CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 2 lined them verbally at this time. Councilmember McGehee advised that she had re- quested that staff provide findings, both negative and positive; however none had been forthcoming; and expressed her frustration that her findings had not been included in the Planning Commission hearing of the appeal, or part of the materials presented to the Commission as background materials. Councilmember McGehee referenced a Court of Appeals decision from 2003, cited in the League of MN Cities Handbook (Semler Construction v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W. 2d 457, 461; MN State Statute 463.354; MN State 462.358, subd. 3.b; and Rose- ville City Code 1102.03(A) in support of her findings. Councilmember McGehee ex- pressed concern with meeting the health, safety and general welfare and convenience of City residents — economic and physical - in determining the validity of the Preliminary Plat; and her interpretation of the Roseville Zoning Code, 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). Councilmember McGehee based her recommended findings for denial on the follow- ing, and expounded on each finding: 1) There are currently three (3) appeals filed regarding this proposed plat. These ap- peals have not been heard or decided (e.g. pending MN Court of Appeals regarding validity of the current AUAR; SWARN Appeal as to the Community Development staff's administrative determination that this project is a permitted use under current zoning code; and Karen Schaffer appeal as to whether staff's administrative deter- mination using Goals and Policies as a basis for that determination). 2) Traffic studies available for this project are incomplete. 3) The environmental and safety impacts of increased traffic generated by this project have not been adequately addressed. 4) The proposed plat and associated project will have significant detrimental financial and economic impacts. 5) This proposed project and plat undermine the express vision and goals of the com- munity. (e.g. Vista 2000; Comprehensive Plan 2010; Imagine Roseville 2025; and 2030 Comprehensive Plan). For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe, in his personal comments and findings for ap- proval, sought to dispel the impression that it was, and clarified that this project was not a city-initiated project, and that neither staff nor the City Council had solicited Wal- Mart to consider Roseville as a location for a new store. Mayor Roe noted that this was a private land transaction from the private marketplace. Until discussion later in tonight's meeting by the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Mayor Roe set aside the discussion of permitted or non- permitted use. Mayor Roe advised that his primary reason for approval of the Preliminary Plat, as conditioned, was: