Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2012_0716 City of R8SEVH A Minnesota,USA Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Monday, July 16, 2012 1. Roll Call Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order: Pust; McGehee; Roe; Willmus; Johnson. City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. Councilmember Pust arrived at approximately 6:05 p.m. 2. Approve Agenda Mayor Roe announced that, at the request of the Human Rights Commission, and due to other extensive agenda content, the marriage amendment discussion originally scheduled for tonight's meeting had been delayed, and according to City Manager Ma- linen tentatively rescheduled to the August 13, 2012 meeting. Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Agenda Items 7. d, e, and h respectively entitled, "Receive Second Quarter Financial Report;" "Ratify Reappoint- ment of Housing & Redevelopment Authority Board Members;" and Authorize Re-Bid of Expired Bid for Site Work/Utilities for Fire Station Bid Package#1." McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,the agenda was approved as amended. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. 3. Public Comment Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time. Mayor Roe noted that he had heard concerns expressed by individual Councilmembers of their lack of time to present their comments during discussion of the Wal-Mart Pre- liminary Plat at the June 9, 2012 meeting. Mayor Roe offered individual Councilmem- bers an opportunity to do so at this time. Councilmember McGehee stated that it was important to her that people understand her rationale in being opposed to the Wal-Mart Preliminary Plat, noting that she had pro- vided a list of her personal findings at the July 9, 2012 meeting, intending that they supplement the additional conditions provided at that meeting by Councilmember Pust and the City Attorney's Office. Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappoint- ment that her findings had not been included as part of the record. Therefore, she out- 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: Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 3 1) His research and presumption that the use was allowed, and through arrangement of lots and setting aside easements, met the City's Subdivision Code. 2) With the conditions applied, and added onto by the City Attorney and Coun- cilmember Pust's recommendations, along with his personal finding that the use was appropriate for the site, Mayor Roe advised that he supported the Plat. Mayor Roe stated that he was confident that the Zoning Code's design standards specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and the Community Mixed-Use (CMU) Busi- ness District addressing building construction, placement of structures on lots, pe- destrian amenities, and mitigation strategies for environmental issues, would assure a good project for the community and the developer. 3) Mayor Roe noted that Wal-Mart would be paying considerably more for their por- tion — and then some— of the infrastructure costs than would be realized through a typical Chapter 429 Assessment process, the only other option available for pay- ment of those improvements. Mayor Roe noted that Wal-Mart would be paying 100% of the costs for development of the roadway system around the site, as well as one-quarter of the costs for improvements to the I-35W ramp. Mayor Roe clari- fied that this interstate ramp improvement was not simply a requirement because of Wal-Mart developing in that area, but would serve future uses in that area, with Wal-Mart — as the first development project — paying more than their share for those improvements. 4) While Wal-Mart may not be his personal preference for this site, Mayor Roe opined that he really had no opinion on it one way or the other; but if the Wal-Mart project was approved, he wished them success with their development. Mayor Roe recog- nized that there were very strong feelings among Roseville residents about Wal- Mart on both sides of the issue. Mayor Roe asked that citizens respect all opinions; however, he noted that there were a fairly substantial percentage of Roseville resi- dents who had no opinion one way or the other about the proposed Wal-Mart de- velopment. 5) Regarding whether any more "big box retail" was needed in Roseville, Mayor Roe noted that the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan suggested that such re- tail was acceptable in Roseville,but only in this part of CMU District. While this is the first major retail development in Roseville in quite some time, Mayor Roe noted that it is acceptable in some areas of the community, and planning documentation supports that acceptance. While some may feel there is no need for this type of re- tailer in Roseville, Mayor Roe recognized that there may be others in Roseville who may have need of those items and at the cost level supplied by Wal-Mart's business model. 6) Regarding the Traffic Studies to-date,both that of the City-initiated AUAR and that supplied by the applicant, Mayor Roe noted that they considered peak p.m. levels for analysis of intersections to determine the level of services needed; and once those studies had been completed, they had both supported turn lanes; which had been proven by the industry and practical use to improve traffic levels. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 4 7) Regarding statements that Wal-Mart was the wrong business for the Roseville community, Mayor Roe noted that the City should not and could not discriminate in that manner for types of land use development. 8) Regarding Roseville values and whether a Wal-Mart would be good for Roseville, Mayor Roe pointed out that there were Wal-Marts in multiple metropolitan com- munities, and he didn't consider them having bad values. Mayor Roe expressed his interest in Roseville welcoming all people and not discrimi- nating against anyone. Councilmember Willmus agreed that there may be some overlap in his comments relat- ed to the Preliminary Plat and discussion to be held later about the appeals; and there- fore wished to keep his comments to a minimum. Councilmember Willmus confirmed his support of the Preliminary Plat; and his belief that this proposal was not in conflict with the City's Zoning Code, and therefore not the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority (HRA) Report 5. Recognitions,Donations, Communications a. Recognize Grass Lakes Watershed Management Organization Board Members On behalf of the City Council, staff and the community, Mayor Roe recognized Commissioners of the Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO), Commissioners Steve Barrett, Jonathan Miller and Mary Kay Von De Linde; and acknowledged their contributions and expressed appreciation for volunteering their time and talents serving the broader community on this Board. Mayor Roe noted that the GLWMO had been dissolved, and the geo- graphical area of the GLWMO merged with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for public cost-savings and staffing efficiencies. Commissioner Mary Kay Von De Linde was present and received her personal recognition from Mayor Roe. Commissioner Von De Linde stated that it had been an honor and privilege to represent Roseville on the GLWMO Board. Commissioner Von De Linde not- ed that, when it became apparent that future activities to address water quality issues had become highly technical and costly in nature, it was the consensus of the GLWMO Board to recommend that it merge with Ramsey-Washington. Commissioner Von De Linde stated that she loved Roseville, and was glad she could be a partner in serving the community. Mayor Roe recognized Commissioners Barrett and Miller, even though they were unable to attend tonight's meeting. In particular, Mayor Roe recognized Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 5 Commissioner Jonathan Miller, who had most recently served as Chairperson of the GLWMO, as well as sharing in the original minority opinion to dissolve the GLWMO during serving in that role. Mayor Roe opined that Chair Miller had served in a very responsible and non-biased manner during deliberations. As a City Council liaison to the GLWMO's Stakeholder Group studying the Third Generation Ten Year Plan before it was determined to dissolve, Coun- cilmember McGehee expressed her support of the group and thanked them for their service. 6. Approve Minutes Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft pre- sented in the Council packet. a. Approve Minutes of July 09,2012 Meeting Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 09, 2012 meeting as amended. Corrections: • Page 23, Line 14 (McGehee) Change "hours"to "calls." Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. 7. Approve Consent Agenda There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda. a. Approve Payments McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented. ACH Payments $185,515.11 66827—66882 555,074.24 Total $740,589.35 Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 6 b. Approve Business and Other Licenses McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants: Applicant/Location Type of License American Academy of Acupuncture&Oriental Medicine Massage Therapy 1925 W County Road B-2 Establishment Massage Rejuvenation; 2218 County Road D, Room B Massage Therapy Establishment Serene Body Therapy, LLC; 1629 West County Road C Massage Therapy Establishment Chinese Tui-Na Massage; 10 Rosedale Center Massage Therapy Establishment Zachary Howe at Massage Envy Roseville; 2480 Fairview Massage Therapist Avenue, Suite 120 Diadra Decker at Wright Tough; 2233 Hamline Avenue Massage Therapist Bangwu Zhang at American Academy of Acupuncture & Massage Therapist Oriental Medicine; 1925 West County Road B-2 Aspen James, Lisa Scholl, Dee Ann Basten, Jennifer Fed- Massage Therapist dick at LifeTime Fitness; 2480 Fairview Avenue N Brandon Palmer at Serene Body Therapy; 1629 West Massage Therapist County Road C Tower Glen Liquor; 2216-R West County Road D Cigarette/Tobacco Products Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar; 1777 West County Road B-2 Amusement Device Church of Corpus Christi; 2131 Fairview Avenue N Temporary Liquor Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. c. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000 McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following purchases and/or contracts for service: Department Vendor Description Amount Building Yale Mechanical HVAC Maintenance $9,789.00 Maintenance (annual) Parks& Upper Cut Tree Services, Diseased & Hazardous 15,000.00 Recreation Inc. Tree Removal Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 7 f. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Pay- ment and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2011 Pave- ment Management Project McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10992 (At- tachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance 2011 Pavement Management Project;" accepting the work completed; starting the one-year warranty; and au- thorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed$89,049.99. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. g. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Pay- ment and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements - Phase I At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen confirmed that the costs for private driveway work within this contract had been paid by the private par- ty. McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10993 (At- tachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements — Phase I;" accepting the work completed; starting the one-year warranty; and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed$57067.02. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. 8. Consider Items Removed from Consent d. Receive Second Quarter Financial Report At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly requested staffs presentation of this Financial Report for the period ending June 30, 2012, and as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 16, 2012. Councilmember McGehee, in noting overall revenues up by .5%, and expendi- tures up by 3.1%, whether this was consistent with staffs projections and antic- ipation at this half-way point of the budget cycle, or if there was any staff con- cern regarding this apparent trends. At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Christ Miller advised that staff did not consider those percentages as a trend, with revenue and expenses in line with original projections. Mr. Miller reminded Councilmembers that this served as a "snapshot" for comparison purposes only, and a difference of 5% one way Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 8 or another did not prompt any concern. If those percentages were to swing one way or the other in the 10%or greater range, Mr. Miller advised that staff would then look more seriously at them. Mr. Miller opined that there was nothing in this report that would indicate any significant optimism or concern at this time in the operational cycle. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller noted that expenditures above projections at this time were of no statistical significance at this time, not- ing that the operational cycle and projections related to it was not perfect from one year to the next, with timing coming into play. Mr. Miller confirmed that the City was in good shape at this time. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller noted that the Water and Recreation Funds had been corrected through increased utility rates and in- ter-fund loans, and remained in good shape. For the benefit of the public and City Councilmembers, Mayor Roe noted that potential uncertainties detailed by staff in the report regarding the Communica- tions Fund were related to future cable franchise fees paid to the City, with ne- gotiations underway at this time for that franchise. Mayor Roe noted that the rates were based on a larger issue at the state and federal levels regarding any major rate change;however, since it was an election year, Mayor Roe advised that he didn't see that coming to fruition at this time. McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the Second Quarter Financial Report. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. e. Ratify reappointment of Housing & Redevelopment Authority Board Members At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed this reappoint- ment, as detailed in the RCA dated July 16, 2012. Councilmember McGehee, noting that she was not serving on the City Council when this HRA appointment/reappointment process was put in place, ques- tioned how comparable it was with that of other cities. Councilmember McGe- hee noted that in many cities, the City Council served as the HRA, and ques- tioned how this process had developed and its relationship to State Statute for HRA's. Councilmember McGehee expressed concern with a process where one elected official appointed HRA members. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 9 Mayor Roe pointed out that, even if the City Council served as the HRA Board, appointments would still be made by the Mayor and ratified by the full City Council, in accordance with State Statute. Mayor Roe suggested that discussion of membership and term limits of the Board would be appropriate as a separate discussion in the future at the discretion of the City Council. Councilmember Pust, having served as an HRA Member prefaced her com- ments by noted that everyone she had served with on that Board, including cur- rent members being considered for re-appointment, Members Maschka and Majerus, did great work for the City and on the HRA Board. Councilmember Pust concurred that, as a separate legal entity with taxing authority, the HRA did great work. Councilmember Pust noted that the City Council's rationale and process for appointment and/or reappointment for citizens serving on advisory boards and respective term limits, had been implemented only because of the desire to provide opportunities for other citizens to have their voices heard. Councilmember Pust noted that one of those HRA Members up for reappoint- ment had already served for two (2) terms since the HRA's inception, and while having done great and honorable service, questioned whether an additional five (5) year reappointment should be considered, creating a fifteen (15) year term for that member on the HRA. Councilmember Pust reiterated the great work done by Member Majerus during his tenure and her hesitation in raising this is- sue; however, opined that reappointment should not be done casually. Coun- cilmember Pust, recognizing Mayor Roe's deliberation on recommended ap- pointments to the HRA and the City Council's typical validation of his recom- mendations, cautioned that consideration not be of a casual nature. As a current member of the HRA, Councilmember Willmus recognized that, while a separate taxing authority, the HRA's annual levy did come through the City Council for affirmation and/or adjustment. Councilmember Pust recognized that comment of Councilmember Willmus; however, she noted that the issue is not that the HRA may have more power than they should, but her lack of understanding why the City Council would im- plement term limits for its citizen advisory commission volunteers, and not have comparable term limits for HRA Board members, given that they have more au- thority than advisory commissions. Councilmember McGehee noted that this discussion was her intended purpose in bringing this to the City Council's attention; and her hope for future discus- sion. Beyond that, Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern that as a taxing authority, issues came to the City Council from the HRA, but not to the same level of detail as advisory commissions, causing her concerns. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 10 Councilmember Willmus noted that this was not part of the requested action to- night, while sharing similar concerns to those expressed by Councilmembers Pust and McGehee. Mayor Roe referenced the resolution regarding HRA appointment and/or reap- pointment, as per State Statute, Section 2 for that action no later than 60-days prior to the expiration of their term. Mayor Roe noted that, if the City Council chose to take no action tonight, it would automatically create a vacancy on the HRA Board. Under those circumstances, Councilmember Pust suggested a series of motions. Pust moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10990(Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving Mayor's Reappointment of Dean Maschka to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville;" for a five (5) year term beginning September 24, 2012 to September 23, 2017. At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mayor Roe advised that the last time there was a vacancy on the HRA, there was one (1) applicant for that one (1) position. However, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council could not presume that this would be the same situation this time, and noted that they would con- sider any and all applications. Councilmember Pust noted that it was also important to note that the last person appointed to the HRA had resigned from the HRA Board upon leaving the City, and then upon return to the City asked to be reappointed to fill the position of her replacement to the HRA Board who had only served for a few months be- fore forced to resign due to personal reasons. Councilmember Pust noted that this was a unique situation, but was not an open process, and the opening had not been posted. At Councilmember McGehee's expressed concern in how to vote prior to future discussion, Mayor Roe reviewed the appointment/reappointment process, and suggested that she could take a position on the reappointment at this time, while reserving her right to have a position on a different matter for the City Council and HRA Board. