2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 6 understood the issues early in the process, rather than having to make appeals. Mr. Grefenberg 254 stated that citizens wanted analysis; and opined that this was a component lacking until recently. 255 Mr. Grefenberg opined that there was a strong case in the Comprehensive Plan that should lead 256 the Commission to understand that they had discretionary authority to find that this proposal is not 257 in compliance. 258 Mr. Grefenberg thanked the Commission for their time, and thanked Community Development 259 Director Trudgeon for his time consulting with and answering questions of SWARN, even though 260 they continue to disagree with Mr. Trudgeon. 261 Michael Gregory, 1945 Sharondale Avenue 262 Mr. Gregory provided his credentials and provided a summary of the social and economic impacts 263 of this retailer in the community. Mr. Gregory referenced several unbiased academic studies 264 demonstrating those impacts of such a development on its host community; and in direct 265 contradiction to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Twin Lakes Master Plan (SWARN’s 266 appeal Attachment #1, page 11). Mr. Gregory provided several hypothetical examples based on 267 that perception related to the Wal-Mart proposal; and potential impacts to current retailers in the 268 community. 269 Mark Bradley, 1851 Shryer Avenue 270 Mr. Bradley opined that the Comprehensive Plan was not a mission statement outlining general 271 goals, but was what it was and said what it said. Mr. Bradley stated that it was a comprehensive 272 plan addressing issues surrounding land use, and opined that no big box retailer was consistent 273 with the vision and plans for Roseville that had been in place for a long time, and were very 274 specific and clear. Mr. Bradley opined that it was the belief of SWARN that any big box retailer 275 would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Twin Lakes Master Plan, and urged the 276 Commission to find this proposal not in compliance. 277 Mr. Grefenberg noted that there was a minor omission to the SWARN appeal on page 9, Item 6, 278 and provided that missing paragraph as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part 279 hereof. 280 Chair Boerigter polled Commissioners as to whether they had any individual questions for the 281 appellants, with Commissioners having none at this time. 282 Recess 283 Chair Boerigter recessed the meeting at approximately 7:38 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:45 284 p.m. Chair Boerigter called for public comment at this time for public comment specific to the appeals. 285 Public Comment 286 Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane 287 Mr. Callaghan read through City Code, referencing Section 1001.04 and his interpretation that the 288 City Council recognizes the Comprehensive Plan as a policy for regulation of land use and 289 development in accordance with policies and purposes herein set forth. Mr. Callaghan further 290 referenced letters from staff stating that the Zoning Code dominated the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. 291 Callaghan opined that the City Council was required to follow their laws and the Comprehensive 292 Plan as such, and that it was not a choice. 293 Janet Olson, 418 Glenwood Avenue 294 Ms. Olson reference an e-mail that she had previously sent to Commissioners regarding the Wal- 295 Mart proposal, in which she pointed out that it was a zoning issue appropriate for the Planning 296 Commission to review and make a recommendation to the City Council, specifically defining the 297 differences in Regional and Community Business designation. 298 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that Ms. Olson’s e-mail had not been 299 included in the packet materials for this appeal issue, but that it was part of the public record 300 pertaining to Wal-Mart’s preliminary plat application. 301 Ms. Olson summarized her e-mail verbally; and thanked the appellants for their organized efforts. 302 Ms. Olson opined that the Community Business zoning designation should be in question and 303 compared the points made in her e-mail through reference to the City’s current zoning map and 304