CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 42 Mr. Trudgeon noted that this had been vigorously debated at the Steering Committee level dur- ing that time, with a 100,000 square foot limit suggested. However, when the discussion ar- rived at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing level, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the square footage limitation had been stripped out and other modifications made to the Plan for recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon advised that further discussion and debate occurred at the City Council level; however, the City Council didn't conclude any specific lim- itations based on that discussion. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon advised that his conclusion, while there may remain an argument to provide some limitations, was that after hearing from both sides of the issue, the policy makers (City Council) determined that the language, as written, sufficed as evidenced by their adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update. Member Pust opined that by the time the City Council had discussed whether or not to keep the 100,000 square foot limitation, they were focused on Target and the Har Mar Mall, with both structures already developed well in excess of that limitation, and adding another oddity to the discussion. Member Pust noted her understanding of staff's position that it was inappropriate to look at CMU and focus on this one property since every particular property can't reflect a whole mix of uses. However, since there was nothing specific in the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan referencing back to the Court of Appeals ruling, Member Pust questioned how CDD staff would evaluate future proposals, if this was less than a certain percentage of the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; and whether a second applicant could make this same argument. Mr. Trudgeon noted that another applicant could make that same argument; however, there would be several limitations then in place, namely the AUAR. While it anticipated retail use on this site, it did not anticipate it on other sites, and an amendment would need to come for- ward before considering additional retail. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the AUAR update was im- minent, and he had always welcomed public discussion of the Twin Lakes area, it was obvious that this entire process to-date was moving the community to refine how they wanted the area and the community to develop or redevelopment. While there remained a reasonable disa- greement on the original intent for development in this area, Mr. Trudgeon opined that absent anything more definitive, staff relied on current information available. Mr. Trudgeon recog- nized that the City may need to be more proactive with development through its regulating documents in the future. Member Pust expressed her hope, once this process came to an end no matter the results, that staff keep track of these discussions, and the 2006 Court of Appeals ruling, even though it pro- vided no comparative factor for consideration. Member McGehee expressed appreciation to Member Pust for bringing that issue before the body; and as part of her research advised that she had pulled the appellate decision, and while not discussing the issue of big box retail on this site, it addressed the Zoning Code and Com- prehensive Plan not laying out a format across the site and implications of such a format.