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson. Nays: None. Abstentions: Roe. Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 11 Pust moved, Willmus seconded, declaring a vacancy on the HRA Board, open- ing the application process, and encouraging the incumbent to reapply for the position for consideration with other applicants, with the Mayor asked to con- sider applicants based on term limits. Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the process outlined in that motion; opining that she would rather not ask someone to reply in open forum, but would prefer moving forward with further discussion as to whether or not term limits were indicated. Councilmember Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, noting his second- ing of it for discussion purposes only; suggesting that this issue be revisited in the future, specifically what an appropriate time frame was for service on the HRA Board. Councilmember Willmus suggested that a sunset provision be consistent with that already in place for the City Council's citizen advisory commissions. Mayor Roe reiterated that if the City Council took no action on reappointment tonight, it would serve to automatically create a vacancy on the HRA. Mayor Roe noted that any citizen could apply for a vacancy without limitations; how- ever, since it was a mayoral appointment, this placed a limitation on who got appointed, making the entire process with mayoral appointment versus City Council appointment to citizen advisory commissions different. Sensing no support for the motion, Councilmember Pust withdrew the motion. In providing his personal rationale in his original development of the HRA Res- olution during his tenure on the City Council and before election as Mayor, Mayor Roe advised that he had intended that the resolution mirror that of advi- sory commissions. However, in vigorous discussions with Mayor Klausing at that time and inception of the HRA, Mayor Roe noted that Mayor Klausing had advised that he could not support that term limit and appointment process, since he questioned whether the Mayor would be bound by that resolution or strictly by State Statute. Due to that discussion, Mayor Roe advised that he had re- spected that perspective and drafted the resolution accordingly. Mayor Roe ad- vised that his personal opinion had been and remained that term limits make sense; and noted that he had held discussions with HRA Member Majerus on that issue. However, Mayor Roe advised that Member Majerus had assured him of his continued and enthusiastic interest in continuing to serve on the HRA; with Mayor Roe advising that when Member Majerus lost that enthusiasm, he could then step down from his role on the HRA. McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10991 (At- tachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving Mayor's Reappointment of Bill Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 12 Majerus to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Ro- seville;" for a five (5) year term beginning September 24, 2012 to September 23, 2017. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson. Nays: None. Abstention: Roe Motion carried. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, and supported by the body as a whole, City Manager Malinen duly noted the need for continued discussion of HRA term limits for a future agenda. h. Authorize Re-Bid of Expired Bid for Site Work/Utilities for Fire Station Bid Package#1 At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the re- quested action on the RCA dated July 16, 2012. Due to continued delays with litigation, City Manager Malinen advised that the contractor was unable to ex- tend their bid without significantly increasing the cost of their contract; and ac- cording to provisions included in the bid package through a change order, staff recommended re-bidding the contract for site work and utilities. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Malinen clarified that the original bid was based on materials available for the project at literally no cost; however, in the ensuing months and ongoing delays, those materials had been used elsewhere on other projects. City Manager Malinen estimated the additional cost was between$20,000 to $25,000. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Malinen clarified that the rebidding was specific to the contract for site/earth work, utilities,build- ing foundation and paving all under one (1) contract. This was confirmed by Fire Chief Tim O'Neill in the audience. Councilmember McGehee expressed concern that the original comments of Fire Chief O'Neill promised that the referendum would serve as a back-up plan; however, was now not possible. Councilmember McGehee opined that if a ref- erendum had proceeded back in April, it could have gone forward without the need to rebid. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had not done a good service by their Fire Chief in providing a proper flow of resources by refusing to have a referendum on this item. McGehee moved, Johnson seconded authorizing the Fire Department to seek re- bids for site work and utilities as outlined in Bid Package#1. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 13 Mayor Roe clarified that the original purpose of the City Council majority in pursuing the bond issue without referendum was an effort to save public money. Mayor Roe noted that it was not the City's intent or choice to bring litigation or file appeals, at the last date possible, to delay the process. Councilmember McGehee opined that, from the very beginning and at no cost to taxpayers, a referendum could have been pursued; and further opined that by choosing not to pursue that option, it was clear that the City had not saved any money at all, since bond rates had now increased. Councilmember McGehee noted that she would have to agree to disagree with the City Council majority, including Mayor Roe. Mayor Roe opined that the costs incurred by the City were specific to the con- tinued or threat of litigation of a group of citizens filing in order to seek a refer- endum; and stood by the City Council majority's decision to save money; and noted the consequences now being realized based on the choices one group of citizens had made. Pust moved, Willmus seconded, a motion to call the question. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. Roll Call (original motion) Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. 9. General Ordinances for Adoption 10. Presentations 11. Public Hearings a. Brewery Tap Room License Ordinance Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the requested action detailed in the RCA dated July 16, 2012; and new category created by the City Council in April of 2011 for off-sale liquor licenses to accommodate the unique retailing venue of breweries/brew pubs. However, Mr. Miller noted that current City Code did not al- low for consumption of alcohol on the premises without an accompanying food sales requirement, even using the City's authority to establish an on-sale brewer taproom, under MN State Statute 340A.301, subd. 6b. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 14 Mr. Miller noted that this request had been prompted by Pour Decisions in seeking such a license for their small-production brewing operation at 1744 Terrace Drive. Mr. Miller advised that additional information had been received by staff today from Pour Decisions, and forwarded to City Councilmembers and available for the public, specific to their preferred hours of operation. Mayor Roe, and Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus asked for a copy of that in- put, since they did not have one available. Councilmember Willmus noted, in an earlier call by him today to staff, suggested that hours of operation as outlined by Pour Decision representatives may be hard for the City to administer and/or enforce; and questioned if hours laid out by staff from the City's perspective may be more appropriate. Mr. Miller noted that the Police Department was called upon for administration and enforcement of this type of license; and advised that he had not had an opportunity to touch base with Police Chief Mathwig before tonight's meeting to receive his in- put on the suggested hours submitted by Pour Decisions. Mr. Miller suggested that it would be easier to have more consistency from day to day or midweek hours ver- sus weekend for the City's regulatory capacity role. At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Miller concurred that specific hours set by the City would not preclude Pour Decisions from closing earlier on weekdays than weekends. Mayor Roe noted the different categories of brewer licenses based on per barrel (subd. D) limiting the hours of operation, with this category specifically addressing fewer than 3,500 barrels and solely for consumption at the licensed premises. Mayor Roe noted that currently consumption could take place at a restaurant with- out City action,but this application was specific for a taproom without food sales. Councilmember McGehee questioned then number of gallons anticipated to be pro- duced by Pour Decisions that would determine which category they came under. Mr. Miller suggested questions be addressed to the applicant representatives present in the audience, noting that their off-sale license, under State Statute, was already in place that limited their capacity. Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:11 p.m. and invited the applicant to come forward to respond to questions of the City Council. Applicants B.J. Hawe Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 15 Mr. Hawe advised that taprooms are popular brewery destinations across the coun- ty; and advised that they were fine with more consistent hours. Mr. Hawe noted that they would not operate to the extent of the proposed hours on weekdays, since their main interest is in running a brewery, with no intention of operating a night club. Chris Denglin Mr. Denglin concurred with Mr. Hawe, noting that their intent of putting forth the hours were to serve as talking points for the City Council and not set in stone from their perspective. Mr. Denglin advised that the hours were provided after exhaus- tive research by him and Mr. Hawe on various business models. Mr. Denglin em- phasized that their main business and interest was as a brewery, not as a pub. Mr. Denglin noted that to operate other than intended, it would change tax status and their ability to sell growlers as related to the pint laws and number of barrels. Mr. Denglin reviewed several points: 1) Per state law,the only product that can be sold is what is brewed on site. 2) From various brewery models and start ups of breweries, smaller taprooms are more frequent; however, they chose a larger business model based on the num- ber of batches and time to brew them, with this model providing a greater return on their time and investment. Mr. Denglin suggested that limiting square foot- age or size of a building would not impact them, while they would prefer no such limitations. 3) Regarding music, Mr. Denglin recognized the City's intent to differentiate dance and/or night clubs from this use. Mr. Denglin noted that this use is in- tended specifically as a brewery, not a dance club, even thought guests may be invited to play music for special events (e.g. Oktoberfest), but the music is meant for fun, not to get around any other City rules. Mr. Denglin advised that they would be amenable to the City stipulating about amplified or non-amplified music restrictions. 4) Regarding hours, Mr. Denglin reiterated their intent in submitted proposed hours as talking points; and advised that they were open to the City Council's ruling on hours. Mr. Denglin suggested that if the Police Department was aware of their daily closing time, it would obviously be easier for them to enforce. As far as opening any earlier than they suggested, Mr. Denglin advised that they had no intent of opening any earlier. Councilmember McGehee suggested hours of operation from 12:00 Noon to 10:00 p.m., and questioned if that would satisfy their business model and any future ex- pansion without returning to the City Council for further action. Mr. Denglin advised that the only issue for them would be with tours on Sundays, and longer hours on Saturdays, since operations on Sunday were restricted by State Statute for off-sale on Sunday. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 16 Mr. Hawe noted that the main intent is to get people on site to purchase growlers, and with limited hours on Sunday, they preferred extended hours on Saturday. While being able to work with the suggested hours by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Hawe suggested hours for Saturday from 10:00 am to 10:00 p.m. to accommo- date and encourage more foot traffic. Councilmember Willmus questioned if the City Council wanted to adopt a set of hours specifically amenable to this applicant, or adopt hours generically for this and other future potential breweries. Mayor Roe recognized that as a perfect discussion for City Council consideration. Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council define the hours for admin- istration and enforcement under this new license category rather than relying solely on the current applicant's preference. Councilmember McGehee clarified that it was not her intention to be specific as to this applicant; but her intent was to come up with hours that would work for the ap- plicant as well as the City. Given her lack of information on taprooms in general, Councilmember McGehee asked if the suggested hours were within a range that the applicant could work with. Mr. Hawe advised that they were within that range. Mayor Roe questioned the applicant's role in wholesale sales; with the applicant re- sponding that they could deliver kegs themselves; however, they were already working with and intended to contract for distribution by a wholesaler. Mr. Denglin advised that while they had the ability to deliver themselves, they wanted to concentrate on brewing, not delivery. Public Comment Patrick Schmidt, 1140 Autumn Street Mr. Schmidt provided his credentials as a Professor of Political Science and Gov- ernment Regulations, and as a "designer beer fan," he was familiar with alcohol li- censing across states. Mr. Schmidt offered his thanks to the City Council for their flexibility in considering this type of license, and opined that it was nice to see this moving forward. Mr. Schmidt opined that this was a great form of tourism and craft artistry, as well as a great opportunity for economic development in the com- munity. Mr. Schmidt opined that it served as good credit to the City Council. Gary Grefenberg,91 Mid Oaks Lane Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 17 Mr. Grefenberg spoke in support of this application; and encouraged the City Coun- cil to support it. John Muir, 6914 Nicollet Avenue,Richfield, MN Mr. spoke in support of this endeavor in Roseville. June Kassam,216 Territorial Road,Blaine, MN Ms. Kassam spoke in support of this endeavor in Roseville; providing another so- cial event and opportunity for those interested in this craft. Tony Kutzke, 1740 Nebraska Avenue, St. Paul,MN Mr. spoke in support of this endeavor in Roseville; providing a great connec- tion with the public, and bringing additional people into Roseville. Kim Luke, 1488 Cumberland Street, St. Paul,MN Ms. Luke spoke in support of this endeavor in Roseville, noting that the quality of water is a consideration in choosing a site, a compliment to Roseville. Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road Ms. Ramalingam spoke in support of this; noting the history of her family in craft beers and Trappist Monk breweries. Ms. Ramalingam stated "bravo" to the City Council for bringing this to Roseville and thanked them for their efforts. Ms. Ra- malingam opined, from her experience, that people come to these establishments for tasting of fine beer and wine,with no food served other than used to cleanse the pal- let, and not defined as drinking establishments,but rather as tasting events. Rick Poeshel, Midland Condominiums,Roseville Mr. Poeshel noted the exception for this type of license not being required to serve food or have a restaurant. Mr. Poeshel questioned why this applicant didn't fall un- der current rules and regulations, opining that there must have been a good reason for the original law when passed for liquor and food to be served together. Mr. Po- eeshel asked that the City Council take that into consideration in their decision- making. Jason Siverson, 15350 Xkimo St. NW, Ramsey,MN Mr. Siverson stated that he looked forward to this as a destination for craft beer sampling in the area, and looked forward to seeing it proceed in Roseville. Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:32 p.m. 12. Business Items (Action Items) a. Consider Brewery Tap Room License Ordinance Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 18 Councilmember Johnson noted that, since only one applicant was heard at this time, he personally didn't want to limit licensing hours to that establishment, and suggesting broadening the time from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., with the un- derstanding that the earlier start may not be a preference on a weekday, but could be more beneficial on the weekend and prevented the applicant from hav- ing to return to the City Council for a request for revised hours. Mayor Roe noted that staff's suggestion was to reference hours for these estab- lishments consistent with that of State Statute for off-sale establishments. Finance Director Miller clarified that staff's recommendation was prior to hear- ing from the applicant about Sundays as well. Councilmember McGehee opined that she had no problem with the hours; how- ever, in her review of the applicant's materials, she found few business models open until 11:00 p.m., and personally preferred 10:00 p.m. closing. Coun- cilmember McGehee noted that this seemed a more common time in the materi- als supplied, and yet shouldn't provide any hardship for the applicant. Coun- cilmember McGehee opined that she preferred hours of operation 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. After further thought, Councilmember Johnson questioned if a licensee could even sell a growler after 10:00 p.m., and reverted to closing time of 10:00 p.m. instead of his original suggestion of 11:00 p.m. Relative to on-sale, Mr. Miller noted that this allowed some differentiation. Mayor Roe, in his review of sample establishments provided by the applicant, noted that nine (9) establishments were open until 11:00 p.m. or later at least some night of each week. Mayor Roe noted that he didn't see any starting earli- er, but for consistency and comparison purposes, noted that on-sale establish- ments with restaurants could begin selling alcohol as early as 8:00 a.m. Regarding the off-sale component, Councilmember Johnson advised that he was more supportive of the 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. range, since it would be easier for the City's Police Department to monitor and enforce, avoiding any potential that they could or could not continue selling growlers between 10:00 — 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Johnson suggested that the 10:00 p.m. cut-off seemed more concise. Mr. Denglin advised that an establishment, per State Statute, had to personally ensure that any person having a growler was to be off-site by 10:00 p.m. Mayor Roe observed that this would help to maintain enforcement of that issue. