CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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