2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 15 compare a reality to a dream or ideal. However, Member Boguszewski opined that eventually, 721 something would develop on that site, but right now, nothing had developed to-date. Therefore, 722 Member Boguszewski noted that expectations of negative traffic impacts with this development 723 compared to the current lack thereof may seem disproportionately large. However, with the 724 potential of what could potentially locate there, Member Boguszewski chose to anticipate future 725 associated development of office, retail and support businesses, as well as other viable market 726 uses. However, Member Boguszewski noted that the development area would not remain a fixed 727 pie, and there would be growth involved, but it did not mean that local businesses would go under. 728 Member Boguszewski provided an example of businesses surrounding Rosedale Mall, and noted 729 some businesses perceived as local were actually owned by national chains, or national through 730 staffing, franchises, or affiliation. 731 Member Boguszewski responded to a public comment of one of those testifying at tonight’s 732 meeting, alleging that staff and/or individual members of the Planning Commission were on the 733 “dole.” Member Boguszewski opined that he found that comment personally insulting and 734 defamatory. Member Boguszewski stated that, to suggest that any of the Commissioners were 735 corrupt of that evidence was found that they were biased, based on their agreement or 736 disagreement with a viewpoint, was a form of social extortion. Member Boguszewski questioned 737 how such a comment had even been considered appropriate was insulting. 738 As stated by Mr. Trudgeon in his earlier comments, Member Boguszewski stated that he had no 739 other interest in his role of Planning Commissioner other than the betterment of Roseville, and 740 what that entailed through the drudgery of reading through volumes of material, his own research 741 on various issues, and determining his position on various issues based on the overall community, 742 and considerable time spent in serving in that role. 743 Member Boguszewski stated that he believed that Wal-Mart would not harm the community; and 744 as the “first kid in the sandbox” in Twin Lakes, could prompt that area to finally move into a thriving 745 development in the future. Member Boguszewski clarified, however, that this was not his rationale 746 in voting tonight, whether or not the case had merit. 747 Member Boguszewski advised that he would vote in support of staff’s administrative 748 determination, based on his belief that they made the correct decision. 749 Member Olsen 750 Member Olsen advised that it would be redundant to repeat everything Member Boguszewski had 751 so eloquently stated, and that he was in general concurrence with. Based on the merits of his 752 review, Member Olsen opined that staff’s administrative determination was valid in this case. 753 Member Olsen recognized the concerns expressed by some speakers and their perception that 754 something wasn’t right. Member Olsen also recognized the passion of those in the community who 755 care deeply about their neighborhood. However, Member Olsen opined that those concerns 756 needed to be refrained when they reached the point of questioning the integrity or credibility of 757 staff or individual Planning Commission members. 758 Regarding comments as to why an opinion would be sought from an attorney, Member Olsen 759 questioned why their legal opinion wouldn’t be solicited in reviewing these important issues. 760 Member Olsen used the analogy of “if you build it, they will come,” opining that this development 761 could serve as a starting point to provide the new energy for that area, as well as the entire 762 community. Member Olsen opined that it was his belief that such a development would create that 763 impetus. Whether the City could demand that this be the most aesthetically pleasing or 764 architecturally renowned Wal-Mart ever, Member Olsen questioned if the City could demand that 765 beyond the parameters of its design standards. 766 In conclusion, Member Olson reiterated his belief that staff’s determination is valid. 767 Member Strohmeier 768 Member Strohmeier opined that both sides had presented good arguments. However, he opined 769 that he remained conflicted with his perceptions of inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and 770 Comprehensive Plan. Using the Regional versus Community Business designations as an 771 example, Member Strohmeier noted that Target was zoned Regional, and by comparison, Wal- 772