2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentH not important; without any findings of fact presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grefenberg 221 opined that the Comprehensive Plan recommended against this type of big box retailer; and if the Twin 222 Lakes Master Plan had been made a part of the Comprehensive Plan, that specific prohibition against 223 large scale retail operations, which a lot of citizens had spent time debating, there would be no current 224 dispute or consideration of this type of development. 225 At a minimum, Mr. Grefenberg advised that SWARN was asking for the opportunity, before a Building 226 Permit for this development was issued, notice to formally appeal the administrative decision to issue 227 the permit. From his perspective, Mr. Grefenberg opined that there had never been a really adequate 228 discussion of Comprehensive Plan policies, a number included in packet materials that clearly 229 contradicted allowing such a development. Mr. Grefenberg disputed the assumption provided by staff to 230 the Planning Commission that the proposed development meets the Comprehensive Plan or Twin Lakes 231 Master Plan. Mr. Grefenberg opined that if the City Council allowed this signature piece to be a Wal- 232 Mart or Target store, it should not expect much quality residential or retail development to follow in the 233 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the Implementation Section of the 234 Comprehensive Plan, addressing patience as the City moved toward its future goals, and willingly 235 promoted public and private development that fit that vision, dissuading those that did not. If the City 236 Council proceeds with Plat approval, Mr. Grefenberg asked that it direct staff to notify residents with 237 adequate time to appeal the administrative decision for issuance of the Building Permit once the 238 developer’s plans were submitted. Mr. Grefenberg opined that Roseville citizens, to-date, had not gotten 239 a fair hearing of this issue. 240 Megan Dushin (SWARN) 241 Ms. Dushin referenced numerous quotes from Chapter 4 (page 423) of the Comprehensive Plan; and 242 sought clarification if the Twin Lakes Master Plan was included or not included in the Comprehensive 243 Plan, since she had heard two (2) different versions, based on her research of a September 12, 2011 staff 244 report, and page 423 of the Comprehensive Plan, and page 9, Section 2, and page 11 of the Twin Lakes 245 Master Plan and comments about big box retail and incorporation of the 2011 Twin Lakes Master Plan 246 guiding future development. Ms. Dushin further referenced surface parking restrictions addressed in 247 Section 14 of the Land Use Section (page 20) of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. 248 In conclusion, Ms. Dushin questioned the policy for expanding retail in the area, and whether this 249 development would provide head of household job opportunities stipulated by the City’s Comprehensive 250 Plan. 251 Gary Grefenberg (SWARN) 252 Mr. Grefenberg specifically addressed traffic analyses, referencing the MnDOT letter dated May 9, 2012 253 to staff; opining that Wal-Mart’s expense to the City over the next decade would far exceed Wal-Mart’s 254 payment of $400,000 for infrastructure improvements. In the meantime, Mr. Grefenberg opined that 255 Roseville residents would suffer the penalties while private profits would go to Arkansas. 256 Mr. Grefenberg asked Councilmembers why they were rushing to approve the Preliminary and Final 257 Plats, when there were so many unanswered questions yet remaining. As requested in the written 258 comments of SWARN, Mr. Grefenberg asked the City Council to direct the Planning Division to hold an 259 Open House if and when Wal-Mart development plans evolve to provide answers to those citizen 260 questions. Mr. Grefenberg expressed his disillusionment that financial aspects of the Development 261 Agreement had not been provided to the public until late this afternoon, not allowing any review or 262 informed reaction by the public. Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council hold off on approving the 263 Development Agreement to allow due process for the public, given the significant impact this proposal 264 will have on the community. 265 Page6of14