CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

William J.Ma linen July 9,2012 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Zoning Code that the City Attorney identified in the December 9,2011,Barthokli Memo but did not mention in the June.14, 2012,letter. The City has the authority to deny a preliminary plat, even if the plat meets applicable standards and criteria in the City's zoning and subdivision regulations,so long as the City adopts -findings based on a record from public proceedings as ttl why the application is not approved. Mimi. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3b. In short, the City must act rationally rather than arbitrarily. The unresolved conflict between the Roseville Zoning Code and the Roseville Comprehensive Plan—a conflict on the very issue that the Wal- Mart,project raises—is a principled reason to deny the preliminary plat, at least until the City 'resolves the conflict or determines that the Wal-Mart project is a Community Business. . 2. THE CITY SHOULD DENY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL IT HEARS AND DECIDES THE • APPEALS OF THE COmmuterir DEVELOPMENT DEPAIMIENT'S JUNE 21 DETERMINATION THAT THE WAL-MART PROJECT Commits WITH COMMUNITY MOMD-USE DISTRier ZoNiNG. The City, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, will later this month decide the appeals of the Community Development Department's June 2J, 2012, determination that the Wal-Mart project complies with zoning in a ComMunity Mixed- Use District. The appeals in the case raise many of the issues that concern RGR and other project opponents. Most notably, the appeals argue that the proposed Wal-Mart project, does not qualify as a "Community Business" in a Community Mixed-Use District under the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, 'the City Attorney has determined that the Roseville Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Zoning Code are in conflict regarding the • "Regional Business" and "Community Business", designations in a Community Mixed- Use District. The Community Development.Department deterMirted that the proposed Wal-Mart project complies with the zoning code because the Roseville Comprehensive Plan's description of"Conunu:nity Business" does not impose specific use or size limits. But the Community Development Department ignored the conflict between the Roseville Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Zoning Code.'And the'Community Development Department failed to adequately analyze the case-by-case factors set forth in the City Attorney's Bartholdi Memo for determining whether a project is a Community Business or a Regional Business. These issues are relevant to a decision on the preliminary plat. Semler Construction, 667 N.W.2d at 462-63 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). It is more than reasonable under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3b, for the City to issue specific fmdings