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 19 Councilmember McGehee opined that, since this is a new business, but the City Council was attempting to be uniform in its policy with the potential of more taprooms coming into Roseville, it seemed that having an operating window from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. should provide enough time to accommodate cus- tomers and the applicant for this business plan. Councilmember McGehee opined that this provided a more concise schedule for Police Department en- forcement as will through a uniform effort. At Mayor Roe's prompting, individual Councilmember input for hours of opera- tion at this point was as follows: 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Councilmember Johnson) and8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per State Statute (Councilmember Willmus). Councilmember Johnson compromised and concurred with the sug- gested hours of operation of Councilmember Willmus in accordance with State Statute: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mayor Roe declared a consensus for hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Regarding seating capacity regulations or square footage restrictions presented by Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee opined that she saw no need for any restrictions. Councilmember Johnson, related to seating capacity stipulations, opined that he was leaning toward having no restrictions, since it was indicated in the business model to get people in and out as fast as they could and not encourage loitering. Councilmember Johnson questioned what enforcement controls the City would have in that regard anyway. Mayor Roe concluded a consensus that the City ordinance would have no ca- pacity and/or square footage restrictions. Regarding dancing, Councilmember McGehee opined that her only concern would be in any potential disturbance for other residential or business property around an establishment, even though the location of this establishment created a non-applicable situation. Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to having any regulation regarding dancing or music, opining that she couldn't remember the City having to ad- dress such a problem in the past, and questioning the role of government in get- ting involved in such an issue in the first place, by dictating a decibel level or play list. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 20 Mayor Roe noted that the City had a noise ordinance that should address any potential problems. Councilmember Pust concurred. Mayor Roe asked Mr. Miller, in existing liquor code requirements (Section 302.11) related to sales outside a structure on licensed premises (e.g. patios) whether they would have to meet city code noise requirements. Mr. Miller responded affirmatively, that this would be a secondary approval. Also, regarding City Code (Section 302.10) and evacuation of establishments within thirty (30) minutes past closing time, Mayor Roe questioned if that would apply to taprooms as well, with Mr. Miller concurring that it seemed an implicit part of the ordinance already and needed no further stipulations. Mayor Roe suggested, with concurrence by Councilmember Johnson, that the hours of sale of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. should be also be incorporated into Sec- tions 302.09, referencing State Statute 348.504. Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1428 (At- tachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 3, Section 302, Liquor Control;" establishing an on-sale brewer taproom liquor license category; amended as follows: Additional language in section 302.02, Paragraph F, Item 1: "The requirements of Section 302.10 of this chapter shall also apply to the brewery taproom clos- ing time." and in Section 302.09, brewery taproom hours of ale and operations shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven (7) days per week. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. At the request of Councilmember Johnson as to Pour Decisions' intended open- ing, Mr. Denglin responded that it was their hope to open by the Minnesota State Fair; and advised they would be providing notice of that opening. b. Authorize the City Attorney to File an Objection to the Rice Street Inter- change Project Community Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) with the Public Utilities Commission Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided background and expanded on the RCA dated July 16, 2012 regarding the status of Xcel Energy's Community Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) for the Rice Street Interchange Project and Cities of Roseville and Little Canada objections to the Public Utilities Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 21 Commission (PUC). Mr. Schwartz advised that the City of Little Canada, as a cost-share participant with the City of Roseville, supported this filing as well. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the original customer cost received from Xcel Energy as a preliminary estimate for undergrounding power lines from County Road B to County Rod B-2, and the final costs submitted for that work. Mr. Schwartz not- ed that, in seeking documentation for those additional costs related to a change of scope in the work, including direction boring versus open cutting and addi- tional traffic control costs conflicting with future reconstruction of the roadway and newly-relocated electrical costs. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City had been in attendance at each of the construction meetings held among contractors, subcontractors, affected cit- ies, Ramsey County and MnDOT at which Xcel was also a party in attendance, and noted that it had been very clearly outlined and Xcel was fully aware of their direction. As this information gathering continued, Mr. Schwartz advised that MnDOT permits for crossing Highway 36 south and the majority of the conflict on that south side of the bridge and involving the slope of the infiltra- tion pond, documentation was provided by the project team; and Mr. Schwartz advised that it was the consensus of the parties, other than Xcel Energy that Xcel should absorb additional costs based on their prior knowledge of the situa- tion and work to be performed. Since receiving Xcel Energy's Notice of Implementation on May 25, 2012 of the CRFS, for the past six (6) months, both the Cities of Little Canada and Ro- seville continued to seek documentation from Xcel Energy and have repeatedly asked for a meeting with them to discuss the fees. However, to-date, Mr. Schwartz advised that they had declined to provide any of their document, and with their Notice of Implementation of the CRFS, the City had sixty (60) days to file an objection with the PUC, with that deadline being July 25, 2012. Sub- sequently, Mr. Schwartz advised that another letter of request from the City had been sent to Xcel. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was staff's perspective that the City had a strong case to present to the PUC; and last week, Xcel Energy had finally agreed to a meeting to discuss it; however, they were proposing the meeting on July 25, 2012, the deadline for filing, and advised that they had recommended an exten- sion from the PUC to hear the City's objection. Mr. Schwartz advised that, while willing to meet on that date, staff didn't want to limit or negate their abil- ity to file an objection, or rely on the extension option. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz noted staff's recommendation to continue to work with the City Attorney, and Little Canada staff to pursue filing an objection, based on the results of further discussion with Xcel Energy, thus the requested action of the City Council. Mr. Schwartz noted that, in his phone conversations with Xcel Energy representa- Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 22 tives, they advised that there had never been any objection filed to-date against them for this type of process; and Mr. Schwartz suggested that an interest by Xcel Energy in keeping their record clean may have prompted their willingness to meet, even if on the deadline day. Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing the City Attorney to file an objection with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding the final costs and surcharge amount for the Rice Street overhead electric undergrounding pro- ject. City Manager Malinen, for clarity, confirmed that this motion is to authorize the City Attorney to file an objection, if the potential remains that no resolution is reached before the July 25, 2012 deadline. Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City not negotiate or settle for anything less than what is owed by Xcel Energy. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. c. Consider Approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of St. Francis for IT Services Finance Director Chris Miller noted that Action Items 12. C, d and e were all re- lated; and provided a brief review of each request as detailed in the RCA dated July 16, 2012. Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Roseville and the City of Saint Francis (Attachment A) for the City or Roseville extension of MIS Services and Support. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. d. Consider Approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Anoka for IT Services McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Roseville and the City of Anoka (Attachment A) for the City or Roseville Information Technology Services and Support. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 23 e. Consider Establishing a New Position Within the Information Technology Division Based on required duties for the addition of these two (2) new clients, Mr. Mil- ler advised that larger network needs would be required. Mr. Miller noted that the RCA detailed the revenues and costs for this partnership. Mayor Roe, in terms of the difference in salary/benefits with revenue projec- tions, noted that the remainder was not all profit; with Mr. Miller concurring, noting that additional costs for software licenses, e-mail and internet access, and other operating costs would be included in the revenue projections. As an ex- ample, Mr. Miller noted that roughly $20,000 to $30,000 for software license would be required; and any remaining revenue would be used to offset some of the City of Roseville's fixed costs. Councilmember McGehee commended Mr. Miller for continuing to expand the IT serviced and make them self-supporting for Roseville, as well as allowing the City of Roseville to have an excellent IT Department. McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the creation of a new Network Service Specialist Position within the Information Technology Division, with the Job Description detailed in Attachment A of the RCA. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. Recess Mayor Roe briefly recessed the regular City Council meeting at approximately 8:07 p.m.,not- ing that the body would reconvene upon its return as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at approximately 8:13 p.m. Wal-Mart Store Use Appeal McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, recessing the regular City Council meeting and reconven- ing as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at approximately 8:13 p.m. for the purpose of considering a land use related to the proposed Wal-Mart Store. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; and Roe. Nays: None. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Mayor Roe provided introductory comments in the purpose of this Board in hearing two (2) appeals related to the whether or not Wal-Mart was a permitted use in its proposed Zoning Dis- trict. Mayor Roe identified the appellants as Ms. Karen Schaffer and a group of citizens identi- fying themselves as SWARN (Solidarity for West Area Roseville Neighbors). Mayor Roe re- 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. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 25 Ms. Schaffer opined that there was already an over-supply of retail in the community and the Comprehensive Plan vision did not support redevelopment or intensification of land use to provide yet more retail. Ms. Schaffer further opined that the proposed use did not cater to Ro- seville residents, and their business model encouraged soliciting consumers from adjacent ju- risdictions rather than catering to Roseville residents. Ms. Schaffer suggested that Ms. Schaffer, as an attorney, opined that she could carefully craft findings similar to those of the City staff; however, she opined that they didn't make sense in the big picture, when looking at the relationship between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, and were inaccurate based on a review of the Comprehensive Plan, Twin Lakes Business Master Plan, and AUAR for their vision and hopes. Ms. Schaffer expressed her appreciation of being able to come before the Board to make her presentation. Member Willmus thanked Ms. Schaffer for coming in, and noted that he had also served on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee for a time prior to his original appointment to the City Council, and was aware of the process from that perspective as well. Member Willmus asked Ms. Schaffer if she would liken this proposal to that of the Target site. Ms. Schaffer, while not being aware of the square footage of the Target Store, opined that a free-standing Wal-Mart Store would appear to be similar to the Target Store. Member Willmus advised that one thing he was struggling with was Ms. Schaffer's previous testimony before the Planning Commission and City Council where she and Mr. Grefenberg argued that Target and liar Mar should be designated "Community Business," not "Regional Business." Member Willmus asked Ms. Schaffer how she could reconcile that previous posi- tion with her apparent position expressed today. Ms. Schaffer, while not recalling the 2008 discussion, noted that the decision had been desig- nate the Target site as "Regional Business." Member Willmus, however, noted that at that time, Ms. Schaffer had been an opponent of that designation, supporting their designation as "Community Business." Member Willmus ques- tioned how he was to reconcile those two different opinions, that of Ms. Schaffer and from members of SWARN, and how he was to personally address that discrepancy. Ms. Schaffer opined that the main concerns at that time were based on the Har Mar Site and the desire to not position the Har Mar Mall as a nonconforming use; and suggested that this was the rationale for characterizing that"Regional Business"as well. Member Willmus clarified that the Har Mar Mall was designated "Community Business." Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 26 Ms. Schaffer admitted that there appeared to be some ambiguity; however, she opined that when studies were done on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, they never included such an intense use as proposed by a Wal-Mart development. As an example, Ms. Schaffer opined that there was no analysis of this type of traffic-generating use, even though she recognized that this may be an area of dispute. From her perspective, Ms. Schaffer opined that this gateway site, clearly visible from area freeways, was intended to have improved traffic connections to accommodate a regional draw. By definition, and as part of its history, Ms. Schaffer defended Target as having been conceived in Roseville, alleging that Wal-Mart's strategy was to com- pete with Target and in order to do so, needed to draw from beyond Roseville. In conclusion, Ms. Schaffer expressed appreciation to Member Willmus for his thought- provoking questions. Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN) (Attachment B) Gary Grefenberg, as a member of the SWARN Strategies Committee, representing more than seventy (70) families living west of Snelling Avenue in Roseville, as present to speak, in addi- tion to Mark Bradley, Megan Dushin, and David Nelson. Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane (SWARN Member) In introductory comments, Mr. Grefenberg expressed his appreciation of Community Devel- opment Director Patrick Trudgeon and his tutoring of SWARN representatives in how to file an appeal and his proactive role in keeping them informed of the process. Mr. Grefenberg also expressed his appreciation to Mayor Roe for his advice and counseling. Mr. Grefenberg stated that, if he was any part or shared any responsibility in leaving the impression at the recent Planning Commission that staff was at fault in providing information or not working with SWARN,he apologized. Mr. Grefenberg recognized Mr. Trudgeon's volunteering information without being asked, and was not being an obstructionist in any way. Mr. Grefenberg stated that the entire process since February 1, 2012 created come confusion, and that any fault lay at the feet of the final decision-makers, the City Council. Mr. Grefenberg again apologized to Mr. Trudgeon, agreeing to disagree with some of the findings detailed in his response and de- terminations of June 21, 2012. Mr. Grefenberg referenced SWARN's written findings and analysis (Attachment B) submitted in the hopes that the Board will review and find as a candid articulation of their concerns. Mr. Grefenberg noted that, it was not a coincidence that both he and Ms. Schaffer had served on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee; as well as he and other members of SWARN having been active in the previous asphalt plant use consideration. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the experience with the asphalt plant had prompted the group's concerns and at- tempts to make sure past mistakes were avoided. Mr. Grefenberg asked that, in a community as diverse as Roseville, they were seeking some justification for the Findings of Fact previous- ly presented in the Staff Report dated February 1, 2012; and now only started to come forward throughout this long process in Mr. Trudgeon's response dated June 21, 2012, and Staff's Re- port of July 16, 2012. