2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 13 analysis of the consistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that staff had 617 provided that analysis and answered those questions initially at the Planning Commission Public 618 Hearing held on February 1, 2012; and opined that staff’s conclusion at that time was that it was 619 consistent; and subsequently upheld by a majority vote of the Planning Commission. Mr. 620 Trudgeon opined that staff was never shy about telling people what they think about a proposed 621 use. 622 Mr. Trudgeon noted that he had met three (3) times with SWARN and consistently addressed 623 staff’s perspective. Therefore, to leave any impression that staff had been “hiding” was 624 disingenuous in Mr. Trudgeon’s opinion, and offensive. Mr. Trudgeon noted, specific to distinctions 625 between Regional and Community Business designations, during the Comprehensive Plan 626 discussions, the Har Mar Mall had originally been considered as a Regional designation. However, 627 after much debate, it was decided that the 400,000-square-foot commercial enterprise would be 628 designated Community Business. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was not automatic to say that “big” 629 equals “Regional” designation; and opined that he was unsure of how the appellants had drawn a 630 conclusion that the proposed Wal-Mart be considered as a Regional Business designation. 631 Member Strohmeier asked staff to respond as to whether the Planning Commission’s action this 632 evening--formulating a recommendation about the validity of the administrative decision being 633 appealed--constituted the adoption of an official control which is in conflict with the 634 Comprehensive Plan, thereby violating MN Statute 473.858. 635 Without review of that specific Chapter, Mr. Trudgeon advised he could not respond to Member 636 Strohmeier without more personal review of the Statute. 637 Member Strohmeier questioned if tonight’s action would be considered an “official control.” 638 Mr. Trudgeon advised that his response would be based on what was determined as an official 639 control. 640 City Planner Thomas Paschke opined that the requested action before the Commission tonight 641 was for their recommendation on a staff administrative determination and their interpretation of the 642 City’s Zoning Ordinance related to whether a specific use was permitted or not. Mr. Paschke 643 advised that it was not a decision on whether the Commission, as a body, creates an official 644 control, since the Zoning Code was the “official control.” 645 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at approximately 8:40 p.m.; and called for comments 646 and findings from individual Commissioners at their discretion. 647 Prior to stating his position, Member Boguszewski clarified the process and form of the findings, 648 whether included as part of the meeting minutes, in the form of a resolution, or how the record will 649 show the determination of the Commission regarding staff’s administrative decision. 650 Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Commission was not required to adopt a resolution, even though a 651 draft had been provided depending on their preference. Either way, Mr. Trudgeon advised that if 652 the Commission states they are adopting findings, they will be incorporated into a resolution or 653 motion as directed. 654 Planning Commissioner Position Statements 655 Member Boguszewski 656 Member Boguszewski thanked everyone for attending and for the heartfelt testimony provided in 657 writing and verbally. Member Boguszewski recognized that the appellants do not represent all of 658 Roseville. 659 Regarding the process itself, timing and sequence of events and “who did what and when,” 660 Member Boguszewski opined that the process itself was distinct from whether or not staff’s 661 determination was valid. Member Boguszewski further opined that whether or not the process was 662 less than ideal in and of itself was not a sufficient reason to overturn an administrative decision 663 and the merits of that decision. Member Boguszewski noted that all of those in attendance were 664 subject to that process, as well as the City Council, but that it would not enter into his findings on 665 the validity of the administrative determination. 666