience for their public comment, noting that he had observed them 507 through various forums before tonight’s meeting as well. Member Wozniak expressed his 508 disappointment in some of the comments he’d seen and heard, however he did support the public’s right 509 and appreciated their efforts to come out tonight to share them with the Planning Commission. 510 Member Wozniak concurred with the observations of Member Boguszewski in the narrow focus for 511 Commission deliberations in approving property boundaries and transfer of City-owned property to a 512 developer to facilitate a development. Member Wozniak stated that it was his belief that what was being 513 proposed for this parcel was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and retail use; and advised that he 514 would support the property transfer and Preliminary Plat as proposed. 515 Member Wozniak noted the comments he’d heard about the City “railroading” this development; and 516 stated that he strongly disagreed with that comments. If the proposal seemed to be moving fast, Member 517 Wozniak reminded the public of the Statutory requirements for land use considerations and the time 518 available for a City to act on a given proposal. 519 Member Wozniak clarified that the use itself as proposed was outside the scope of tonight’s discussion, 520 and was a permitted use not requiring discussion. However, Member Wozniak suggested that, while 521 outside the scope of tonight’s discussion, it was apparent that talking about the proposal may be a need 522 for the community and encouraged Wal-Mart and their development staff to open dialogue with 523 residents about their presence in the Roseville community, since it the proposal was successful, Wal- 524 Mart would need to positively interact with the residents it sought to serve. Member Wozniak 525 encouraged Wal-Mart representatives to look for opportunities to interact with the community on the 526 positives they bring to the community, and not just allow the negatives or perceived negatives to remain 527 in the forefront. 528 Member Lester advised that Members Boguszewski and Wozniak had effectively covered most of his 529 comments. Member Lester advised that his analysis attempted to look at the end result, and after almost 530 thirty (30) years of the City attempting to develop the Twin Lakes area, bringing in a potential use was a 531 good thing, no matter who it was as long as it was meeting City Code requirements. Member Lester 532 clarified again that tonight’s request was focused on the Preliminary Plat, not the use; and discussions 533 Page12of14