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 27 Mr. Grefenberg stated that the primary concern of SWARN was related to the land use, and their standing that the proposed land use for this site is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg clarified that this is not about the size of Wal-Mart, even though this is a red herring to the group, but irrelevant to them as a body. Mr. Grefenberg clarified that SWARN had not accused any bad faith from the proponents of the project; but were focused on the process itself, how it had evolved, and the original determination made at the staff level through the Design Review Committee (DRC) in January or February of this year, and in closed meetings,that this was a permitted use. Mr. Grefenberg expressed hope that the process, moving forward, would be improved and pol- icy issues would be discussed openly and transparently. Mr. Grefenberg stressed that the way the process began had created an exaggerated and over- simplified staff recommendation in their February 1, 2012 report and recommendation that this proposed use was not only consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and that it was not in conflict with any of them. Mr. Grefenberg opined that, when the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies discussed liva- ble wages and economic development to encourage locally-owned, smaller businesses, it seemed to be in a totally different world than the reality of this proposed use. Mr. Grefenberg, as a participant in the Steering Committee discussions for the Comprehensive Plan, opined that this proposed use seemed so different than what their perspective had been of those discussions and what was included and adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg expressed his appreciation that the proposed justification or explanation had now come forward and the world of hyperbole had been left behind. Mr. Grefenberg proceeded to specifically address SWARN's areas of disagreement with the June 21, 2012 findings of staff, as detailed in their portion of Attachment B. Mr. Grefenberg asked that their appeal and/or documentation related to this appeal include the February 1, 2012 staff report and comments; and most importantly the December 9, 2011 letter from City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi, providing confidence to SWARN and their thought process. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the City Attorney letter and his and SWARN's interpretation of that le- gal opinion. Mr. Grefenberg further disputed staff findings, as providing in the written appeal. Mr. Grefenberg opined that SWARN may have dropped the ball with the Zoning Ordinance and their awareness of the process in adopting that updated Ordinance, and ensuring its con- sistency with the grand compromise achieved in designation of business districts in the Com- prehensive Plan, and how each designation is defined and distinguished. Mr. Grefenberg alleged that the Comprehensive Plan (page 4-8) under the designation of Re- gional Business did not include free-standing, large format uses; and from that perspective thought the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan were in conflict. In the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 4-23) describing Dis- trict 10 in which Wal-Mart is proposed to locate, Mr. Grefenberg alleged that neither the Com- Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 28 prehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance took such a use into account, and that the Zoning Ordinance didn't make it explicit, even though the vision would be for Mixed Use Residential and Ancillary Uses to support Office Use, and favoring small, local businesses. Mr. Grefen- berg opined that the Comprehensive Plan reflected the changes expressed by Roseville resi- dents for their community moving forward, and represented a contract between the City and its residents and was therefore more than just a vision and window dressing. Mr. Grefenberg cau- tioned that the concept that the Comprehensive Plan should direct the Zoning Ordinance, and serve as a framework or tool for future development was being lost. Mr. Grefenberg noted that whether the Zoning Ordinance was in conflict with the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan had been a recurring topic of discussion at Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meetings; and recalled that following adoption of the Plan by the City Council, it residents had been assured that a review of the various Master Plans would be reviewed and future development proposals based on those official controls, one of which was the Twin Lakes Master Plan in District 10. From SWARN's perspective, as well as those having served on the Steering Committee, Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was part of the compact or prom- ise made by the City Council that this previous work would be respected and adhered to. Mr. Grefenberg advised that this was the primary inconsistency between the Zoning Ordinance with the promises contained in the Comprehensive Plan. In referencing the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan (page 9), Mr. Grefenberg noted that Ms. Dushin of SWARN had discovered that future land use was for 0% retail. While respecting staff's opinion that retail was not prohibited in that District in the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Gre- fenberg advised that it had raised another question as to the role of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg opined that other cities did not view their Comprehensive Plan as an index of forbidden buildings, and the fact that it isn't listed as a prohibited use is a misunderstanding function of the Comprehensive Plan to give direction to the Zoning Ordinance (e.g. potential uses of mining or oil extraction) and served as an easy out, but didn't not adhere to the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, even if not specifically listed in its language. Mr. Grefenberg opined that part of the crux between staff recommendations and findings, from his perspective, and his interpretation that big box retail is not explicitly recommended, is based his concern that if such a use is not prohibited, it starts the City on a slippery slope and brings into question why a Comprehensive Plan is needed at all. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the City of St. Paul and their interpretation that just because a use may not be explicitly prohib- ited doesn't mean that is automatically approved as a project. Mr. Grefenberg opined that there were sufficient salient contradictions in staff's definition of CMU to suggest that the City Council had some discretion in its interpretation of the Zoning Code, and those apparent ambi- guities provided sufficient discretion to those office-holders to make a judgment as to whether a proposed use is permitted or not. Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was the desire of SWARN to move forward as well, and their intention was to express the perception of many Roseville residents on this important issue and the credibility of the process within the wider community. Mr. Grefenberg opined that those Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 29 residents had continually been told that there would be no more "big box retail" in Roseville. From a land use perspective for this site, Mr. Grefenberg opined that just because something is not recommended should have as much if not more authority than its being listed as not prohib- ited. Whatever happens, Mr. Grefenberg looked to Wal-Mart to be a good Roseville citizen and provide a positive contribution to the Roseville community; and expressed hope that the condi- tions applied to any approval would prove the concerns of a group of citizens wrong. Howev- er, Mr. Grefenberg concluded that it remained the perspective of SWARN that a Wal-mart didn't fit this site. Mr. Grefenberg stated that, whatever the ultimate decision was by the Board and City Council, SWARN would respect it. David Nelson,2280 W Highway 36 (SWARN Member) Mr. Nelson noted that, while a lot had been said and had been heard before, it was strange and disheartening to SWARN that they had to go through an appeal to be able to have this conver- sation. Mr. Nelson expressed his personal appreciation, as well as that of the SWARN mem- bership, for Wal-Mart's request to staff dated June 9, 2012 through their Attorney Ms. Susan Steinwall of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. (Attachment C), and Mr. Trudgeon's response dated June 21, 2012 (Attachment D). Mr. Nelson opined that, while staff's original report and rec- ommendation dated February 1 completely avoided the land use issue, Mr. Bartholdi's letter of December 9, 2011 addressed to the City Manager echoed the concerns being expressed by SWARN, even though SWARN hadn't been aware of that letter until recently. Basically, Mr. Nelson opined that the question came down to Regional or CMU designation, and it needed to be clarified. Referencing comments made by Janet Olson, a Roseville resi- dent, at the Planning Commission meeting last week, Mr. Nelson concurred that, if this use is approved for this site, the City was essentially throwing out the whole Zoning Map, question- ing the point of having it. As recommended in SWARN's interpretation of Mr. Bartholdi's let- ter f December 9, 2011, Mr. Nelson suggested that the Board follow his recommendations to avoid future conflict by making necessary amendments. Mr. Nelson questioned the rationale of Wal-Mart stating that they will only draw from a two (2) mile radius; and on what that data was based, and how it could be proven; and how the threshold of community business would be monitored. Megan Dushin,2249 St. Stephens (SWARN Member) Ms. Dushin summarized some arguments and provided her personal perspective on them. Ms. Dushin opined that it should be clear to a casual observer that the Wal-Mart proposal is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan. Ms. Dushin opined that the Twin Lakes Master Plan included 0% retail, specifically "big box retail;" and sought to attract head of household or living wage jobs. Ms. Dushin opined that the Wal-Mart proposal was incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan in a variety of ways, providing for no Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 30 additional commercial development for District 10 and employment as a primary orientation, which she read as living wage jobs, and providing a different kind of employment goal. More to the present point, Ms. Dushin opined that, under the Comprehensive Plan, the CMU designation excluded regional business; and further opined that anyone who believes that a 24- hour, large-scale store with its own dedicated freeway exit was not a regional business was se- riously out-of-touch with reality. Basing her opinion on 2008 comments as well, Ms. Dushin opined that it was equally absurd that Target was not also a regional business. Referencing the RCA dated July 16, 2012, specifically Section 2.6 (Comprehensive Plan), Ms. Dushin opined that it provided a good summary of the process to-date, with the Comprehensive Plan not used to enforce identified goals and objectives, and using the Zoning Code to imple- ment those goals and objectives. Ms. Dushin opined that, from her perspective, this meant the Zoning Code should be subservient to the Comprehensive Plan; and as further addressed in the December 9, 2011 Bartholdi letter confirming that conflict. Ms. Dushin questioned the tor- tured logic of considering a use not recommended against being the same as not prohibited. Ms. Dushin questioned if this proposed monstrosity was the vision of the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented by the proper use of the Zoning Code of planners for this showplace of thoughtful, innovative development. Ms. Dushin opined that the Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a Plan providing comprehensive review to address all issues, not simply a wish list. Ms. Dushin clarified that she did not use the term "monstrosity" to disparage Wal-Mart, and opined that these arguments would apply to any big box retailer, whether Home Depot, Lowes, another Target Store, Fleet Farm, or Costco. Ms. Dushin asked that the Board to consider how this proposed use would fly in the face of the intention of previous plans to improve this part of the City. Ms. Dushin stated that she totally respected Mr. Trudgeon, and referenced his comments that when the zoning changes were being made, they were during the thick of the asphalt plant dis- cussion and development of performance standards; and this ambiguity may not have been no- ticed at this time in that broader discussion. However, Ms. Dushin opined that it is now being noticed. Mr. Grefenberg Mr. Grefenberg noted that the SWARN written appeal originally presented had omitted the last page, finalizing the SWARN conclusion, and asked that this obvious omission be accepted as part of their appeal and for the record, and was provided by Mr. Grefenberg as a bench handout. Similar to the questions asked of Ms. Schaffer, Member Willmus asked Mr. Grefenberg to re- spond to his previous testimony before the Planning Commission as the Comprehensive Plan Update was wrapping up; and his opinion that Target should be designated "Community Busi- ness;" and how he reconciled that with his current position. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 31 As a general question, Member Willmus asked at what point in this process, the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan was officially adopted back into the current Comprehensive Plan as a controlling document. Mr. Grefenberg Mr. Grefenberg recalled those 2008 discussions about Target, and the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee's recommendations that Target and Har Mar Mall both be designated "Community Business." In arguing that point, Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was his under- standing that Target would be grandfathered in, but any future expansion would be precluded. Mr. Grefenberg opined that he was not arguing that Target was a community business, but that future development would be prohibited. In the grand compromise, Mr. Grefenberg opined that it had been determined to leave the definition as is and accept it. However, Mr. Grefen- berg recalled Member Willmus asking him to stop pushing Target and as part of the compro- mise, any future development for big box retail on the Target site would be prohibited. Mr. Grefenberg stated that he was left with the impression that from now on the Target site and Rosedale were set aside for future big box, not prohibiting all big box, but separating those us- es within the Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Grefenberg opined that he had a different recollection that his argument was for limiting future big box expansion on the Target site. As far as a response about the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan adoption as a controlling doc- ument to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Grefenberg could provide no response. Member Willmus asked for staffs response to that question during their upcoming comments. Mayor Roe asked that City Manager Malinen pass down the additional bench handout from Mr. Grefenberg; and advised that whether or not it was included as part of the record would be determined by the Board later in this meeting. Public Comments Vivian Ramalingam,2182 Acorn Road Ms. Ramalingam shared several anecdotal comments regarding the proposed Wal-Mart use and apparent discrepancies between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; questioning per- spectives on size, what is or is not suitable for the site, and how to best resolve those discrep- ancies. Mary Alexander, 19 Mid Oaks Road Ms. Alexander questioned what was in this proposal for Roseville; whether there was a finan- cial or employment benefit; and how it would create advantages for the community's current, yet dwindling, family-owned independent businesses. Ms. Alexander expressed his endless frustration in the current traffic situation in traveling north on I-35W and her concerns with the impacts of this development on an already over-taxed system. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 32 In response to Member Willmus' questions of the appellants, Ms. Alexander advised that she had not been a part of that planning process, but as a resident in close proximity to Har Mar Mall, she and her neighbors had been avid followers of those discussions; and agreed whole- heartedly with Mr. Grefenberg's response about that discussion. Ms. Alexander opined that it was definitely an attempt to ensure that Har Mar Mall could never become a big box retail site, and that Target could never get any bigger; and was not focused on whether or not they should be designated Community Business,but trying to prevent regional businesses from coming in. Addressing Wal-Mart's claim that this proposed store would only serve a two (2) mile radius, Ms. Alexander questioned if they had looked at map and the actual circumference of the site to see what other uses were in that area. Ms. Alexander opined that the store would not draw from the used car dealers or fuel tank farm, or from the major freeway intersection. Ms. Alex- ander opined that it those properties were removed from that radii, there weren't many residen- tial properties from which to draw their customers, negating any practical assertion that a two (2) mile radius of this store could support it. Ms.Alexander opined that the Comprehensive Plan process was intended to guarantee that this area of Roseville would be a nice, well-developed area, and be an asset to the community. By bending the rules or setting a precedent, Ms. Alexander opined that it only opened the entire area to the next developer and provided for no assurances that another undesirable use or a patchwork of such development would locate there. Ms. Alexander opined that the people in- volved in planning this area were thoughtful, and it was a lengthy process; and further opined that she found it really frustrating that it now appears that things are being twisted for the bene- fit of a large scale business that was not within her understanding of the intent for this area. While having heard that Wal-Mart was being asked to make the "best Wal-Mart ever,"Ms. Al- exander questioned what advantage that would be for family-run stores; and suggested that those efforts and energies would be better applied and directed at those operations, rather than in support of a national or international corporation seeking handouts from the City. Reiterat- ing her original question, Ms. Alexander questioned what was in it for Roseville. Mark Rancone, Vice President and Representative of Roseville Properties, 2575 Fairview Avenue N, Suite 250, Roseville, MN (Land Owner) Mr. Rancone read from extensive written comments regarding their involvement in this lengthy development process in Twin Lakes; providing his findings. Mr. Rancone advised that he was a twenty-two (22) year employee of Roseville Properties, a forty (40) year corporate citizen and partner in Roseville. Mr. Rancone noted the ownership of other commercial and office buildings and properties within the community as well. Mr. Ran- cone proceeded to address both appellants' findings, in an attempt to clarify or correct certain misconceptions, and address some inaccuracies, and allegations. Mr. Rancone noted that, at one time, there had been a comprehensive development plan for that area, specifically to ad- dress uncontrolled runoff into Langton Lake and mitigate contaminated soils in the area. