2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 5 the Comprehensive Plan Update process, which he now found to be like an alternative universe 202 compared to recent discussions about not prohibiting large scale retailers. Mr. Grefenberg opined 203 that he had never met a zoning ordinance applied through restrictions, but rather by guarantees 204 on future development within the community; and that this seemed to him what the 205 Comprehensive Plan was intended to do (Attachment B, page 6, #3) 206 Mr. Grefenberg opined that this conflict was again addressed and repeated in the December 9, 207 2011 letter from City Attorney Bartholdi; and further opined that he found that letter supportive of 208 the findings of SWARN. 209 Mr. Grefenberg advised that a majority of SWARN’s appeal was based on the three (3) business 210 designations, as stated by Ms. Schaffer, and background materials prepared by staff that also 211 referenced it. Mr. Grefenberg opined that a compromise had been achieved at the 2030 212 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee level discussions, but was now being disregarded to 213 remove that zoning designation. Mr. Grefenberg referenced, as an example, designation of the 214 Target Store as Regional Business designation, but now the Comprehensive was not being 215 adhered to with a similar use by the proposed Wal-Mart. Mr. Grefenberg reviewed the definition of 216 Community Business and specific reference to it not being for free-standing, large-scale retailers 217 (page 9 of SWARN’s appeal, #6). 218 Ms. Dushin read the definition of Community Business (Comprehensive Plan, page 4-8). 219 Mr. Grefenberg opined that, by that definition in Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan (4-8), 220 provided by Ms. Schaffer, it intended exclusion of a use consisting of a 160,000 square foot super 221 center. 222 Ms. Dushin, referencing the lengthy June 21, 2012 staff report arguing their position, no reference 223 was made to the conflict of Regional and Community Business designations. However, Ms. 224 Dushin opined that this was clearly an issue, since staff had asked the City Attorney for an opinion 225 specific to that. 226 Mr. Grefenberg noted, for the Commission, that SWARN had not made any mention in their 227 findings, or in tonight’s verbal comments, to the Wal-Mart issues related to Mexico, insurance 228 issues, or about living wages and were attempting to play by the rules. 229 Mr. Grefenberg expanded his comments at this time to focus on government’s credibility with the 230 wider community. Mr. Grefenberg called attention to the charges public perceptions that Planning 231 Commissioners and City staff are corrupt and only concerned about their own welfare, creating a 232 wealth of cynicism. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the concerns he first heard at the May 21, 2012 233 Public Hearing at the Planning Commission, with citizens expressing surprise in not having heard 234 of this Wal-Mart proposal before, since they were under the impression that the Comprehensive 235 Plan limited regional businesses to the Regional Business Zone (e.g. Rosedale and Target sites). 236 Mr. Grefenberg opined that the community believed that their compact the City had made with its 237 residents would be used by staff as a framework to shape the character and enhance the quality 238 of life of Roseville, referencing page 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg opined that this 239 had created a problem with the credibility among those involved with the Comprehensive Plan and 240 City staff/officials, and created a situation that indicated the need for more vigorous attention. 241 In conclusion, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the determination of compliance with the 242 Comprehensive Plan seemed to take second place by the Planning Division staff, with that 243 determination first evidenced in a less than transparent manner, prior to any Public Hearing, by 244 the DRC in January of 2012. Mr. Grefenberg opined that this entire process promoted polarization 245 rather than collaboration; and further opined that an attorney shouldn’t be needed every time there 246 was disagreement between the public and staff. And Mr. Grefenberg opined that he was 247 concerned with the way the question was framed by staff for this proposal, as well as for the 248 previous asphalt plant. 249 Mr. Grefenberg stated that he would like less advocacy and more analysis from staff; and asked 250 that the Planning Commission recognize that residents were here to collaborate. Mr. Grefenberg 251 noted that some Roseville residents had done this before and could help improve on the process. 252 No matter the results of this process, Mr. Grefenberg emphasized the need to make sure citizens 253