2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 3 introduced themselves to the Commission: Mark Bradley, Megan Dushin, Gary Grefenberg, and 97 Mike Gregory. 98 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 99 At the request of Mr. Grefenberg, Chair Boerigter confirmed that he would not enact a time limit on 100 the group’s presentation, as long as it was within reason. 101 Mr. Grefenberg referenced the Written Appeal of SWARN and their attachments, with members of 102 the group present expounding on those written comments. 103 Mr. Grefenberg noted that the SWARN appeal had been drafted without legal consultation, and 104 was to convey the group’s frustration with the system for appeal by residents of administrative 105 decisions made by City staff and their subsequent recommendations to City officials as decision- 106 makers. Mr. Grefenberg stated that the appeal process itself needed improvement, opining that 107 the grounds for appeal specifically and that process was backwards. Mr. Grefenberg stated that it 108 was the responsibility of the Commission to ensure compliance with the City’s Comprehensive 109 Plan in accordance with their charge under State Statute; and to keep the promises made to 110 residents who were involved in the review and development of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan 111 Update, through serving on the Steering Committee. Mr. Grefenberg noted that it was interesting 112 that the two appellants, he and Ms. Schaffer, had both served on that Steering Committee, and 113 were now filing appeals since they didn’t feel that the Commission or City staff had taken the Plan 114 seriously. 115 Mr. Grefenberg initiated the review of the SWARN grounds for appeal, and initial staff 116 recommendations at the February 1, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Grefenberg, on 117 behalf of SWARN, disputed staff’s statements as hyperbolic and over-reaching. 118 Mr. Grefenberg reviewed his perception of non-compliance in direct opposition to staff’s 119 recommendations, referencing various staff reports to the Commission and City Council; the Twin 120 Lakes Business Park Master Plan (Table, page 9), the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Alternative 121 Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), and Zoning Regulations and Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area 122 Design Principles throughout his comments and in the written appeal. Mr. Grefenberg opined that 123 staff’s statements that the Zoning Code was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that 124 Wal-Mart’s proposal met those zoning requirements and was therefore consistent with the 125 Comprehensive Plan was an “aspiration than a statement of fact.” Mr. Grefenberg noted that the 126 initial idea of the Twin Lakes Master Plan has had a long and sordid history and was originally 127 developed in conjunction with a group of stakeholders, with references to retailers limited to 128 certain types of incidental retailers, but was opined that original intent was certainly not consistent 129 with the statements made by staff in their February 1, 2012 staff report to the Commission. 130 Mr. Grefenberg advised that SWARN was in agreement that the Zoning Ordinance was in conflict 131 with the Comprehensive Plan, and that Wal-Mart did not qualify as a Community Business 132 designation, but rather as a Regional Business designation as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 133 Mr. Grefenberg opined that the Zoning Ordinance was defective and inadequately represented the 134 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 135 Mr. Grefenberg opined that this situation with Wal-Mart was similar to what had occurred 136 previously during consideration of the asphalt plant in Roseville, when the Commission and public 137 was told that the only issue to consider was the outdoor storage, as the propped use was 138 “permitted.” Mr. Grefenberg noted that the Commission and public were given similar restrictions 139 regarding the Wal-Mart proposal and that the only consideration was specific to the plat itself. 140 Mr. Grefenberg alleged that, prior to that staff recommendation to the Commission, staff had met 141 “behind closed doors” as the Development Review Committee (DRC) and without any public 142 record, and had become advocates for the project rather than providing an open and unbiased 143 analysis. Mr. Grefenberg stated that the public wanted “findings of fact” provided, and were only 144 now beginning to get them with staff’s June 21, 2012 statement. Mr. Grefenberg asked that the 145 record of this meeting include the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 1, 2012, 146 along with written public comments received and staff’s recommendation to the Commission dated 147 February 1, 2012. 148