Laserfiche WebLink
AttachmentB <br />rd <br />(page 3, 3 paragrap h). <br />3) <br />The Wal- <br />Plan in the following additional ways ( <br />see chapter 4 on District 10: Twin <br />Lakes): <br />a.W.®  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ «±¤³ ¨« £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¢ «¤ (¨­ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤ ³® <br />2®²¤£ «¤ 3°´ ±¤  ­£ 2®²¤µ¨««¤ #±®²²¨­¦²) ¨² ¯« ­­¤£ ¥®± $¨²³±¨¢³ ”“W <br />(page <br />4-23). The zoning ordinance fails to take this into account by not <br /> <br />. <br />prohibiting large-scale retail business <br /> <br />W4¶¨­ , ª¤² ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¶¨³§ ²§®¯¯¨­¦  ² ³§¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ <br />b. <br /> <br />(page 4-23).The zoning ordinance fails to take this <br />into account by not prohibiting limiting retail business in this area. <br />"4§¤ £¤²¨±¤ ³® § µ¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³  ² ³§¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ ®±¨¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¥´³´ <br />c. <br />This proposal is retail oriented, not employment. <br />d. Additional conflicts with the Economic <br />Development Goals and Objectives are listed on Attachment #2 of this <br />appeal. <br />4) <br />The Zoning Ordinance is in Conflict with the Twin Lakes Business <br />Park Master Plan <br /> <br />It appears the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan also guides development <br /> <br />: a <br />in this area because) the Comprehensive Plan states:The City intends to rely <br />on the following official controls and environmental studies to guide land use and to <br />(¯ ¦¤ “‘’)ÿ <br />b <br />and) city staff indicated in their report from just last fall (dated <br />9/12/11) for the Request to approve the Twin Lakes Sub-Area 1 Regulating Plan <br />for City Council that The City will continue to follow the 2001 Twin Lakes Business <br />The Wal-Mart proposal is incompatible with the Twin Lakes Business Park <br />Master Plan (see Section V on Proposed Land Use) in the following ways: <br /> <br />1. The proposed future land use is 0% retail (see page 9). The plan was, in <br /> <br />fact, withdrawn from review by Met Council when asked to provide <br />additional information regarding retail traffic and its impacts on 35W <br />because there will not be retail in the area (section II, page 2). <br />SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 <br />5 <br />Page5of18 <br /> <br />