CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 49 stores; and opined that everyone had to be in agreement that Wal-Mart is a free-standing, large format store, even if Chair Roe concluded that it was a local store. With all respect given to the applicant's comments of the 3-6 mile radius for customer draw, Member Pust recognized that this has changed over time. However, Member Pust noted that in June of 2011, the body was told that a Wal-Mart store would draw from a trade area as far away as western WI based on the freeway system access. In reviewing the same materials, Member Pust recognized that the levels of importance of that information varied from one person to another. Member McGehee concurred with Member Pust's comments; noting that the visibility of this location in the community is included in the transportation plan; and in her review of the same information as Member Pust, she also referred to the previous Comprehensive Plan and stake- holder meeting discussions. Chair Roe refocused the discussion on the issue currently before the Board with the current Comprehensive Plan and updated Zoning Code. Chair Roe continued his position statement, noting that in his review of all statements in con- text of the Comprehensive Plan, both Regional and Community Business designations, they talked about freestanding stores, admittedly open to orientation and interpretation,but created a grey area if just location was the only consideration. Chair Roe noted that there were homes currently located in areas that could be designated Regional Business, but if all language of the definition was taken in context of the application, the same location has minor and major aug- menters. Member McGehee opined that she and Chair Roe were actually discussing the same things,but that this actually pointed out one more difference; and expressed her confidence that Member Pust, Chair Roe and she were each taking all points in those definitions together. Member Willmus stated his position that he found the proposed use consistent with the Zoning Code's general Statement of Purpose and Use Chart; consistent with the Statement of Purpose for CMU District designation; consistent with the Regulating Plan with square footage limita- tions not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore not a valid argument against this proposal. Member Willmus noted his further findings that the Twin Lakes Busi- ness Park Master Plan is a guiding document not a regulatory document; and that the Zoning Code has embraced that Master Plan by including specific regulations. Based on his findings, Member Willmus advised that he would be voting against both appeals. Member Pust expressed appreciation that Member Willmus didn't read in the underlying lan- guage,just the categories, opining that this served the City better. Member Pust, in referencing the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, noted that identification of that Master Plan as an official control, used in the legal terminology context, had been made by the City Attorney specifically as an official control and relied upon by the City in evaluating specific proposals and land use issues. In regard to Member Willmus findings, Member Pust opined that she found this one the weakest of all.