2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 14 Furthermore, Member Boguszewski advised that, while it may have some relevance, at separate 667 is the issue of any hyperbole in the findings, since the administrative decision was made by the 668 Planning Department based on their judgment that a sufficient threshold was reached for 669 compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, or that an insufficient threshold if found out of 670 compliance. Whether words were used that were perceived by some to be hyperbolic, Member 671 Boguszewski opined would not be a factor in his findings; and while words may be found hurtful to 672 some, they were not germane to his findings on the validity of the administrative decision. 673 Member Boguszewski advised the key for him was the 2006 decision by the Court of Appeals that 674 he found to be extremely parallel to the appeal issue before the Commission. While it may be 675 unfortunate, Member Boguszewski opined that, if language in the Comprehensive Plan includes 676 terminology indicating something is “not encouraged or recommended,” the harsh reality is that 677 this is also reflected in the Court of Appeals ruling. Member Boguszewski opined that he was 678 under the impression that things would be no different this time around if the same pathway was 679 followed, resulting in the same ruling. To him, Member Boguszewski opined that this was a key 680 factor in his consideration. 681 In effect, Member Boguszewski likened the Commission as similar to the Supreme Court tonight: 682 not determining the merits of the case, but determining whether or not the administrative 683 determination was right. Member Boguszewski concurred with the caution expressed by Chair 684 Boerigter that comments be removed from the merits of a Wal-Mart in Roseville, since this isn’t 685 about that, but the issue was about whether a Wal-Mart development or use was prohibited in this 686 area. 687 To that point, Member Boguszewski opined that he was leaning toward agreement that the 688 Comprehensive Plan was designed to guide development of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area 689 in total, and not finding restrictions or limitations of any use, business or parcel throughout the 690 redevelopment area. Member Boguszewski advised that he was struck by the fact that about 150 691 acres of development area remained undeveloped, and this proposed use represented only about 692 10% of that total land; and does not in and of itself mean that the goals of the Comprehensive 693 Plan will not be met. As an example, Member Boguszewski opined that often the eye of the 694 beholder comes into play, and similar arguments could be used as to whether Rosedale is 695 promoting pedestrian traffic for tails. Member Boguszewski, using another example, opined that 696 “living wages” were another issue that was subjective depending on one person or another and 697 not always based on a national average, as referenced in the Comprehensive Plan goals, but 698 highly subjective and unenforceable by the City on businesses. Member Boguszewski questioned 699 if that language should serve to monitor development, their business plan, projected income, 700 revenue streams and their employment practices to determine whether it’s viable. Member 701 Boguszewski questioned how that could possibly be enforced without a review of their specific 702 business model. Recognizing that the Comprehensive Plan provided a lot of aspirational goals, 703 many of which were extremely worthy, they were by their very nature only aspirational and did not 704 have force. 705 Member Boguszewski opined that this also applied to considering Community Business and 706 Regional Business zoning designations, and as referenced was made to the December 9, 2011 707 City Attorney letter, he noted that Har Mar, zoned Community Business, was certainly a regional 708 draw, not just community, with Wal-Mart only a fraction in size of that of Har Mar. Member 709 Boguszewski opined that much of the resistance to Wal-Mart was about actual or perceived 710 dislikes about Wal-Mart and a qualitative and subjective view about that specific business. 711 From his perspective with a career in the planning and development area, Member Boguszewski 712 clarified that the City didn’t owe anything to a property owner or developer, or any other business 713 that may be as risk in the marketplace. While not part of his consideration in making a 714 determination, Member Boguszewski advised that he had found, from past and practical 715 experience, that often a major development such as Wal-Mart is proposing, serves to boost traffic 716 and encourage other business to follow that traffic. Member Boguszewski opined that there was 717 no question in his mind that Wal-Mart would create that traffic. 718 Member Boguszewski opined that the bottom line for him was that the City did not own this 719 property or these businesses. Member Boguszewski opined that it was easy to fall into the tarp to 720