CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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.