2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 10 but remained in place today. Mr. Rancone questioned how to develop the land if they were asked 462 to again wait for another update, when they’d already waited five (5) years. Mr. Rancone noted 463 that it had been a two (2) year process to get the project to where it is today. 464 Mr. Rancone clarified that the letter dated Jun3 8, 2012 from Wal-Mart’s legal counsel sought 465 confirmation of what they’d been told by Roseville Properties. Mr. Rancone noted that Roseville 466 Properties had recommended that Wal-Mart not seek any Conditional Uses, no variances or other 467 potential roadblocks. Mr. Rancone noted that the Wal-Mart development team and City staff had 468 been diligent in making sure the use and zoning were compliance, noting that none of the parties 469 were looking for any more problems, but were eager to move forward after a delay of eleven (11) 470 years or more. 471 Mr. Rancone reminded citizens that Roseville Properties was a forty (40) year corporate partner in 472 the Roseville community, not a “fly by night” developer coming into town to take advantage of the 473 community and then leaving. 474 Applicant Representative(s) 475 Civil Engineer Will Matzek, Kimley-Horn on behalf of Wal-Mart 476 Mr. Matzek noted that Mr. Rancone had covered a number of topics and concurred with much of 477 his position. Mr. Matzek noted that the goal of the Wal-Mart team was to be 100% compliant in 478 working with Roseville; opining that it had been a long, two (2) year process, with many revisions 479 and updates. Mr. Matzek clarified the purpose of the June 8, 2012 letter to the City was to avoid 480 any eleventh hour issues to ensure that compliance. Mr. Matzek noted that the letter had been 481 submitted to the City outlining their position in the matter, and their interpretation that they were 482 compliance with the City’s Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Matzek opined that staff’s 483 review, analysis and response to that submission, in a response from staff by letter dated June 21, 484 2012, outlined that compliance in detail. Mr. Matzek opined that the Wal-Mart development team 485 was in agreement staff’s review of the site and development proposal. 486 As mentioned by Mr. Rancone, Mr. Matzek reiterated that this development represents a very 487 small portion (14 acres, 11 of which are for the Wal-Mart project) of the Twin Lakes 488 Redevelopment Area totaling 275 acres. 489 As far as the Community Mixed Use zoning district designation, Mr. Matzek advised that it was the 490 opinion of the Wal-Mart development team that the designation was accurate and representative 491 of the proposed Wal-Mart. Mr. Matzek noted that there were five (5) other Wal-Marts within ten 492 (10) miles of this site, and twenty-three (23) within a twenty (20) mile area. Mr. Matzek clarified 493 that it was Wal-Mart’s intent to serve local residents and the Roseville community based on their 494 business plan. Mr. Matzek noted the uses permitted in this zoning designation (e.g. groceries, 495 pharmacy, auto parts, clothing, hardware) were all among those permitted uses under CMU 496 zoning. 497 Mr. Matzek reiterated that Wal-Mart was not seeking any TIF subsidy, and believed in being 498 responsible to provide any improvements for their impact to the City’s infrastructure now and into 499 the future as they were projected. 500 Essentially, Mr. Matzek stated that Wal-Mart believed they fit well into compliance, and their goals 501 had always been to do so. Mr. Matzek thanked the public, the Commission, and staff for their time 502 at tonight’s meeting. 503 Community Development Analysis 504 Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon 505 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Trudgeon provided a recap of staff’s analysis and findings, 506 as detailed in the staff report dated July 11, 2012; and attachments to that report, including the 507 request from Wal-Mart’s legal counsel dated June 8, 2012, and staff’s response dated June 21, 508 2012. Noting that the Commission had those materials in writing, Mr. Trudgeon simply highlighted 509 points of staff’s analysis. 510 For the benefit of the public, as well as the Commission, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed and clarified 511 staff’s role in enforcing the City’s existing zoning code governing development in Roseville, 512