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 33 Mr. Rancone reviewed the history of this project in Twin Lakes since 2001 and the five years taken to develop a mixed use plan for the eighty (80) acres under their ownership in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for comprehensive mixed use development in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rancone noted the development in 2001 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan showing this corner as service with retail uses included. Mr. Rancone clarified that the intersection of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue provided for, and had always been in- tended, for a natural commercial use, not residential use. Mr. Rancone noted the first proposal in 2006 with the Costco proposal. With the Costco pro- posal, Mr. Rancone noted that there had been a Twin Lakes Stakeholder panel, which included fourteen (14) Roseville citizens, who spent six (6) months determining the best uses for that area. Mr. Rancone opined that there appeared to be a misunderstanding of what a mixed use plan consisted of, noting that while one large retailer was indicated to prompt and support other uses, it had been a majority conclusion that this was the route to follow. Mr. Rancone noted that there had been concerns expressed about additional retail at that time as well; however, based on a comprehensive analysis by staff, a professional urban planner, and citizens serving on that panel, it was their conclusion that the area could support a larger retail use as a draw for other supportive retail and residential uses. Mr. Rancone addressed another apparent disconnect, and noted that this parcel represented less than 1/10 of the development parcel; and that that small portion did not exclude mixed uses, whether or not additional retail is indicated. Mr. Rancone noted that, depending on the mar- ketplace, both in 2001 and now in 2012, other uses may be indicated, and had included upper- scale senior residential uses as well. Continuing his review of the history of attempting to develop this property, Mr. Rancone noted that, in 2001 and initial development of a Costco use at this site, the map called for service use on that corner. With the 2004 Stakeholder's Panel, and an 11th hour Court of Appeals by The Friends of Twin Lakes, and another court case fighting development, Mr. Rancone noted that the Court of Ap- peals had clearly stated that they were not throwing the case out due to the proposed "big box retailer," since, while not recommended in the Plan, it was not precluded; but had made their decision based on the City's practice of attaching Master Plans to its Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rancone noted, therefore, that based on that taking a super majority vote, and the Plan requir- ing four (4) votes to move forward, it was lacking that super majority. Mr. Rancone reiterated that their decision was not based on Costco as a proposed use, but the decision-making process itself. Mr. Rancone noted that Roseville had subsequently taken that system out of play to avoid a repeat. With that Court ruling, Mr. Rancone noted that a five (5) year project in the making went down the tubes, as well as residential uses proposed for the development; and ul- timately another Roseville business, Rottlund Homes, going out of business as a result. Since then, Mr. Rancone noted that there had been no interest in the market place for an office build- ing, no hospital, or any other pieces or uses. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 34 Then, Mr. Rancone advised that another delay for all Twin Lakes land owners was put in place in 2007 through updating the AUAR, with land owners awaiting the next level of zoning ordi- nances mandating uses. Mr. Rancone noted that the update provided a very comprehensive analysis of environmental and traffic issues, and provided three (3) different development sce- narios, one of which called for substantially more retail for that area as a possibility. Another delay in 2009, with a mandated update to the Comprehensive Plan, another exhaustive process, allowing citizens to weigh in for various types of business uses, but Mr. Rancone not- ed essentially creating yet another delay in marketing the land until that was resolved. Mr. Rancone noted that this was then followed by a mandated update to the City's Zoning Code, another delay in marketing the property. Mr. Rancone noted that Roseville Properties, unlike some of the land owners disputing the proposed allocation formulas and suing the City, had chosen to take the high road and wait the process out yet again. Mr. Rancone reiterated that the process allowed an opportunity for resi- dents, some in tonight's audience as well, to weigh in on that zoning. Meanwhile, Mr. Ran- cone noted that once again, marketing the property was delayed for that process, while another layer of regulations was added. Then, Mr. Rancone noted, the Regulating Plan defining design standards for Twin Lakes, created yet another delay and another hurdle to development of the land. Basically, Mr. Rancone noted that, from 2006 — 2011, land owners had been stymied from doing anything. Upon yet another potential delay with the allocation formula and subse- quent court case, Mr. Rancone noted this proved problematic and was eventually overturned in the courts. Mr. Rancone opined that it was disingenuous for speakers to imply that they had not had an opportunity to weigh in during the legal process. With the ruling from the Court of Appeals, Mr. Rancone noted that this provided an opportunity to tighten the rules for the size of build- ings and uses, with the Planning Commission and City Council determining to not make it so restrictive in order to address the realities of the marketplace. Mr. Rancone opined that in an ideal world, it would be wonderful to have smaller, community businesses; however, as a prac- tical matter, those smaller businesses could not afford to open as the first person on the block and proved to be unrealistic in today's world and market. Mr. Rancone asked that citizens look at the mixed use concept for the entire Twin Lakes Rede- velopment Area, not just the Wal-Mart proposal, which simply served as the first piece of the puzzle, along with the Park and Ride facility. Mr. Rancone opined that this would determine the next pieces of the puzzle. Mr. Rancone assured citizens that people would utilize Wal- Mart,particularly the senior population on a tighter budget. Contrary to Ms. Schaffer's allegations that retail properties pay less in taxes, Mr. Rancone clar- ified that this is certainly not the case from their perspective, with their property taxes higher than some other commercial properties in Roseville, opining that someone needed to vet that out. Mr. Rancone noted that retailers pay higher taxes per square foot than commercial busi- nesses, at least from their perspective dictated by the marketplace. Mr. Rancone noted that de- Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 35 velopment was dictated by the marketplace, and at this time, supported more retail. However, no matter the use supported by the public and their perception of what should develop, Mr. Rancone noted that nothing had developed in that area over the last fifteen (15) years. Mr. Rancone asked what the public expected to develop there, since locally-owned business didn't have a realistic ability to do so without a catalyst such as a major retailer leading the way. Regarding the SWARN appeal, Mr. Rancone noted that two (2) of the four (4) members of SWARN that he had met with in his office had expressed their preference for a Costco rather than a Wal-Mart. In response, Mr. Rancone questioned where they were five years ago, and noted that the economy had changed since 2005, along with technology and demographics, and when the "Friends of Twin Lakes" took the developer to court. Mr. Rancone opined that the Comprehensive Plan needed to respond to the realities, not the ideals, of the marketplace. Mr. Rancone noted, as an example of zoning designations, the shopping center where Byerly's was located, and questioned if they or Office Max was "regional" in nature. Mr. Rancone not- ed that many businesses perceived to be community-based or regional, were in fact national chains, with some of those squeezing out smaller retailers. Mr. Rancone opined that it was un- realistic to think neighborhood stores could develop this area on their own. Regarding the allegation by SWARN that the public was subsidizing $1.6 million for this de- velopment, Mr. Rancone questioned where that had come from. Mr. Rancone noted that many developers asked for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance with their development. How- ever, Mr. Rancone noted that Wal-Mart, nor Roseville Properties, was asking for any tax dol- lars, and that the City, County, and School District's tax bases would actually increases, signif- icantly more than realized by any of those jurisdictions over the last ten (10) years. Mr. Ran- cone noted that the City had in effect lost almost $1 million annually in potential property tax revenue with the property remaining underdeveloped in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Rancone reviewed actual figures for the project, noting that: • The project will contribute$410,000 as a Park Dedication Fee • The development will make necessary improvements at the intersection of County Road and Cleveland Avenue, estimated to be $600,000, with Wal-Mart paying their proportional share • The development will pay for upgrades at that corner estimated at$1 million • Wal-Mart will pay approximately 25% of the $1.6 million costs ($400,000) toward the freeway interchange improvements, with the balance funded through grants and Chap- ter 429 assessments as applicable Mr. Rancone opined that he saw the development contributing $1.6 million, not the City losing that amount. Regarding allegations that the property would pay no taxes for a certain period of time, Mr. Rancone opined that the statement was erroneous, anticipating that the tax value of the proper- ty would double or triple that currently paid to the City. Whether the City used TIF to pay off Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 36 remaining infrastructure costs for Twin Lakes Parkway, Mr. Rancone noted was at the discre- tion of the City;however, he clarified that the development would not be paying less taxes. Mr. Rancone expressed frustration, from a developers and/or property owners point of view, in not being able to market this property over the last eleven (11) years and the continual road- blocks encountered, even when Roseville Properties attempted to follow the rules, but contin- ued to find one hurdle after another. Regarding whether this use was permitted under Community Mixed Use zoning designation, Mr. Rancone stated that this use was representative of how the American consumer shopped today; and opined that it did fit with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rancone stated that there were currently fifty (50) Target Stores located within the Twin Cities area, in addition to other national retailers (e.g. Walgreen's and CVS Pharmacy) replacing locally-owned corner phar- macy, as well as regional grocery chains (e.g. Cub Foods, Roundy's/Rainbow) replacing com- munity-owned grocers. Mr. Rancone noted that the 160,000 square feet proposed for this Wal-Mart was way below the AUAR threshold considered for a retail use in that area. Mr. Rancone noted that, while the Court of Appeals ruling in 2006 was upheld, in 2009 an op- portunity was provided to make the Comprehensive Plan language more restrictive, but was not done. Mr. Rancone noted that the 2007 AUAR was scheduled for its mandated update next year, but remained in place today. Mr. Rancone questioned how to develop the land if they were asked to again wait for another update, when they'd already waited five (5) years. Mr. Rancone noted that it had been a two (2) year process to get the project to where it is today. Mr. Rancone clarified that the letter dated June 8, 2012 from Wal-Mart's legal counsel sought confirmation of what they'd been told by Roseville Properties. Mr. Rancone noted that Rose- ville Properties had recommended that Wal-Mart not seek any Conditional Uses, no variances or other potential roadblocks. Mr. Rancone noted that the Wal-Mart development team and City staff had been diligent in making sure the use and zoning were compliance, noting that none of the parties were looking for any more problems, but were eager to move forward after a delay of eleven (11) years or more. Mr. Rancone reminded citizens that Roseville Properties was a forty (40) year corporate part- ner in the Roseville community, not a "fly by night" developer coming into town to take ad- vantage of the community and then leaving. Mr. Rancone further noted that proposed projects received extensive and detailed scrutiny by regulatory agencies, in addition to the City. In conclusion, Mr. Rancone asked that the Board deny both appeals and move forward with approval at next Monday's City Council meeting. Mr. Rancone suggested that tonight's lim- ited attendance might serve to represent that the community was become tired of rehashing and debating this issue, and also felt it was time to move on. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 37 Additional Public Comment Phil Gravel,2176 Holm Street Mr. Gravel spoke in support of the project, and in opposition to the appeals. Mr. Gravel opined that this would be a great community facility and expressed appreciation to the applicant for having done everything asked of them by the City and its residents. Mr. Gravel also expressed his happiness in hearing that no tax increment financing (TIF) assistance had been requested, making him even more supportive of the proposed project. Mr. Gravel opined that the proposed use and project were in compliance with the 2030 Com- prehensive Plan, the AUAR determination, and the Zoning Code. Mr. Gravel further opined that there were a number of residents in the community who also supported the project, but for one reason or another, didn't generally attend these meetings. Mr. Gravel opined that staff had done a good job of outlining their findings, and expressed his appreciation to the Board and the City Council, anticipating that they would base their decision on the facts presented. Applicant Representative(s) Civil Engineer Will Matzek,Kimley-Horn and Associates, on behalf of Wal-Mart Mr. Matzek noted that Mr. Rancone had covered a number of topics and concurred with much of his position. Mr. Matzek noted that the goal of the Wal-Mart team was to be 100% compli- ant in working with Roseville; opining that it had been a long, two (2) year process, with many revisions and updates. Mr. Matzek clarified the purpose of the June 8, 2012 letter to the City was to avoid any eleventh hour issues to ensure that compliance. Mr. Matzek noted that the letter had been submitted to the City outlining their position in the matter, and their interpreta- tion that they were compliance with the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Matzek opined that staff's review, analysis and response to that submission, in a response from staff by letter dated June 21, 2012, outlined that compliance in detail. Mr. Matzek opined that the Wal-Mart development team was in agreement staff's review of the site and development proposal. As mentioned by Mr. Rancone, Mr. Matzek reiterated that this development represents a very small portion (14 acres, 11 of which are for the Wal-Mart project) of the Twin Lakes Redevel- opment Area totaling 275 acres. As far as the Community Mixed Use zoning district designation, Mr. Matzek advised that it was the opinion of the Wal-Mart development team that the designation was accurate and rep- resentative of the proposed Wal-Mart. Mr. Matzek noted that there were five (5) other Wal- Marts within ten (10) miles of this site, and twenty-three (23) within a twenty (20) mile area. Mr. Matzek clarified that it was Wal-Mart's intent to serve local residents and the Roseville community based on their business plan. Mr. Matzek noted the uses permitted in this zoning designation (e.g. groceries, pharmacy, auto parts, clothing, hardware) were all among those permitted uses under CMU zoning. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 38 Mr. Matzek reiterated that Wal-Mart was not seeking any TIF subsidy, and believed in being responsible to provide any improvements for their impact to the City's infrastructure now and into the future as they were projected. Essentially, Mr. Matzek stated that Wal-Mart believed they fit well into compliance, and their goals had always been to do so. Mr. Matzek thanked the public, the Commission, and staff for their time at tonight's meeting. At the request of Member Pust, Mr. Matzek introduced Mike Simms to address the two (2) mile radius comment. Mike Simms, President of Mid-America Real Estate,Wal-Mart Broker for MN Mr. Simms advised that existing stores tracked every customer using their store; noting that the Saint Anthony Wal-Mart store was currently seeing customer demand from the Roseville community. Mr. Simms cited data gleaned from the International Council of Shopping Centers a global trade association, an industry standard that outlined the definition and square footage of various retail designations and the trade area they pulled from. Regional center develop- ments are over 800,000 sq. ft in buildings and are located on 60 — 100 acres and draw from a radius of 5 to 25 miles. Community Center developments range in size from 125,000 to 400,000 sq. ft. in building size over 10-40 acres and draw from a radius of 3 to 6 miles. A neighborhood center development ranges from 30,000 to 125,000 sq. ft. in building size and are located on 3-5 acres and draw from a radius of 1 to 3 miles. Mr. Simms noted that were seven (7) regional malls in the metropolitan area. Mr. Simms further noted that Wal-Mart has twenty-five (25) stores in the metropolitan area, and that Target had fifty (50) stores in that same area. Mr. Simms opined that both Wal-Mart and Target had departed from a regional draw to a major shopping designation when they got into the grocery component. As a refer- ence point, Mr. Simms noted that shopping areas such as that in Maple Grove, MN was con- sidered a Community Center. Mr. Simms advised that the lessons had been learned over the years, and the last regional mall had been built at Eden Prairie Center over thirty-five (35) years ago. At the request of Member Pust, Mr. Simms reviewed important distinctions of stores within specific trade areas, and their proximity to each other. Mr. Simms also responded to Member Pust regarding the compatible uses generated by Wal-Mart and examples of those mid-box ten- ants based on available space (e.g. T.J. Max, Homegoods, Michaels, Office Max), as well as restaurants and additional service retailers that benefit from similar customers. As far as res- taurant uses, Mr. Simms advised that the marketplace was seeing limited full-service, sit-down restaurant growth, but the consumer was gravitating to "quick service" providers, such as Pen- era Breads, as an example. Community Development Analysis Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 39 On behalf of staff and the public, Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation for the Board's time and attention; and referenced staff's agenda materials and attachments provided in the RCA dated July 16, 2012. Based on tonight's presentation, Mr. Trudgeon expressed his personal appreciation, as well as that of staff, for comments from SWARN members. Mr. Trudgeon opined that, from his perspective, he thought this process had provided for good and open dis- cussions; and recognized the appellants' passionate concern for their community. For the benefit of the public and the Board, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed and clarified staff's role in enforcing the City's existing Zoning Code governing development in Roseville, represented by their response and reaction to the request from Wal-Mart dated June 8, 2012. Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff was mandated to use City Code to enforce development in the community, and did not, nor could they enforce code based on personal preference, but through use of the strict letter of the law. Mr. Trudgeon, in an effort to make it crystal clear for everyone, reassured all that the City's Planning staff had approached this review the utmost integrity and objectives and had completed their analysis and without any advocacy or partiality. In Section 2.0 of the RCA dated July 16, 2012, staff findings and analysis of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance (Title 10), the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2006 Court of Appeals ruling, 2011 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, add the Twin Lakes AUAR were detailed. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this analysis had been further detailed in staff's June 21, 2012 response to Wal-Mart's letter of June 8, 2012, and included in meeting materials. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff found the arguments of the appellants more about the Compre- hensive Plan, not the actual Zoning Code. However, it remained staff's determination that the Zoning Code clearly allowed for retail in designated areas, whether it appeared consistent with the appellant's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. In reference to the City Attorney letter from Mr. Bartholdi dated December 9, 2011 and refer- enced frequently by the appellants, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it was erroneous to state that the City Attorney recognized a conflict. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Council had recently reviewed that correspondence again, and found that there was no conflict indicated. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the letter was responding to question#3 from Mayor Roe as to remedies if any inconsistency was ever found to exist, and the Mr. Bartholdi's response in such an eventu- ality. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would let City Attorney Gaughan provide any additional comments related to that opinion. Since the Comprehensive Plan is not used as a regulatory document, even though in sync with the Zoning Code, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff's overall conclusion that the zoning code was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the zoning code contained significant things (Section 1007.05e) and the context of design standards laid out in the Regulating Plan for pedestrians, relationship to open and public spaces, as well as requiring a higher level of architectural elements to address General Policy Statements of the Comprehensive Plan. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 40 Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there were actually four (4), not three (3) business zoning designa- tions: Regional, Community,Neighborhood, and a hybrid defined as Community Mixed Use. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the appellants had used various sections as a litmus test to determine and support their perceptions of inconsistencies that could be construed as specifically arbitrary to a Wal-Mart development. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this method had never been done with other developments in the City; and reiterated his comment that inconsistencies could be per- ceived with any use within the community. Mr. Trudgeon reiterated the intentional lack of retail restrictions; even though in other areas (e.g. residential) there were very specific development limits; indicating that this must have been a conscious decision to not limit commercial development. Given recent court action, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the current Twin Lakes Infrastructure Funding Plan no longer had any standing to address the proposed Wal-Mart development. However, in staff's review, Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff felt the proposed development was consistent with the parameters and scenarios detailed in that AUAR, as well as the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan and incorporated into the Regulation Plan, the Twin Lakes Overlay Dis- trict, and Design Standards. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was the intent to incorporate those elements of the Master Plan to better enforce code, not as a stand-alone document, since it was hard to enforce those. In conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff stands behind their analysis date June 21, 201; and sees no reason presented by the appellants to change that staff opinion. No compelling rea- sons from appeals to change our recommendation Mr. Trudgeon opined that, while there appeared to be similarities between the proposed asphalt plant and this use, there was a distinct difference, since at that time an asphalt plant was a per- mitted use, but had been updated to make it a non-permitted use, with the updated Zoning Code eliminating that use. Unless the Zoning Code is revised, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the proposed Wal-Mart was a permitted use under that current Code. Regarding comments that there was too much retail in Roseville already, and not enough diver- sification of taxes, Mr. Trudgeon opined that this was up to debate from both sides. However, Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that neither he nor Planning Division staff could base a land use de- termination on that factor. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were several pending applications currently coming before staff for their initial review; and asked whether those applications should be rejected because they didn't meet something in the Comprehensive Plan, rather than considering the broad-reaching goals and policies outlined in that Plan. In the SWARN appeal, and staff's argument that Wal-Mart was not explicitly prohibited, Mr. Trudgeon assured the public and Board that staff's analysis went much deeper than that. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 41 In response to Member Willmus' question of when the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan had been reincorporated into the 2030 Comprehensive Plan updated, Mr. Trudgeon advised that when the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted, it was decided to review and provide an analysis of all Master Plans; with the determination subsequently made by the City Council that no additional language represented in any of those Master Plans needed to be included in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Extension of Meeting Curfew At 10:00 p.m. Johnson moved, Pust seconded, extending the meeting for forty (40) minutes to complete this item. Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference to hear the remainder of Mr. Trudgeon's comments; and then to continue this discussion at next week's meeting. Roll Call Ayes: Johnson; Pust;Willmus; and Roe. Nays: McGehee. Motion carried. Continuing his comments specific to the Twin Lakes Master Plan, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan components and Twin Lakes Overlay District incorporated some of the issued identified and for provide relevant enforcement of those important compo- nents from the 2001 document. Mr. Trudgeon further clarified that there was no particular mechanism to do so; and noted that if the City owned developable land it would be different, but that was not the case. Member Pust thanked staff for their presentation and work throughout this project. Member Pust questioned staff's interpretation that appellants were not arguing a conflict be- tween the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon responded that the appellants, and a majority of their respective argument, con- sisted of whether there was a conflict between those two documents and their language. How- ever, Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff did not see anything directly related to permitted use with the Zoning Code. Member Pust questioned if the only ruling for the Board to consider was that conflict. Mr. Trudgeon stated that he couldn't comment; but appeals were usually based on zoning code conflicts. During 2009 Comprehensive Plan discussions when square footage limitations were dropped, Member Pust questioned if the conclusion of staff was that the policy makers had made a choice to allow big box retail. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 42 Mr. Trudgeon noted that this had been vigorously debated at the Steering Committee level dur- ing that time, with a 100,000 square foot limit suggested. However, when the discussion ar- rived at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing level, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the square footage limitation had been stripped out and other modifications made to the Plan for recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon advised that further discussion and debate occurred at the City Council level; however, the City Council didn't conclude any specific lim- itations based on that discussion. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon advised that his conclusion, while there may remain an argument to provide some limitations, was that after hearing from both sides of the issue, the policy makers (City Council) determined that the language, as written, sufficed as evidenced by their adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update. Member Pust opined that by the time the City Council had discussed whether or not to keep the 100,000 square foot limitation, they were focused on Target and the Har Mar Mall, with both structures already developed well in excess of that limitation, and adding another oddity to the discussion. Member Pust noted her understanding of staff's position that it was inappropriate to look at CMU and focus on this one property since every particular property can't reflect a whole mix of uses. However, since there was nothing specific in the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan referencing back to the Court of Appeals ruling, Member Pust questioned how CDD staff would evaluate future proposals, if this was less than a certain percentage of the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; and whether a second applicant could make this same argument. Mr. Trudgeon noted that another applicant could make that same argument; however, there would be several limitations then in place, namely the AUAR. While it anticipated retail use on this site, it did not anticipate it on other sites, and an amendment would need to come for- ward before considering additional retail. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the AUAR update was im- minent, and he had always welcomed public discussion of the Twin Lakes area, it was obvious that this entire process to-date was moving the community to refine how they wanted the area and the community to develop or redevelopment. While there remained a reasonable disa- greement on the original intent for development in this area, Mr. Trudgeon opined that absent anything more definitive, staff relied on current information available. Mr. Trudgeon recog- nized that the City may need to be more proactive with development through its regulating documents in the future. Member Pust expressed her hope, once this process came to an end no matter the results, that staff keep track of these discussions, and the 2006 Court of Appeals ruling, even though it pro- vided no comparative factor for consideration. Member McGehee expressed appreciation to Member Pust for bringing that issue before the body; and as part of her research advised that she had pulled the appellate decision, and while not discussing the issue of big box retail on this site, it addressed the Zoning Code and Com- prehensive Plan not laying out a format across the site and implications of such a format. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 43 Therefore, Member McGehee opined that this had created the situation the City now found it- self in. Beyond that, Member McGehee stated that she had followed the Har Mar Mall issue closely; and concurred with SWARN's interpretation of how that compromise came about. As she has often mentioned to staff and residents, she was pleased in attending the first Steering Commit- tee meeting to find assigned square footages for each business designation to allow people to grasp each potential development. While some had argued aggressively, including herself that those square footages should remain to avoid any ambiguity, Member McGehee noted that by not doing to, the City no longer had a ledge to stand on in their decision-making. Member McGehee suggested that staff's determination appeared to be an attempt to remove any remain- ing ledges. Member McGehee noted that she did not imply that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was a control- ling document that provided legal ramifications. Member McGehee reiterated her ongoing support for B-6 Zoning in this area and her support of the use of Planned Unit Developments (PUD's), since the entire Twin Lakes planning and zoning was based on that designation. Using that designation in Section 1105.05 of the Zoning Code, Member McGehee noted that retail was not then a permitted use, and not even listed in the two-(2) page listing of permitted uses in a B-6 Zone. Member McGehee opined that she had been led to believe by staff that the entire B-6 Zoning had been carried forward into the Zoning Code update; however, she had since found this not to be accurate. Member McGehee opined that the flexible zoning tool allowed through use of PUD's was now gone; and further opined that the Regulating Map did not replace it sufficiently. Chair Roe asked staff to respond to Member McGee's comments about the former B-6 Zoning and use of PUD's. Mr. Trudgeon stated that he never said the B-6 Zoning and PUD applications were included in the new Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code, with no direct reference between the old and new Codes. Member McGehee questioned the purpose of calling the Twin Lakes Master Plan a controlling document. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that, "no," every word of the former document was not contained in the updated documents; and the specific standards and zoning code had been adopted by the ma- jority of the City's policy makers. Chair Roe directed Members to several administrative matters for Board consideration before moving forward. Chair Roe noted that a bench handout had been provided by SWARN as a completion of their appeal document, with their suggestion to the Board allowing it into the record. Chair Roe noted that his review of the document did not change the substance of their appeal. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 44 By consensus, there was no objection to including it in the record, and it was attached hereto and made a part hereof Chair Roe noted the handout by Mr. Rancone, apparently from the 2004 Stakeholder Panel, dated June 10, 2004, and providing a listing of potential opportunities in the Twin Lakes Rede- velopment Area. Member Pust opined that she had no problem making it part of the record, as long as it re- mained clear that it was a submission by Mr. Rancone and not presented as meeting minutes of the Stakeholder panel itself. From the audience, Mr. Rancone clarified that it was actually information provided to the Stakeholder Panel from their final meeting. By consensus, there was no objection to including this document in the record, and it was at- tached hereto and made a part hereof Chair Roe, recognizing two (2) separate appeals, questioned the Board on their preference to rule on them individually or in combination. Chair Roe noted that, after his most recent dis- cussion with City Attorney Gaughan during tonight's meeting recess, any ultimate motion would need to direct findings in support for or in denial of the appeals. Chair Roe clarified that this would be a choice for the Board majority to uphold the appeals or to uphold staff's deter- mination. Chair Roe noted that a motion either way should be followed by specific findings, and address whether or not the use is permitted, whether there is a conflict in the Zoning Code and Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, or whether there is a conflict between the Zoning Code and 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Member Johnson expressed his preference to rule on the entire matter all at once. Member McGehee stated that she had no objection, but was of the belief that staff didn't firm up with the existing Zoning Code, and her objection is with the non-compliance of the current Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; therefore wanted to take them up independently of each other. Member Willmus suggested it might be a cleaner process if the appeals were considered sepa- rately. Member Johnson stated that he would be amenable to that. Chair Roe questioned, with additional discussion impending, was it Member Willmus' inten- tion that each of those independent discussions be limited to that specific appeal? Member Willmus responded negatively,just to have separate motions for each appeal. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 45 Extension of Meeting Curfew Member Willmus noted that the meeting had originally been extended to 10:40 p.m., and given the time now, suggested the meeting be extended to the conclusion of this issue. Willmus moved, Johnson seconded to extend meeting further to conclusion of this matter Roll Call Ayes: Johnson; Pust; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe. Nays: None. Member Pust suggested framing up the issues as follows: 1) Does the Zoning Code allow retail? 2) Does the Zoning Code allow big box retail? 3) Is there a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code? 4) If there is a conflict, which way does it go? Chair Roe suggested that the question is does the Zoning Code permit retail in the CUM Dis- trict. Member Pust noted that, personally, she saw no basis for finding that it does not allow retail, therefore her rationale in splitting the question. As a non-Councilmember at the time and having sat through discussions regarding business zoning districts and their differentiations, Member McGehee opined that it did include retail, but in a different format. Chair Roe lead discussion specific to whether the Zoning Code permitted big box retail. Directing her comments to City Attorney Gaughan for his response, Member Pust opined that the important point is whether operation of the proposed Wal-Mart on this parcel was a permit- ted use under current zoning code, not whether there was a conflict between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Member Pust opined that, if the Board wished to frame up their findings on retail, she didn't think a motion on each one was necessary. Member Willmus, in that context and previous legal opinion of the City Attorney, opined that this proposal was consistent with CMU zoning designation and the Comprehensive Plan, For that reason, Member Willmus opined that the use was not precluded; with it not stating any- where in the Zoning Code that such a use is prohibited, and when looking through the Chart, it was clear that it would be a permitted use. Chair Roe clarified that Member Willmus was primarily relying on the Zoning Code chart; to which Member Willmus responded affirmatively. