CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 30 additional commercial development for District 10 and employment as a primary orientation, which she read as living wage jobs, and providing a different kind of employment goal. More to the present point, Ms. Dushin opined that, under the Comprehensive Plan, the CMU designation excluded regional business; and further opined that anyone who believes that a 24- hour, large-scale store with its own dedicated freeway exit was not a regional business was se- riously out-of-touch with reality. Basing her opinion on 2008 comments as well, Ms. Dushin opined that it was equally absurd that Target was not also a regional business. Referencing the RCA dated July 16, 2012, specifically Section 2.6 (Comprehensive Plan), Ms. Dushin opined that it provided a good summary of the process to-date, with the Comprehensive Plan not used to enforce identified goals and objectives, and using the Zoning Code to imple- ment those goals and objectives. Ms. Dushin opined that, from her perspective, this meant the Zoning Code should be subservient to the Comprehensive Plan; and as further addressed in the December 9, 2011 Bartholdi letter confirming that conflict. Ms. Dushin questioned the tor- tured logic of considering a use not recommended against being the same as not prohibited. Ms. Dushin questioned if this proposed monstrosity was the vision of the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented by the proper use of the Zoning Code of planners for this showplace of thoughtful, innovative development. Ms. Dushin opined that the Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a Plan providing comprehensive review to address all issues, not simply a wish list. Ms. Dushin clarified that she did not use the term "monstrosity" to disparage Wal-Mart, and opined that these arguments would apply to any big box retailer, whether Home Depot, Lowes, another Target Store, Fleet Farm, or Costco. Ms. Dushin asked that the Board to consider how this proposed use would fly in the face of the intention of previous plans to improve this part of the City. Ms. Dushin stated that she totally respected Mr. Trudgeon, and referenced his comments that when the zoning changes were being made, they were during the thick of the asphalt plant dis- cussion and development of performance standards; and this ambiguity may not have been no- ticed at this time in that broader discussion. However, Ms. Dushin opined that it is now being noticed. Mr. Grefenberg Mr. Grefenberg noted that the SWARN written appeal originally presented had omitted the last page, finalizing the SWARN conclusion, and asked that this obvious omission be accepted as part of their appeal and for the record, and was provided by Mr. Grefenberg as a bench handout. Similar to the questions asked of Ms. Schaffer, Member Willmus asked Mr. Grefenberg to re- spond to his previous testimony before the Planning Commission as the Comprehensive Plan Update was wrapping up; and his opinion that Target should be designated "Community Busi- ness;" and how he reconciled that with his current position.