CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 24 viewed the process, similar to that followed at the Planning Commission meeting: comments heard from appellants followed by members of the public, comments from the applicant(s) at their discretion, and staff comments; followed by discussion by the City Council serving as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mayor Roe invited comments from the appellants at this time. Appellants Karen Schaffer,2100 Fairview Avenue N (Attachment B) Ms. Schaffer noted that her testimony was basically the same as that she presented to the Plan- ning Commission last week; specifically that this proposed development should not be a per- mitted use in a Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning District, was at odds with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and brought the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan under question as to their consistency and conformity. Ms. Schaffer noted her past service on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Commit- tee, and the discussions held at that level, including the original square footage differentiation between three (3) distinct business district designations: Neighborhood Business, Regional Business, and Community Mixed Use Business. Ms. Schaffer recognized that the square foot- age distinction was eventually dropped before final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, but references still remained in the Plan. Ms. Schaffer opined that the proposed development and use was inconsistent with defined meanings, and the origin and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schaffer further noted that Roseville currently had more retail square footage than any other city in the State of MN; and that the AUAR recognized that such a use was not consid- ered a reality and didn't bother to study such a big box retailer in any of its scenarios. Ms. Schaffer expressed further concern that the proposed use did not promote or strengthen, in consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a balanced tax base to preserve the City's financial future. Ms. Schaffer referenced a State of MN Department of Revenue Study engaging the firm of Tishler-Bies from the State of Maryland to do a fiscal disparities study for the MN leg- islature. While not specific to Roseville, Ms. Schaffer noted that it was a study of real cities in the State of MN and supported her perception of land use on a balanced tax base. Ms. Schaffer stated that the study indicated that such uses consumed more city services than for which they provided revenue; and essentially caused a community to pay them to locate in a community. Ms. Schaffer questioned if this was the type of retail wanted in Roseville, one that had to be paid to locate here. Ms. Schaffer respectfully requested that consideration be given by the Board for a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan, and the AUAR to determine the overarching intent of those documents, rather than restricting that vision by al- lowing the proposed Wal-Mart as a permitted use. Ms. Schaffer opined that their determina- tion would concur with her interpretation that staff's administrative decision was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.