2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 17 Member Cunningham noted that, those familiar with her were very clear on her ethics; and 822 advised that she would voluntarily recuse herself from any vote that presented a conflict of 823 interest. 824 By consensus, the body supported Member Cunningham’s vote on this issue. 825 Member Boguszewski opined that he supported Chair Boerigter’s interpretation, and respected 826 Member Cunningham’s viewpoint. Member Boguszewski noted the importance of individual 827 Members serving on a body who have their own opinions, usually not indicating any conflict of 828 interest. If a member was employed by or had any monetary interest in a decision-making 829 process, Member Boguszewski opined that was an entirely different matter. 830 Member Cunningham 831 Member Cunningham, stating her personal position, thanked those coming out tonight, opining 832 that she was inspired when she observed citizens taking an active role in their community, as well 833 helping the body in their role as Commissioners in making decisions. 834 Member Cunningham thanked Mr. Rancone and Roseville Properties for their years of balancing 835 the process and their property being held hostage by the process. If she was aware of a better 836 process, Member Cunningham stated that she would attempt to resolve that process issue. 837 Member Cunningham expressed her disappointment, as expressed by other members, in public 838 comment questioning staff motives. While not having served on the Planning Commission long, 839 Member Cunningham advised that it was her motto to assume positive intent and ask that others 840 in her life abide by that same motto. 841 Member Cunningham noted that there were nuances in every appeals case or legal case, and 842 each one presented a different opinion. Member Cunningham expressed her respect for the 843 opinion expressed by Member Boguszewski, with the exception of his opinion that if this case 844 were brought forward in court it would result in the same ruling. Member Cunningham opined that 845 she didn’t feel comfortable making that assumption. 846 Member Cunningham noted her struggle with this matter and her desire to come to tonight’s 847 meeting with an open mind. From her experience in growing up in Hibbing, MN and Wal-Mart 848 coming in, Member Cunningham noted that a number of “mom and pop” stores did actually close, 849 while a number of areas were then and continued to thrive more than before the Wal-Mart 850 development. However, Member Cunningham opined that she had yet to hear a compelling 851 argument why the Planning Commission shouldn’t consider the Comprehensive Plan. Member 852 Cunningham noted that she had heard and processes each reason as to why or why it isn’t 853 amenable to having a Wal-Mart in Roseville, but hadn’t yet heard a good reason why to not 854 consider that. 855 Because of that, Member Cunningham opined that her personal opinion was that the proposal was 856 not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as it did not promote small businesses, and did 857 not encourage living wage jobs. While recognizing the subjective nature of that argument, Member 858 Cunningham opined that facts and figures could be found to support the opposite side, but would 859 still not serve to change her opinion. 860 Member Cunningham opined that Wal-Mart did not serve to entice people to live and work in 861 Roseville, and seemed clearly to be a Regional Business. Member Cunningham agreed with 862 Member Strohmeier that Target, as a Regional Business designation, was consistent with a Wal- 863 Mart development as well. Member Cunningham opined that she had difficulty separating those 864 two separate businesses; and while understanding there may be other factors, those stated 865 tonight did not sway her one way or another. 866 Member Cunningham questioned what this development could do to balance the tax base in 867 Roseville, and while trying not to base her determination on that, but on whether or not 868 consideration should be given to looking at the Comprehensive Plan in making the decision, 869 opined that it was her duty to listen to all citizens of Roseville before making her decision. 870 Member Cunningham stated that she believes that the Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance 871 with this development and use; and respectfully disagreed with staff’s administrative decision. 872