CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 27 Mr. Grefenberg stated that the primary concern of SWARN was related to the land use, and their standing that the proposed land use for this site is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg clarified that this is not about the size of Wal-Mart, even though this is a red herring to the group, but irrelevant to them as a body. Mr. Grefenberg clarified that SWARN had not accused any bad faith from the proponents of the project; but were focused on the process itself, how it had evolved, and the original determination made at the staff level through the Design Review Committee (DRC) in January or February of this year, and in closed meetings,that this was a permitted use. Mr. Grefenberg expressed hope that the process, moving forward, would be improved and pol- icy issues would be discussed openly and transparently. Mr. Grefenberg stressed that the way the process began had created an exaggerated and over- simplified staff recommendation in their February 1, 2012 report and recommendation that this proposed use was not only consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and that it was not in conflict with any of them. Mr. Grefenberg opined that, when the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies discussed liva- ble wages and economic development to encourage locally-owned, smaller businesses, it seemed to be in a totally different world than the reality of this proposed use. Mr. Grefenberg, as a participant in the Steering Committee discussions for the Comprehensive Plan, opined that this proposed use seemed so different than what their perspective had been of those discussions and what was included and adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg expressed his appreciation that the proposed justification or explanation had now come forward and the world of hyperbole had been left behind. Mr. Grefenberg proceeded to specifically address SWARN's areas of disagreement with the June 21, 2012 findings of staff, as detailed in their portion of Attachment B. Mr. Grefenberg asked that their appeal and/or documentation related to this appeal include the February 1, 2012 staff report and comments; and most importantly the December 9, 2011 letter from City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi, providing confidence to SWARN and their thought process. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the City Attorney letter and his and SWARN's interpretation of that le- gal opinion. Mr. Grefenberg further disputed staff findings, as providing in the written appeal. Mr. Grefenberg opined that SWARN may have dropped the ball with the Zoning Ordinance and their awareness of the process in adopting that updated Ordinance, and ensuring its con- sistency with the grand compromise achieved in designation of business districts in the Com- prehensive Plan, and how each designation is defined and distinguished. Mr. Grefenberg alleged that the Comprehensive Plan (page 4-8) under the designation of Re- gional Business did not include free-standing, large format uses; and from that perspective thought the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan were in conflict. In the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 4-23) describing Dis- trict 10 in which Wal-Mart is proposed to locate, Mr. Grefenberg alleged that neither the Com-