My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2012 12:59:07 PM
Creation date
8/17/2012 12:58:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/16/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting AND <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> Monday,July 16,2012 <br /> Page 24 <br /> viewed the process, similar to that followed at the Planning Commission meeting: comments <br /> heard from appellants followed by members of the public, comments from the applicant(s) at <br /> their discretion, and staff comments; followed by discussion by the City Council serving as the <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mayor Roe invited comments from the appellants at this <br /> time. <br /> Appellants <br /> Karen Schaffer,2100 Fairview Avenue N (Attachment B) <br /> Ms. Schaffer noted that her testimony was basically the same as that she presented to the Plan- <br /> ning Commission last week; specifically that this proposed development should not be a per- <br /> mitted use in a Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning District, was at odds with the 2030 <br /> Comprehensive Plan, and brought the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan under question as <br /> to their consistency and conformity. <br /> Ms. Schaffer noted her past service on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Commit- <br /> tee, and the discussions held at that level, including the original square footage differentiation <br /> between three (3) distinct business district designations: Neighborhood Business, Regional <br /> Business, and Community Mixed Use Business. Ms. Schaffer recognized that the square foot- <br /> age distinction was eventually dropped before final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, but <br /> references still remained in the Plan. Ms. Schaffer opined that the proposed development and <br /> use was inconsistent with defined meanings, and the origin and intent of the Comprehensive <br /> Plan. <br /> Ms. Schaffer further noted that Roseville currently had more retail square footage than any <br /> other city in the State of MN; and that the AUAR recognized that such a use was not consid- <br /> ered a reality and didn't bother to study such a big box retailer in any of its scenarios. <br /> Ms. Schaffer expressed further concern that the proposed use did not promote or strengthen, in <br /> consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a balanced tax base to preserve the City's financial <br /> future. Ms. Schaffer referenced a State of MN Department of Revenue Study engaging the <br /> firm of Tishler-Bies from the State of Maryland to do a fiscal disparities study for the MN leg- <br /> islature. While not specific to Roseville, Ms. Schaffer noted that it was a study of real cities in <br /> the State of MN and supported her perception of land use on a balanced tax base. Ms. Schaffer <br /> stated that the study indicated that such uses consumed more city services than for which they <br /> provided revenue; and essentially caused a community to pay them to locate in a community. <br /> Ms. Schaffer questioned if this was the type of retail wanted in Roseville, one that had to be <br /> paid to locate here. <br /> Ms. Schaffer respectfully requested that consideration be given by the Board for a thorough <br /> review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan, and the AUAR to <br /> determine the overarching intent of those documents, rather than restricting that vision by al- <br /> lowing the proposed Wal-Mart as a permitted use. Ms. Schaffer opined that their determina- <br /> tion would concur with her interpretation that staff's administrative decision was inconsistent <br /> with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.