|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012
<br />Page 7
<br />similarities between this Wal-Mart proposal and the existing Target Store, and its Regional
<br />305
<br />Business designation. In her personal review and comparison of the Map and different business
<br />306
<br />zoning designations throughout the City, Ms. Olson opined that there was a definite distinction
<br />307
<br />between Regional and Community Business designations. If the proposed Wal-Mart was to be
<br />308
<br />considered, Ms. Olson opined that it could only do so with a Regional Business designation, and
<br />309
<br />therefore, was not an appropriate use in a Community Mixed Business zoning district. Also, from
<br />310
<br />Ms. Olson’s perspective, this would therefore require that area where the Wal-Mart was proposed
<br />311
<br />to be rezoned as Regional Business. Ms. Olson opined that this doesn’t just affect the Twin Lakes
<br />312
<br />Redevelopment Area, but the entire community of Roseville, if there was no distinction drawn
<br />313
<br />between the three (3) business designations. Ms. Olson cautioned that this would allow any
<br />314
<br />business to locate anywhere as long as it fit on the property. Ms. Olson opined that this was not
<br />315
<br />city planning, but saying that Roseville was open for anything, anywhere. If citizens couldn’t refer
<br />316
<br />to and depend on the Zoning map for what could be expected to locate near them, Ms. Olson
<br />317
<br />opined that this allowed for no protection for their properties. Ms. Olson opined that it was vitally
<br />318
<br />important to have very distinct guidelines for the business district zones.
<br />319
<br />As mentioned by SWARN’s reference to the City Attorney letter and conflict between the City’s
<br />320
<br />Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Olson opined that the City’s Comprehensive Plan
<br />321
<br />controlled use, and also referenced the MN Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Even if not in conflict,
<br />322
<br />Ms. Olson opined that use of only the Zoning Code was too vague and didn’t provide for a clear
<br />323
<br />distinction. Ms. Olson noted that, at one point, those clear parameters were set based on square
<br />324
<br />footage, with 150,000 square feet as the upper limit; however, she noted that those parameters
<br />325
<br />had now been removed. However, Ms. Olson opined that the zoning map was an implied tool of
<br />326
<br />what Roseville is looking at for the Comprehensive Plan, and essentially if this proposal moves
<br />327
<br />forward, there will be no distinction in zones, and any business could fit in any business zone.
<br />328
<br />Land Owner Representative
<br />329
<br />Mark Rancone, Roseville Properties, 2575 Fairview Avenue N, Suite 250, Roseville, MN
<br />330
<br />Mr. Rancone advised that he was a twenty-two (22) year employee of Roseville Properties, a forty
<br />331
<br />(40) year corporate citizen and partner in Roseville. Mr. Rancone noted the ownership of other
<br />332
<br />commercial and office buildings and properties within the community as well.
<br />333
<br />With the consent of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Rancone asked to respond to both appeals, addressing
<br />334
<br />Ms. Schaffer’s comments first.
<br />335
<br />Mr. Rancone reviewed the history of this project in Twin Lakes since 2001 and the five years taken
<br />336
<br />to develop a mixed use plan for the eighty (80) acres under their ownership in the Twin Lakes
<br />337
<br />Redevelopment Area for comprehensive mixed use development in line with the City’s
<br />338
<br />Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rancone noted the development in 2001 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan
<br />339
<br />showing this corner as service with retail uses included. Mr. Rancone clarified that the intersection
<br />340
<br />of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue provided for, and had always been intended, for a
<br />341
<br />natural commercial use, not residential use.
<br />342
<br />Mr. Rancone noted the first proposal in 2006 with the Costco proposal. With the Costco proposal,
<br />343
<br />Mr. Rancone noted that there had been a Twin Lakes Stakeholder panel, which included fourteen
<br />344
<br />(14) Roseville citizens, who spent six (6) months determining the best uses for that area. Mr.
<br />345
<br />Rancone opined that there appeared to be a misunderstanding of what a mixed use plan
<br />346
<br />consisted of, noting that while one large retailer was indicated to prompt and support other uses, it
<br />347
<br />had been a majority conclusion that this was the route to follow. Mr. Rancone noted that there had
<br />348
<br />been concerns expressed about additional retail at that time as well; however, based on a
<br />349
<br />comprehensive analysis by staff, a professional urban planner, and citizens serving on that panel,
<br />350
<br />it was their conclusion that the area could support a larger retail use as a draw for other supportive
<br />351
<br />retail and residential uses.
<br />352
<br />Mr. Rancone addressed another apparent disconnect, and noted that this parcel represented less
<br />353
<br />than 1/10 of the development parcel; and that that small portion did not exclude mixed uses,
<br />354
<br />whether or not additional retail is indicated. Mr. Rancone noted that, depending on the
<br />355
<br />marketplace, both in 2001 and now in 2012, other uses may be indicated, and had included upper-
<br />356
<br />scale senior residential uses as well.
<br />357
<br />
<br />
|