2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 4 Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephens Street 149 Ms. Dushin, expounding on written comments, spoke to the perception by SWARN for two main 150 points in which the Comprehensive Plan did not support this type of development, and referenced 151 a letter from City Attorney Charles Bartholdi to City Manager Bill Malinen, dated December 9, 152 2011. Ms. Dushin noted that three (3) questions had been presented by City staff to the City 153 Attorney at that time, and his responses were documented in that letter. Ms. Dushin 154 recommended that the Planning Commission, at some point, review that letter. Ms. Dushin 155 reviewed the points made on page 4 of SWARN’s appeal, Item 2 entitled “Zoning Ordinance is in 156 Conflict with Comprehensive Plan,” to detail the findings of SWARN. Ms. Dushin opined that the 157 City Attorney’s opinion obviously stated that there was a conflict, and that staff had been aware of 158 the issue, but nothing had been done between then and now, even with the advice of the City’s 159 legal counsel. Ms. Dushin questioned why nothing had been done to-date to eliminate those 160 conflicts. 161 Mr. Grefenberg respectfully requested that the December 9, 2011 from the City Attorney be 162 incorporated by reference into the minutes of this meeting. 163 Chair Boerigter clarified that he would accept those items for consideration by the Planning 164 Commission as requested by Mr. Grefenberg for the purpose of referencing them. However, Chair 165 Boerigter clarified that neither he or the Commission would make any determination of what the 166 City Council may or may not choose to accept as part of the record for their deliberation. Chair 167 Boerigter clarified that he was in no position to decide the record for the City Council, but was 168 willing to accept the items referenced for the purpose of tonight’s discussion. Chair Boerigter 169 advised that what became the formal record for the City Council would be determined by the City 170 Council, with the Commission not in a position to enlarge or narrow the scope of that record. 171 Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was “overkill” to describe the Wal-Mart proposal as consistent with 172 every element of the Comprehensive Plan, and referenced pages 4 and 5 of SWARN’s appeal, 173 and Attachment #2 to that document providing an excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan that 174 addressed living wage jobs. 175 Mr. Grefenberg noted that the Comprehensive Plan also provided for an open dialogue to be held 176 by project proposers, the neighborhood, and the broader community. However, Mr. Grefenberg 177 stated that the intended process had failed all of those parties, and that that an opportunity to 178 meet with the developer was never facilitated by the City. Mr. Grefenberg advised that SWARN 179 had met with representatives of Roseville Properties approximately two (2) weeks ago, somewhat 180 late in the process. Mr. Grefenberg advised the Commission, for their edification, that SWARN had 181 held their own community open house; and with some confidence opined that SWARN could 182 represent a fair portion of the community. Mr. Grefenberg thanked Roseville Properties for 183 agreeing to meet with them; and asked that the Planning Commission consider ways to improve 184 the process in the future. 185 Mr. Grefenberg noted that the Comprehensive Plan (page 4-23) referred to the Twin Lakes 186 Business Park Master Plan as an “official control.” 187 Ms. Dushin recalled the confusion from the February 1, 2012 Commission meeting about whether 188 that Master Plan had any relevance, since sometimes it was thrown out, and sometimes it was in. 189 Ms. Dushin opined that this seemed problematic since the Master Plan had strong statements 190 indicating that the proposed Wal-Mart would not be considered a permitted use as a big box 191 retailer, and created numerous ambiguous issues requiring a determination. In her research, Ms. 192 Dushin referenced a meeting from September of 2011 and staff report to the City Council at that 193 time about the Regulating Plan for this District, and indications by staff in that report that the Twin 194 Lakes Master Plan was still in place; however, in conversations it was deemed irrelevant. Ms. 195 Dushin opined that this created an apparent conflict. 196 Mr. Grefenberg again referenced the Comprehensive Plan (page 4-23) immediately before the 197 “Future Land Use” section; opining that he was not satisfied with staff “soft-pedaling” other 198 controls, especially the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Mr. Grefenberg noted that on page 20 of the 199 Plan, large retail was not encouraged and City policy was adopted to not expand retail areas. 200 When reading that statement, Mr. Grefenberg opined that he was reminded of discussions during 201