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 46 Member McGehee stated that she would maintain the opposite and find in the chart, both at- tached to City Attorney Bartholdi's letter and that displayed by Mr. Trudgeon, that retail and service uses were highlighted by an asterisk, and included with those items along the side of the table, with it never stated anywhere or encouraged that those listed uses should or were the same application if all merged under one roof in one store. Member McGehee opined that you could have any or all of those uses, but they were intended as independent units as part of the CMU district, with housing above those uses. Member McGehee further opined that this is where some of the original B-6 was implemented and now an argument is being attempted that those businesses were set aside and identified as unique, and can exist as unique entities else- where in Roseville and was the same as having them all under one roof and under one compa- ny served to misrepresent the intention of that zoning. Chair Roe, in taking discussion a step further, questioned whether Member McGehee would consider those uses in a CMU zoning district if they were independent businesses put together in a shopping center, with each one under different ownership, but under one management company. Member McGehee opined that she understood CMU as mixed use with residential above it, not like a strip mall,but with some integration, not all under one roof as a big box. Without any embellishment, Member Johnson spoke in support of staff's findings, concurring that this was a permitted use; and opined that he had heard no argument to sway him otherwise. Chair Roe clarified that Member Johnson was basing his decision on the staff analysis in the RCA dated July 16, 2012, with Member Johnson responding affirmatively. Member Pust opined that there was a problem with the zoning code definitions from her per- spective in reviewing the Regional Business, Community Business, and CMU Districts, recog- nizing that in highlighting those three(3) districts, discussions were ignoring the Neighborhood Business District. When looking at zoning as a whole and what categories things fit into, Member Pust opined that if she didn't do that and read each designation of the three (3) busi- ness districts, it was not indicative of how the zoning code was intended to read, since there were distinctions and differences of each district. Member Pust noted that this was what had led her to the same problem she'd had for weeks, opining that it was only the Regional Busi- ness District that talked about large format stores, while Community Business Districts talked about moderate-scaled stores and access to arterial streets. If she placed this proposed use, Member Pust opined that she would place in the Community Business District; however she further opined that it didn't fit in Community Business or under application in the CMU Dis- trict. Therefore, Member Pust stated that this made her question what that meant, since the definitions of each designation were vague, and her rationale in turning to the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding document, and to provide more understanding than she was able to find in the zoning code. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 47 In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, Member Pust stated that this caused her to agree with the City Attorney's advice given in December of 2011, suggesting that this ambiguity should have been cleaned up, but hadn't been done. Member Pust stated that this created a problem in her reliance with staff's analysis only because these particular findings were not sustainable in her opinion. Under those circumstances, Member Pust opined that the same conclusions may be drawn as in staff's analysis, but not using the same justification or rationale as detailed to support their findings. Member Pust opined that statements could be sustained that the CMU District does not limit, restrict or prohibit use size or that it differentiates between large- and moderate-scoped stores. Based on these concerns, Member Pust advised that she couldn't go along with how this is set up as long as the lines remain blurred for her between the Compre- hensive Plan and Zoning Code. Member Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan if a list of findings was needed tonight, or if their office would draft those findings for review, consideration and action at the next meeting. City Attorney Gaughan advised that there was no mandate to leave tonight's meeting with those findings; however, if staff's administrative determination was upheld or overturned, spe- cific findings would be needed, based on fine tuning of the Board's analysis, and could be pre- sented at a future meeting. Member Willmus suggested that the Board act on the two (2) appeals, and direct staff to return with those findings next week. Chair Roe noted that, even though not fine tuned, the Board would need to provide guidance to the City Attorney and staff to draft those findings. City Attorney Gaughan concurred, noting that staff had laid out their analysis that could be fol- lowed for the findings at the Board's direction; however, the Board may wish to point to sever- al specific areas that specifically contoured that analysis adopted by the Board; or of the appel- lants findings as well. Member McGehee noted that, in past similar situations, the City Attorney prepared findings for both points of view for the City Council and/or Board to consider. Member McGehee advised that she had asked for such a document from the City Attorney for either course of action to provide a thorough look.at the issues brought forward by the appellants and staff. Member McGehee sought consensus to pursue this as a reasonable request by the Board of the City At- torney's office. City Attorney Gaughan expressed hesitation in their office creating any appearance that they or staff are keying up findings for the Board; and opined that it would be a difficult task for their office or staff to draft specific findings and await a line item veto one way or the other by the Board. City Attorney Gaughan advised that the Board identify findings they wish to adopt, and his office can fine tune the exact language and return for formal action after the Board's review and concurrence. City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that he was reticent to come to the Board Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 48 with specific findings before they were heard from the Board, and a majority decision brought forward. Member Johnson confirmed that his findings were based on the staff analysis, and referenced them in the staff report without taking time at this meeting to reiterate them in detail. Chair Roe clarified, for the benefit of the public and Board that the infamous City Attorney let- ter of December 9, 2011 was entirely his fault. Chair Roe advised that his attempt was to get an understanding of the issues at that time and how the City Council may need to address them moving forward. Chair Roe noted that the theoretical basis for the opinion of that letter at that time was to get a handle on various zoning designations. Chair Roe advised that, from his un- derstanding of that letter, and his subsequent discussions with City Attorneys Bartholdi and Gaughan,provided his basis for the way he was using various documents and official controls. Chair Roe reviewed his analysis of the Zoning Code and the language in the Statement of Pur- pose for the CMU designation, and the three (3) other business designations that by and large capture the language of the Zoning Code. Chair Roe spoke specifically to Member Pust's comments, opining that his interpretation was that there was not a conflict or problem to ad- dress, and in his review of the Comprehensive Plan for more clarity on those distinctions and his analysis, he had found the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan to be complimentary of each other during his deliberations. Chair Roe noted that this was important as it related spe- cifically to land use types in the Comprehensive Plan, not individual goals and policies throughout the plan. Chair Roe noted in his review of the CMU designation and uses in a common site or redevel- opment area, those uses were not stacked. Chair Roe stated that this told him that the CMU is talking about Community Business. Then in looking to that designation, and reference to a shopping center or free-standing, moderate scale store, he had found that somewhat problemat- ic. However, Chair Roe advised that the Comprehensive Plan language helped him to clarify that, as he reviewed the Regional Business definition, noting the distinction between the Com- munity and Regional Business Districts and that informing him through the market area topic, noting a distinct definition in the Comprehensive Plan with the Community Business designa- tion serving the local market area, and Regional Business usually serving a regional market area. Chair Roe advised that this helped him understand where to look at this, and as heard from the applicant and clarified further by the Real Estate expert, perhaps his understanding of Regional Business from his role serving on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee need- ed updating, since he had previously considered this type of store (e.g. Wal-Mart, Target) as Regional Businesses. As he learned more and understood it better, Chair Roe opined that he thought it best to consider them Community Businesses; and therefore he supported the desig- nation of this proposal as a permitted use in the CMU Business District. Member Pust noted this was an example of how people could look at the same thing and form p P p g o two different opinions. While Chair Roe picked out the distinction between regional and local market areas, Member Pust stated that she looked at regional as large, free-standing retail Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 49 stores; and opined that everyone had to be in agreement that Wal-Mart is a free-standing, large format store, even if Chair Roe concluded that it was a local store. With all respect given to the applicant's comments of the 3-6 mile radius for customer draw, Member Pust recognized that this has changed over time. However, Member Pust noted that in June of 2011, the body was told that a Wal-Mart store would draw from a trade area as far away as western WI based on the freeway system access. In reviewing the same materials, Member Pust recognized that the levels of importance of that information varied from one person to another. Member McGehee concurred with Member Pust's comments; noting that the visibility of this location in the community is included in the transportation plan; and in her review of the same information as Member Pust, she also referred to the previous Comprehensive Plan and stake- holder meeting discussions. Chair Roe refocused the discussion on the issue currently before the Board with the current Comprehensive Plan and updated Zoning Code. Chair Roe continued his position statement, noting that in his review of all statements in con- text of the Comprehensive Plan, both Regional and Community Business designations, they talked about freestanding stores, admittedly open to orientation and interpretation,but created a grey area if just location was the only consideration. Chair Roe noted that there were homes currently located in areas that could be designated Regional Business, but if all language of the definition was taken in context of the application, the same location has minor and major aug- menters. Member McGehee opined that she and Chair Roe were actually discussing the same things,but that this actually pointed out one more difference; and expressed her confidence that Member Pust, Chair Roe and she were each taking all points in those definitions together. Member Willmus stated his position that he found the proposed use consistent with the Zoning Code's general Statement of Purpose and Use Chart; consistent with the Statement of Purpose for CMU District designation; consistent with the Regulating Plan with square footage limita- tions not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore not a valid argument against this proposal. Member Willmus noted his further findings that the Twin Lakes Busi- ness Park Master Plan is a guiding document not a regulatory document; and that the Zoning Code has embraced that Master Plan by including specific regulations. Based on his findings, Member Willmus advised that he would be voting against both appeals. Member Pust expressed appreciation that Member Willmus didn't read in the underlying lan- guage,just the categories, opining that this served the City better. Member Pust, in referencing the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, noted that identification of that Master Plan as an official control, used in the legal terminology context, had been made by the City Attorney specifically as an official control and relied upon by the City in evaluating specific proposals and land use issues. In regard to Member Willmus findings, Member Pust opined that she found this one the weakest of all. Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 50 Chair Roe asked City Attorney Gaughan to provide comment on the official controls issue for a better understanding by the public and Board of official controls in the context of the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan. City Attorney Gaughan advised that this terminology typically takes on the form of the Zoning Code as an instrument putting into effect the Comprehensive Plan. At its most important level, City Attorney Gaughan noted that State Statute stated that if an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan controls. In essence, City Attorney Gaughan not- ed that this is most important for official controls, and the assumption that they are not in con- flict with land use decision-making. Chair Roe questioned, to the extent of any apparent conflict, if the official controls or the com- prehensive plan would then be amended. City Attorney Gaughan responded affirmatively, that the official control should then be amended to conform to the comprehensive plan. Member McGehee opined that it was her understanding all along that the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan was not consistent with the current Zoning C ode. Chair Roe noted that the question is whether the designation of the proposed Wal-Mart use as a big box was being compliance with the Zoning Code, and opined that there didn't seem to be consensus of the body. Member Pust suggested that the question be moved to a motion, since sufficient discussion had been held. Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, DENIAL of the appeal of Ms. Schaffer. Chair Roe clarified with Member Willmus that he was basing that denial on his findings in general pointed out earlier in his position statement; to which Member Willmus responded af- firmatively, clarifying that they were found in the July 16, 2012 staff report, subdivided in Sec- tion 2 of that report. Member McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, and specific issues listed; referencing her comments made at the beginning of tonight's City Council meeting. Chair Roe spoke in support of the motion, primarily because as he read Ms. Schaffer's appeal, it dealt significantly with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and how this proposal may or may not relate to those. From his perspective, Chair Roe opined that the Comprehen- sive Plan should be used more broadly than specific proposals, especially when considering the economic goals on a city-wide basis, and under the CMU designated area since this is only one Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 51 development in a larger area; and any proposal or use may not meet all the goals, but not inval- idating a use based on that rationale. Roll Call Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe. Nays: Pust and McGehee. Motion carried- Appeal denied Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, DENIAL of the appeal of SWARN, based on the same findings. Member Pust thanked Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Paschke for all their hard work; and clarified that, if anything she had said or done in her disagreement with staff's analysis had suggested that staff was doing anything from improper motives, apologized, noting that this was never thought of by her. Member Pust opined that both were stellar employees of the City of Rose- ville. Member Pust also thanked Mr. Rancone for his perseverance throughout this lengthy process, and for hanging in with the City throughout those years. Member Pust thanked Mr. Rancone for his comments about Costco, noting that it deserved to be said out loud, while clar- ifying that no disrespect was intended toward Wal-Mart. To citizens, Member Pust opined that they had done a great job, and thanked Mr. Grefenberg and Ms. Schaffer for the great job in presenting their views; opining that democracy didn't work if you didn't show up. To the ap- plicant, Member Pust thanked the development team for their professionalism throughout the entire ordeal; and expressed her hope that they felt that they were treated professionally and upheld the promises they had made to the City. Member Johnson echoed the comments of Member Pust, opining that everyone had been well spoken; and thanked staff for their hard work; and expressed appreciation to Mr. Rancone, as well as Mr. Grefenberg and Ms. Schaffer, opining that they had done a wonderful job. Member McGehee also echoed those comments. However, if specifics were desired, Member McGehee agreed with the points made in the SWARN document, specifically the section about the existing Zoning Code being in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and their findings listed in finding#6, also agreeing with their findings#2—5. Chair Roe echoed the comments of the Board, opining that everyone carried themselves with seriousness. Chair Roe advised that, regarding the process itself, he took the message that there were some things needing improvement for plat approvals moving forward. Chair Roe noted that this was already included in the City Council's annual work plan, an update of their Subdivision Ordinance; and in reviewing each section, there were some needing updating. However, Chair Roe advised that he was in agreement with staff that there wasn't any non- compliance concern related to this proposal. In the arguments made by the appellants, Chair Roe advised that his disagreement wasn't with them or their right to have a point of view, but Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 53 more with the specifics of their arguments. Chair Roe stated that he came to the conclusion and was confident that this proposal was a CMU Business use, was confident that Zoning Code requirements had been met, and that the Twin Lakes Regulating Map and Plan would regulate any additional parking or environmental concerns and make it fit all of the City's needs and meet the community's scale, scope and connectivity requirements. Based on that conclusion, Chair Roe spoke in support of the motion to deny this appeal. Roll Call Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe. Nays: Pust and McGehee. Motion carried—appeal denied. Willmus moved adjournment of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and reconvening in regular City Council session. Mayor Roe declared the motion failed for lack of a second. 