2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 11 represented by their response and reaction to the request from Wal-Mart dated June 8, 2012. Mr. 513 Trudgeon noted that staff was mandated to use City Code to enforce development in the 514 community, and did not, nor could they enforce code based on personal preference, but through 515 use of the strict letter of the law. Mr. Trudgeon therefore noted his dismay in allegations that staff 516 was serving in an advocacy role versus that of unbiased analysis; and assured all that staff had 517 performed their role within those strict and unbiased confines in providing this and any other 518 analyses. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his personal lack of appreciation, and noted that he didn’t 519 accept it as any compliment to staff, to have allegations that they were advocating for any 520 particular development and/or property owner. Mr. Trudgeon, in an effort to make it crystal clear 521 for everyone, reassured all that the City’s Planning staff had approached this review the utmost 522 integrity and objectives and had completed their analysis and without any advocacy or partiality. 523 As to the specifics of that analysis related to the Zoning Code itself, and as detailed in the written 524 materials, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had found as follows: 525  The City’s current Zoning Code clearly and definitively allows the proposed retail store as a 526 permitted use. 527  In displaying the Use Chart from the Zoning Code, guiding CMU zoning designation, Mr. 528 Trudgeon reviewed specifics of Wal-Mart as a retail use, and highlighted the areas supporting 529 it as a permitted use, including general retail type uses, banks, grocers, and restaurant fast 530 food (each incorporated in the proposed Wal-Mart); providing a quick and simple analysis 531 indicating that the Zoning Code allows that use. 532  The Zoning Code imposes site requirements and design standards, as addressed and 533 scattered throughout the Code and the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan (Section 1005.07e) which 534 every development in Twin Lakes must meet. Since there are no restrictions in the Zoning 535 Code for “big box retailers,” there is no restriction for a Wal-Mart development. 536  Mr. Trudgeon displayed the previous zoning code designation for this area in Twin Lakes (B-6 537 District), upon which the 2006 Court of Appeals decision was heard, and clarified actual 538 language of the Court’s findings and ruling. 539 As to the specifics of the analysis related to compliance to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Mr. 540 Trudgeon outlined the following points: 541  Mr. Trudgeon noted that both appellants were involved in discussions for both the zoning code 542 and Comprehensive Plan updates. While recognizing those discussions were very contentious 543 at points with many differing opinions, Mr. Trudgeon noted that that the final determination 544 prior to their adoption was to exclude specific language that would trip a certain level for 545 square footage to determine whether a development was allowed or not. Mr. Trudgeon opined 546 that, since both documents were fully debated and subsequently adopted as they currently 547 stand, apparently no one – including the appellants – saw anything out-of-sync at that time, 548 even after a year-long review process by the Planning Commission and eventual review and 549 adoption by the City Council in December of 2010. Mr. Trudgeon noted that both appellants 550 provided public testimony about some inconsistencies they found and wanted changed in the 551 Comprehensive Plan; however, he didn’t hear anything about any inconsistencies with respect 552 to the Community Mixed-Use area until this proposal came forward. 553  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he strongly believed that the zoning code was an implementation 554 tool of the Comprehensive Plan under State Statute, Chapter 462.356 and procedures 555 outlined to affect the plan. Mr. Trudgeon displayed the Statute, subd. 1 related to the planning 556 agency of a comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereof, and the agency’s role in 557 studying and proposing to the governing body putting the plan or section into effect. 558 Mr. Trudgeon opined that the key phrase is “to put the plan into effect,” indicating to staff that the 559 Plan was not effective as a regulatory document until another tool was adopted (e.g. zoning code). 560 Mr. Trudgeon disagreed with attempts to take sections of the Comprehensive Plan out of context 561 to apply to a specific land use proposal. If the Comprehensive Plan is taken as a whole and 562 applied to all uses in the community, Mr. Trudgeon opined that few if any existing or proposed 563 uses would be found in compliance. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon noted the purpose of the zoning 564