2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 18 Chair Boerigter 873 Chair Boerigter thanked everyone for their attendance and their comments, expressing 874 appreciation for their time and effort. Chair Boerigter also thanked Commissioners for their time 875 attending tonight, and their review of the numerous documents in preparation for tonight’s 876 meeting. Chair Boerigter noted that Commissioners served as volunteers without any financial 877 interest at all in their recommendations. 878 Chair Boerigter noted that he had been on the Planning Commission for a considerable amount of 879 time, coming on board at the end of the Rottlund proposal; and had served through the various 880 processes for the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Regulating Map, Zoning Code Amendments; 881 and when looking at the total picture, you had to understand how all of those pieces fit together. 882 Chair Boerigter noted during Comprehensive Plan Update discussions and whether specific 883 square footage limits on business zoning districts should apply, and while it might not always be 884 clear in the distinctions between Regional versus Community Business, that was how the Zoning 885 Code was finally written and adopted. 886 Chair Boerigter noted that his review of the Comprehensive Plan, and the appeals, focused on 887 whether the proposed use was permitted under current zoning code; and whether that zoning 888 code was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; not whether or not this particular project 889 complied with specific portions of either of those documents. As previously pointed out by Mr. 890 Trudgeon, Chair Boerigter concurred that if every business were held to pay living wages, there 891 would be few of the existing business in Roseville, or new business, found in compliance. 892 Chair Boerigter noted that, when the Commission had originally reviewed this proposal, they 893 considered the Comprehensive Plan as part of the Zoning Code, and in consultation with staff and 894 the City Council, they shared the majority opinion that there weren’t ultimately any conflicts 895 between the two documents; and the allowable uses under the Zoning Code was what would be 896 allowed for development in Twin Lakes. Chair Boerigter noted that the original determination 897 remained consistent with tonight’s discussion. 898 In considering whether Wal-Mart should be designated a Regional Business similar to that of 899 Target, Chair Boerigter noted the need to define “regional,” and drawing from outside the region. 900 Chair Boerigter opined that shoppers didn’t drive twenty (20) miles to Wal-Mart, since you never 901 had to drive more than five (5) miles to get there. Therefore, Chair Boerigter opined that Wal-Mart 902 could hardly be defined or supported as a Regional Business, any more than Rainbow Grocery 903 Stores. 904 In terms of prohibitions against a use, Chair Boerigter opined that the 2006 ruling of the Court of 905 Appeals and everything the City had done since, supported this as a permitted use. Chair 906 Boerigter opined that staff had made the correct administrative determination, and he supported 907 their determination, and it was now time to move forward. 908 Chair Boerigter opined that the recommendation of the body to the City Council is for support of 909 staff’s administrative determination that Wal-Mart is a permitted use. 910 MOTION 911 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Olsen to recommend to the City 912 Council, upon their review of materials, findings supporting staff’s administrative use 913 determination for a proposed 160,000 square foot Wal-Mart Store; with those findings as 914 detailed in the Staff report, specifically Attachment D, dated June 21, 2012; and directing 915 staff to incorporate those findings in support of their recommendation to the City Council. 916 Ayes: 4 (Lester; Olsen; Boguszewski; and Boerigter) 917 Nays: 2(Strohmeier and Cunningham) 918 Motion carried. 919 Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City Council was scheduled to address the recommendations of the 920 Commission at their Monday, July 16, 2012 regular business meeting, as the Board of 921 Adjustments and Appeals. 922