2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 16 Mart as Target’s largest competitor is zoned Community Business. Personally, Member 773 Strohmeier opined that he connected them both as a Regional Businesses. 774 Member Strohmeier opined that he saw zoning as the key issue; and while the numerous uses 775 could be discussed, based on the zoning, he thought the appellants provided good examples to 776 overturn staff’s administrative determination. 777 Member Lester 778 Member Lester concurred with Member Boguszewski’s comments, and advised he would not 779 reiterate them, given the efficient summary provided. 780 Member Lester opined that his biggest point was with the appeals, and while bringing out some 781 good points, noted that it was the charge of the Planning Commission to remove opinion and look 782 at the facts. Specific to the appeals, and what had been brought forward related to whether or not 783 the use violates the zoning ordinance, Member Lester opined that this needed to be the deciding 784 factor, not who the developer was, but the use itself. 785 Member Lester advised that his position remained as it had from the beginning, that staff’s 786 analysis was accurate, and based on his personal research and public testimony, his findings 787 were no different than those findings previously presented. 788 Member Cunningham 789 Member Cunningham, from a procedural point, referenced the letter from the City Attorney’s Office 790 provided as a bench handout out tonight, and addressing any potential conflicts of interest or 791 perceptions thereof. For clarification, Member Cunningham opined that she believed that legal 792 opinion requested by staff had been directed at her. 793 Member Cunningham advised that, prior to her service as a Planning Commissioner, but upon 794 hearing of a Wal-Mart in Roseville, her husband was extremely opposed to the idea and sent a 795 letter to that affect stating his opposition. Member Cunningham noted that her name had been 796 included on that letter as well. Since that original letter, and her subsequent appointment as a 797 Planning Commissioner, Member Cunningham noted that she had taken an Oath to abide by all of 798 the good faith standards and make decisions for the best of Roseville, not her personal 799 preferences. As part of that disclosure, and meaning no offense to SWARN, Member Cunningham 800 expressed her confusion, as well as that of her husband, in his listing as a founding member of 801 SWARN. Member Cunningham advised that he was unaware of that status, and had never 802 actually attended a SWARN meeting or taken an active role with the group, or even met with 803 anyone associated with SWARN, including Mr. Grefenberg. 804 Member Cunningham advised that she had also consulted with her personal attorney, and had 805 been offered a different opinion than that of the City Attorney in the bench handout, indicating that 806 her personal attorney did not see any conflict of interest. However, in the interest of full disclosure, 807 Member Cunningham brought the matter to the attention of the Commission for their 808 determination; and would respect the decision of the body as to whether she should recuse herself 809 or not. 810 Member Cunningham advised that she took her role seriously in serving the citizens of Roseville 811 and her decision to do so objectively; and admitted that she sometimes could be found shopping 812 at a Wal-Mart! 813 Member Boguszewski advised that his interpretation of the City Attorney’s opinion didn’t seem to 814 indicate a conflict of interest, just noting that, upon such disclosure, the body may determine 815 recusal of a member may be appropriate. 816 Chair Boerigter advised that, after his consultations with staff, and the disclosure offered by 817 Member Cunningham, from his perspective, it was up to Member Cunningham whether or not she 818 wished to recuse herself. Chair Boerigter noted that the City Attorney offered his opinion based on 819 the apparent facts before him at that time; and Member Cunningham’s disclosure as to whether 820 she has any relationship to SWARM had clarified any misconception in his mind. 821