Council discusses

Wal-Mart issues

Possibility of moratorium seems to be alive

By RON LARSEN

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- Even though the city attorney's opinion is that the city would have little or no legal leg to stand on in keeping Wal-Mart out of New Ulm, the three City Council members attending Thursday's informational meeting kept the possibility of a moratorium on so-called "big box" retail operations alive.

City Attorney Hugh Nierengarten told the group he based his opinion on the reports from various city departments that little, if anything, needed to be done to accommodate a 200,000 square-foot retail building.

A staff analysis of the city's zoning regulations summarized the situation, thusly: "The City's zoning regulations in combination with the use of the Development Agreement process allow the City to effectively control the development of a 200,000 square foot retail facility."

Nor did reports from New Ulm Police Department and New Ulm Fire Department raise any red flags.

However, two members of the "Concerned Citizens" group -- Bob Skillings and Dr. Ann Vogel -- urged Councilors Clark Tuttle and Sharon Weinkauf and Council President Dan Beranek to consider invoking a moratorium based on what a store like the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter would do to the city's "quality of life" as a result of local business failures.

"Our comprehensive plan calls for protecting our downtown. If we do (by allowing Wal-Mart in), great, but I think we need to take some time to decide that. I would hope the council would take six months to look into these issues," Skillings said.

"Because it's a complex issue, the council needs more time. This is a plea to go slow so the council can obtain information that's neutral and factual," Vogel said.

"If the pro-big box or anti-big box people want to research this and share what they learn with the council, that would be welcomed," Beranek responded. When Skillings and Vogel asked if there were a possibility of the moratorium coming up again before the council, he responded that, "Any councilor can bring it up."

"We have a business in Wal-Mart that can provide jobs with a salary that would be beneficial to many who are without jobs or have only low-paying jobs. I can't in good conscience vote against Wal-Mart when these people need them," Tuttle said.

"But what I need to know is what is the cost? If we lose businesses, what's the cost? Until I know that cost, I feel I could support a moratorium."

New Ulm resident Tony Miller told the councilors "you can't blame the businesses going out of business (on Wal-Mart), and I feel Wal-Mart would help (local businesses)."

As the debate became more heated, City Manager Brian Gramentz interjected that the name Wal-Mart didn't appear anywhere in the reports prepared by city departments.

"That was on purpose. Our staff asked the question, 'What is the difference between a 200,000 square-foot building and two 100,000 square-foot buildings side-by-side? The size was something that we could focus on," Gramentz said.

Attention then turned to reviewing revised wording of the city's fence ordinance. Gramentz said wording regarding maintaining visibility at street corners was changed "to make it more understandable."

Tuttle proposed settling lot-line questions by supporting agreements between adjoining property owners rather than requiring expensive surveys.