CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 51 development in a larger area; and any proposal or use may not meet all the goals, but not inval- idating a use based on that rationale. Roll Call Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe. Nays: Pust and McGehee. Motion carried- Appeal denied Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, DENIAL of the appeal of SWARN, based on the same findings. Member Pust thanked Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Paschke for all their hard work; and clarified that, if anything she had said or done in her disagreement with staff's analysis had suggested that staff was doing anything from improper motives, apologized, noting that this was never thought of by her. Member Pust opined that both were stellar employees of the City of Rose- ville. Member Pust also thanked Mr. Rancone for his perseverance throughout this lengthy process, and for hanging in with the City throughout those years. Member Pust thanked Mr. Rancone for his comments about Costco, noting that it deserved to be said out loud, while clar- ifying that no disrespect was intended toward Wal-Mart. To citizens, Member Pust opined that they had done a great job, and thanked Mr. Grefenberg and Ms. Schaffer for the great job in presenting their views; opining that democracy didn't work if you didn't show up. To the ap- plicant, Member Pust thanked the development team for their professionalism throughout the entire ordeal; and expressed her hope that they felt that they were treated professionally and upheld the promises they had made to the City. Member Johnson echoed the comments of Member Pust, opining that everyone had been well spoken; and thanked staff for their hard work; and expressed appreciation to Mr. Rancone, as well as Mr. Grefenberg and Ms. Schaffer, opining that they had done a wonderful job. Member McGehee also echoed those comments. However, if specifics were desired, Member McGehee agreed with the points made in the SWARN document, specifically the section about the existing Zoning Code being in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and their findings listed in finding#6, also agreeing with their findings#2—5. Chair Roe echoed the comments of the Board, opining that everyone carried themselves with seriousness. Chair Roe advised that, regarding the process itself, he took the message that there were some things needing improvement for plat approvals moving forward. Chair Roe noted that this was already included in the City Council's annual work plan, an update of their Subdivision Ordinance; and in reviewing each section, there were some needing updating. However, Chair Roe advised that he was in agreement with staff that there wasn't any non- compliance concern related to this proposal. In the arguments made by the appellants, Chair Roe advised that his disagreement wasn't with them or their right to have a point of view, but