|
AttachmentH
<br />Council Discussion
<br />489
<br />Regarding Community and Regional Business Zoning designation, Councilmember Pust referenced a
<br />490
<br />memorandum from the City Attorney’s office dated December 9, 2011 defining CMU designation as a
<br />491
<br />mix of land uses, and CB as community and regional business in the context of the scale of the customer
<br />492
<br />base and access to interchanges. Regional Business is defined as free-standing, large square foot stores,
<br />493
<br />with Community Business defined as business limited to the local market area including free-standing
<br />494
<br />businesses promoting community orientation, smaller than free-standing stores.
<br />495
<br />Mr. Trudgeon was somewhat in agreement with that summary.
<br />496
<br />Councilmember Pust opined that size was not generally an issue, but that the entire discussion of the
<br />497
<br />Task Force was the scale of size, with CMU area referred to as community businesses, not regional
<br />498
<br />business; while other areas in the Comprehensive Plan referring to regional business. Councilmember
<br />499
<br />Pust opined that there appeared to be inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive
<br />500
<br />Plan, and there was to be no conflict between the two. If that is the case, Councilmember Pust opined
<br />501
<br />that the definition of “official control” then becomes important.
<br />502
<br />Mr. Trudgeon admitted that it was a complex issue; but clarified that the Community Business definition
<br />503
<br />addressed the local market area within a two (2) mile area of Roseville, and supplying daily needs (e.g.
<br />504
<br />groceries, clothes, and other household goods), all of which a Wal-Mart would sell.
<br />505
<br />Councilmember Pust, however, when assessing that interpretation against the definition of a free-
<br />506
<br />standing, large format store, felt there was general agreement on how they fit together. Councilmember
<br />507
<br />Pust expressed concern that, if there was any potential for disagreement, there were a lot of citizens who
<br />508
<br />would also disagree. While recognizing City Attorney Gaughan’s legal opinion in suggesting that the
<br />509
<br />Comprehensive Plan may not apply, there were other cases of Metropolitan Council approved
<br />510
<br />Comprehensive Plans that flagged this as a potential legal issue. Councilmember Pust also recognized
<br />511
<br />that City Ordinance, Chapter 1102, defined the process and requirements for Preliminary Plat approval
<br />512
<br />with that ordinance serving as the City’s legal authority.
<br />513
<br />Mr. Trudgeon, in context of subdivisions and for this process, concurred.
<br />514
<br />Councilmember Pust opined that the City, through its ordinance, was given that authority from the State,
<br />515
<br />and when ordinances were enacted, the public was assured of their fair and equal treatment based on the
<br />516
<br />same criteria without arbitrary issues. However, in referencing Chapter 1102, Councilmember Pust
<br />517
<br />noted that it specifically stated that the City would have a Preliminary Plat approval process, then a Final
<br />518
<br />Plat approval process. Councilmember Pust advised that she could find nothing in City ordinance
<br />519
<br />combining those two processes, causing her to question if the City had the statutory authority to
<br />520
<br />combine that approval process in one action. Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council
<br />521
<br />therefore, should not take action tonight on this issue.
<br />522
<br />City Attorney Gaughan responded regarding the issue of potential conflicts with the Zoning Code,
<br />523
<br />Comprehensive Plan, and the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Mr. Gaughan noted the importance, for this
<br />524
<br />discussion and the Development Agreement addressing infrastructure, that the focus was not on
<br />525
<br />potential or future ultimate use of the property, but simply platting currently subdivided property, or
<br />526
<br />redrawing lines. Mr. Gaughan advised, when considering whether this application conformed to the
<br />527
<br />City’s Zoning Code and Subdivision regulations, it was not based on future use, but whether dividing
<br />528
<br />the property into three (3) parcels conformed to those controls.
<br />529
<br />Regarding whether this use fits into the CMU or Regional Business, as brought up correctly by Mr.
<br />530
<br />Grefenberg, Mr. Gaughan advised that it only came into play when the Community Development
<br />531
<br />Department issued the building permit. Once the Building Permit is issued, Mr. Gaughan noted that
<br />532
<br />there was a ten (10) day window for appeal of that decision if an argument is made that this project’s
<br />533
<br />actual use does not conform to whatever the official control was. Mr. Gaughan confirmed that this
<br />534
<br />Page12of14
<br />
<br />
|