16. Adjourn Pust moved,Johnson seconded, adjournment of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting, as well as the regular City Council meeting at approximately 10:58 p.m. Roll Call Ayes: Johnson; Pust; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe. 1 / Nays: None. I Daniel J. Roe,Iv..,ors ATTEST: r Will am alinen, City Manager Aegular.qty Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 30 1 W.-gin Ms Dushin questioned the rationale of Wal-Mart stating that they will only draw 2 from a two (2) mile radius; and on what that data was based, and how it could be proven; and 3 how the threshold of community business would be monitored. 5 Z summarized some arguments and provided her personal perspective on them. 6 a —B may' 7 M .D rin opined that it should be clear to a casual observer that the Wal-Mart proposal is in 8 conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan. Ms. Dushin 9 opined that the Twin Lakes Master Plan included 0% retail, specifically "big box retail;" and 10 sought to attract head of household or living wage jobs. Ms.Dushin opined that the Wal-Mart 11 proposal was incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan in a variety of ways,providing for no 12 additional commercial development for District 10 and employment as a primary orientation, 13 which she read as living wage jobs and providing a different kind of employment goal. 14 !� aek. �e-der 15 More to the present point, Ms. Harshin opined that, under the Comprehensive Plan, the CMU 16 designation excluded regional business; and further opined that anyone who believes that a 24- 17 hour, large-scale store with its own dedicated freeway exit was not a regional business was se- 18 riously out-of-touch with reality. Basing her opinion on 2008 comments as well,Ms. Dushin 19 opined that it was equally absurd that Target was not also a regional business. 20 21 Referencing the RCA dated July 16,2012, specifically Section 2.6 (Comprehensive Plan), Ms. 22 Dushin opined that it provided a good summary of the process to-date,with the Comprehensive 23 Plan not used to enforce identified goals and objectives, and using the Zoning Code to imple- 24 ment those goals and objectives. r opined that, from her perspective,this meant the 25 Zoning Code should be subservient • a e C omprehensive Plan; and as further addressed in the 26 December 9, 2011 Bartholdi letter confirming that conflict. Ms. Dushin questioned the tor- 27 tured logic of considering a use not recommended against being the same as not prohibited. 28 29 Ms. Dushin questioned if this proposed monstrosity was the vision of the Comprehensive Plan 30 to be implemented by the proper use of the Zoning Code of planners for this showplace of 31 thoughtful, innovative development. Ms. Dushin opined that the Comprehensive Plan is to be 32 used as a Plan providing comprehensive review to address all issues, not simply a wish list. 33 Ms. Dushin clarified that she did not use the term "monstrosity" to disparage Wal-Mart, and 34 opined that these arguments would apply to any big box retailer,whether Home Depot,Lowes, 35 another Target Store,Fleet Farm,or Costco. 36 37 Ms. Dushin asked that the Board to consider how this proposed use would fly in the face of the 38 intention of previous plans to improve this part of the City. 39 /'A-„,o. Dash 40 Ms. Dushin stated that she totally respected Mr. Trudgeon, and referenced his comments that 41 when the zoning changes were being made, they were during the thick of the asphalt plant dis- 42 cussion and development of performance standards; and this ambiguity may not have been no- 43 ticed at this time in that broader discussion. However,Ms. Dushin opined that it is now being 44 noticed. ,Regular City Council Meeting AND C Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 31 1 2 Mr.Grefenberg 3 Mr. Grefenberg noted that the SWARN written appeal originally presented had omitted the last 4 page, finalizing the SWARN conclusion, and asked that this obvious omission be accepted as 5 part of their appeal and for the record, and was provided by Mr. Grefenberg as a bench hand- 6 out. 7 8 Similar to the questions asked of Ms. Schaffer, Member Willmus asked Mr. Grefenberg to re- 9 spond to his previous testimony before the Planning Commission as the Comprehensive Plan 10 Update was wrapping up; and his opinion that Target should be designated"Community Busi- 11 ness;"and how he reconciled that with his current position. 12 13 As a general question, Member Wilhnus asked at what point in this process, the Twin Lakes 14 Business Master Plan was officially adopted back into the current Comprehensive Plan as a 15 controlling document. 16 17 Mr.Grefenberg 18 Mr. Grefenberg recalled those 2008 discussions about Target, and the Comprehensive Plan 19 Steering Committee's recommendations that Target and Har Mar Mall both be designated 20 "Community Business." In arguing that point at that time, Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was 21 his understanding that the existing Target Big Box store would be grandfathered in if its site 22 was designated Community Business.,but thus any future expansion would be precluded if the 23 site was so designated Community Business.. Mr. Grefenberg opined that at that time he was 24 not arguing that Target was a community business, but that by designating the Target site 25 Community Business future Big Box development would be prohibited. In what he described 26 as the a grand compromise, Mr. Grefenberg opined that it had been determined to leave the 27 definitions of Community Business and Regional Business as is but designate the Target site 28 Regional Business, and as a compromise he accepted it. ,•30 - - - - - - .• . . •.. , - • _ - . . - . . . . - .:: . Mr. Grefenberg stated 31 that he was left with the impression that from now en only the Target site and Rosedale were 32 set aside for future big box,not prohibiting all any big box development in Roseville,but sepa- 33 fating-keeoing those business uses distinct within the Comprehensive Plan designatierr. Mc 34 - - : _ . - - - - - _: . - .. :. . - - --. , .. - 36 37 As far as a response about the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan adoption as a controlling 38 document to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Grefenberg aid he did 39 not know the answer. 40 41 Member Willmus asked for stars response to that question during their upcoming comments. 42 comprehensive plan. Therefore staff has prepared an analysis reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. City staff concludes in its latest determination of compliance, however, with the following statement with which we respectfully and vigorously disagree. Staff's analysis finds that the Roseville Zoning Code is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and therefore the regulations within the Zoning Code are enforceable 6) The existing Zoning Ordinance allows rejection of Wal-Mart According to our reading, this proposal is not permitted in our current zoning and should not have been approved by city planning staff. This district is Community Mixed-Use, which is described in the Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 4 on Land Use as, "The mix of land uses[that]may include Medium-and High-Density Residential, Office, Community Business, Institutional, and Parks and Open Space uses" (page 4-8). Note that there is absolutely no reference to retail uses. If one assumes the current staff criteria that it is permitted since retail is not specifically prohibited, then rationally heavy industrial and mining would also be allowed. In our view, Wal-Mart does not qualify as a community business, but rather as a regional business. Regional business, according to the Comp Plan, includes "freestanding large format stores[and] is located in places with visibility and access from the regional highway system (I35W and State Highway 36)" (page 4-8). The Target store location is situated in a land-use designated Regional Business. There was an effort made during the Comprehensive Plan update several years ago to designate the area Community Business, but several council members, staff, and the Planning Commission insisted that its land use category fit the regional nature of this big-box retailer. It is noteworthy that this comparison is no longer being made by those who insisted on this land use designation but are now arguing that Wal-Mart is a community business use. The current zoning ordinance allows some discretion to the City when it comes to the question of approving plats. Section 1017.23 1102.03 entitled Requirements Governing Approval of Preliminary. P/atstates under subsection A the following: a. Recommendations by Planning Commission: The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may require such changes or revisions as the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the City. SWARN Appeal--luly 2, 2012 9 And under the Zoning Code's Chapter 1005. Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts, the following is given as the purposes of the Commercial and Mixed Use District: 1005.01 Statement of Purpose The commercial and mixed-use districts are designed to: A. Promote an appropriate mix o commercial development .es within the communi B. Provide attractive, inviting, high-quality retail shopping and service areas that are conveniently and safely accessible by multiple travel modes including transit, walking, and bicycling; C. Improve the community's mix of land uses by encouraging mixed medium-and high- density residential uses with high quality commercial and employment uses in designated areas; D. Encourage appropriate transitions between higher-intensity uses within commercial and mixed use centers and adjacent lower-density residential districts; and E. Encourage sustainable desi_n practices that a el to buildin!s private development sites, and the public realm in order to enhance the natural environment. Signed: SWARN -Strategies Committee Mark Bradley 1851 Shryer Ave Roseville, MN 55113 Megan Dushin 2249 St. Stephens Roseville, MN 55113 Sue Gilbertson 2000 Cleveland Ave. Roseville MN 55113 ."el ,/ Gary Grefenberg 91 Mid Oaks Lane Roseville, MN 55113 SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 10 ■ Dave Nelson 2280 Highway 26 W Roseville, MN 55113 Attachments: May 21, 2012, written SWARN statement to the City Council February 1. 2012. Compilation of Economic Development Chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objective in Conflict with the Marl-Wart development SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 11 33-eAkcit -1444101,o(-- 7/1 to Twin Lakes Stakeholder Panel. C . Roseville, Minnesota Commercial Sub-Developer OPPORTUNITIES'AND LIMITATIONS June 10,2004 OPPORTUNITIES 1. We can design and construct a trendsetting,very attractive commercial/retail component to a mixed use center. 2. We can create a new,attractive gateway to the City of Roseville. 3. We can create a new standard and level of landscaping, streetscape beautification,etc. 4. We can construct a project that will have an appearance that is entirely different than the standard retail product in the Roseville trade area. 5. We can attract new and desirable retail tenants to Twin Lakes, which will compliment the adjacent residential portion. We can attract these tenants only with a large user serving as an"engine". 6. We can leverage the desirability of the Roseville market and difficulty of obtaining approval into demanding that the tenants agree to uncomfortably high design and architectural standards. 7. We can reduce the size of the retail/commercial component from the previous range of 450,000--500000 s.f.to the range of 350,000—375,000 sf. 8. We can design a component that has an old,"Main Street"appearance and feeling. 9. We can inunediately construct a retail center that generates TIF proceeds and conttibutes to the overall regional development costs. 10. We can obtain rents from prospective tenants whieli-Would be the comparably highest rents within the.Roseville trade area to defray kighdevelopment costs., This will be the highest cost,comparable commercial development&Roseville, 11. We can bring new tenants and users to the Rosevilletrade area.1With ourhigh design standards,we can raise the bar for all retail centers in.Roseville. 12. We can limit development to one large:retail user(the"engine:). 13. We can help close the financing gap by reducing the retailkoinmercial portion-and increasMg the residential portion. 14. We can clean up existing environmental contamination in-accordance with MPCA standards. 15. We can improve access to and quality of the Langton Lake Park experience. 1 16. We can provide a link from the County Road C and Cleveland Avenue commercial thoroughfare to the Langton Lake Park°amenities. 17. We can provide attractive and needed links to the pedestrian and bikeways in accordance with the City of Roseville desires. 18. We can improve the existing storm water runoff conditions in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District approvals. 19. We can dramatically enhance the streetscape and frontage appearance of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue frontages. 20. We can create unique, attractive outdoor areas, sidewalk dining and sitting areas;etc., with an appropriately designed retail center. 21. We can design and feasibly lease a center which accommodates mainstream tenants that are a reflection of the desires of today's consumer-. 22. We can sell the land to another developer or to the City that desires to hold the land until alternative uses are feasible: 23. We can generate an enhanced return and higher property valuation from multi-level office/hospital/medical uses. LIMITATIONS 1. We cannot build or designa project that does not address current market demand/realities. We cannot build any commercial project without pre-commitments from tenants. 2. We cannot create the market or create;demand: For instance,we cannot create the demand for a hospital or medical campus. If there was existing demand,we could 'accommodate such pre-existing demand. 3. We cannot hold the land until'certain uses become feasible(i.e. office,medical,hospital, convention center,community center,etc.). For reference, carry costs are annually in the range of 12%,to 15%of property value. 4. We cannot build or construct a co imu ity center or other non-taxable uses in a redevelopment district with private funds. 5. We cannot construct only a portion of the initial development(i.e. the residential portion),and hold the'Commercial portion'for some future,-contemplated user. 6. We cannot build residential=throughout'the entire site Residential would'not:be appropriate at the commercial intersection of County Road.C and Cleveland. 7. We cannot feasibly construct and lease a retail/commercial center without a large user to serve as an engines We cannot get..Borders Books without the engine. • 2 3 Apple Store,Rosedale Center 10 Rosedale Center Roseville,MN 55113 rosedalecenter@apple.com 651 639-0316 www.apple.com/retail/rosedalecenter June 17,2012 12:01 PM Mark Rancone mer @roseprop.com Uncommon Sleeve MBA/Pro 13-Blue Strip $44.95 Part Number:H8553ZM/A Return Date:Jul.01,2012 For Support:www.getuncommon.com/contact/ MBP 13.3/2.5/2X2GB/500/SD $1,199.00 Part Number:MD101LUA Serial Number:CO2HN61GDTY3 Return Date:Jul.01,2012 For Support,Visit:www.apple.com/support Individual Educator ($100.00) APP FOR MACBOOK AIR/13"MACBOOK PRO $249.00 N Part Number:53191 LUA Agreement Number:970000014868721 Plan End Date:Jun.17,2015 Sales Associate ID:282226557 Serial Number:CO2HN61GDTY3 This plan is registered automatically. Verify your coverage at apple.com/support/a pplecare/ww/ For Support,Visit: www.apple.com/support Terms&Conditions: apple.com/legal/applecare Individual Educator ($66.00) Back To School$100 Mac App Card $100.00 N Part Number:MD181LUB -Gift Certificate Number***2454 No Returns For Support,Visit:apple.com/support/itunes/ww/ Back to School Savings ($100.00) Part Number:D5982G/A Sub-Total $1,326.95 Tax @7.125% $74.37 Total $1,401.32 Amount Paid Via Visa(A) $1,401.32 xxxxxxxxxxxx8943 21710C n CA Nttql.d.ak.t 47 46/b_._ _ Proposed Open Hours of the Pour House Tap Room at Pour Decisions Brewing Co. Based on our research of other Micro Breweries both in state and out of state we feel our proposed Open to the Public hours is fair and reasonable: Wednesdays 2-6pm Thursdays 4pm-10pm Fridays 3pm-10pm Saturdays noon-10pm Sundays noon-4pm (NFL off season) 11am-7pm (NFL season) Included are the results of our findings from both the in state and out of state markets. Note that many of the out of state breweries also offer a full menu,which lends itself to longer hours. Out of state breweries indicated by an * and shaded in grey are the ones most similar to what PDBC is, a brewery with no food license, but the ability to sell their beers on site. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM Brewery Location Tap Room Homes August Schell Brewing Co New Ulm Only post tour sampling Fulton Brewing Co Mpls Yes Thursdays 4-10 Fridays 3-10 Saturdays noon-10 Home Twins Games Harriet Brewing Mpls Yes w-f(4-6) Sat(1-6) Lake Superior Brewing Co Duluth Planned Leech Lake Brewing Co Walker Yes m-s(4-6pm) Lift Bridge Brewery Stillwater Yes r-f(5-8) Sat(2-5) Staples Mill Brewing Co Stillwater Yes Summer Monday,Tuesday& Thursday:3pm-8pm Friday and Saturday: 11am- 9pm Winter Monday/Friday:3pm-7pm Saturday:11am-9pm Proposed Open Hours of the Pour House Tap Room at Pour Decisions Brewing Co. Summit Brewing St. Paul No Only offer samples post tours. Tours:Tuesdays& Thursdays:1:00 pm Saturdays: 10:30 am, 1:00 pm,3:30 pm Surly Brewing Co Brooklyn Center Planned Who Where Why Hours �� San Diego County Small standup Monday-Saturday 11am to 9pm&Sunday 11am-6pm Green Flash San Diego County larger sit down Mon-Reserve for Private events Tues-Thurs 3pm-9pm Fri-3pm-10pm Sat noon-9pm Sun noon-6pm Alpine Brewing San Diego County small standup,this place has its Brewery Hours pub adjacent to the brewery. Tues-Sat noon-6pm No actual tasting in the brewery Pub Hours Tues-Thurs 11am-lOpm Fri/Sat 11am-Midnight Sun Noon-9pm Blind Lady Tap house San Diego County picobrewery restaurant Tue-Sun 11:30AM-Midnight Russian River Brewing California larger sitdown Hours:Sun.-Thurs. 11AM- 12AM Fri-Sat 11AM-1AM HAPPY HOUR MONDAY- FRIDAY 4-6:30 AND ALL DAY SUNDAY Carton Brewing NJ Not sure Sat&Sun 12-5pm Jester King Texas Med sit Saturdays from 1-4pm Ale Asylum Madison med sit,deli menu on site Monday-Thursday:11 am— Midnight Friday-Saturday: 11 am—Bar Time Sunday:2pm—Midnight Capitol Brewing Madison larger ratskeller,with outdoor Bier Garten Proposed Open Hours of the Pour House Tap Room at Pour Decisions Brewing Co. New Glarus Brewing New Glarus large sit Monday:4:00pm-CLOSE Tuesday:4:OOpm-9:OOpm Wednesday:4:00pm-9:OOpm Thursday:4:00pm-9:OOpm Friday: 12:OOpm-10:OOpm Saturday: 12:OOpm-9:OOpm Sunday: 12:00pm-CLOSE Keweenaw Brewing Houghton MI small sit Mon-Wed 3pm-10pm, Thu-Sat 11am-11pm, Sun Noon-8pm Arcadia Brewing Michigan med sit Mon thru Thur: 11am to 11pm (Arcadia Ales) Fri: 11am to Midnight Sat:Noon to Midnight Sun:lpm to 9pm Jolly Pumpkin Michigan not sure Sunday-Thursday 11:30am- (Traverse City) 10pm Friday-Saturday 11:30am- 11pm Denver very much like us,and they SUN-TUES:2PM-8PM believe in sasquatch WED-SAT:2PM-10PM Denver most important,they have Open 7 Days a Week, 11am exactly the same set up as us. 11pm Warehouse,small tap room