CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Aegular.qty Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 30 1 W.-gin Ms Dushin questioned the rationale of Wal-Mart stating that they will only draw 2 from a two (2) mile radius; and on what that data was based, and how it could be proven; and 3 how the threshold of community business would be monitored. 5 Z summarized some arguments and provided her personal perspective on them. 6 a —B may' 7 M .D rin opined that it should be clear to a casual observer that the Wal-Mart proposal is in 8 conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Business Master Plan. Ms. Dushin 9 opined that the Twin Lakes Master Plan included 0% retail, specifically "big box retail;" and 10 sought to attract head of household or living wage jobs. Ms.Dushin opined that the Wal-Mart 11 proposal was incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan in a variety of ways,providing for no 12 additional commercial development for District 10 and employment as a primary orientation, 13 which she read as living wage jobs and providing a different kind of employment goal. 14 !� aek. �e-der 15 More to the present point, Ms. Harshin opined that, under the Comprehensive Plan, the CMU 16 designation excluded regional business; and further opined that anyone who believes that a 24- 17 hour, large-scale store with its own dedicated freeway exit was not a regional business was se- 18 riously out-of-touch with reality. Basing her opinion on 2008 comments as well,Ms. Dushin 19 opined that it was equally absurd that Target was not also a regional business. 20 21 Referencing the RCA dated July 16,2012, specifically Section 2.6 (Comprehensive Plan), Ms. 22 Dushin opined that it provided a good summary of the process to-date,with the Comprehensive 23 Plan not used to enforce identified goals and objectives, and using the Zoning Code to imple- 24 ment those goals and objectives. r opined that, from her perspective,this meant the 25 Zoning Code should be subservient • a e C omprehensive Plan; and as further addressed in the 26 December 9, 2011 Bartholdi letter confirming that conflict. Ms. Dushin questioned the tor- 27 tured logic of considering a use not recommended against being the same as not prohibited. 28 29 Ms. Dushin questioned if this proposed monstrosity was the vision of the Comprehensive Plan 30 to be implemented by the proper use of the Zoning Code of planners for this showplace of 31 thoughtful, innovative development. Ms. Dushin opined that the Comprehensive Plan is to be 32 used as a Plan providing comprehensive review to address all issues, not simply a wish list. 33 Ms. Dushin clarified that she did not use the term "monstrosity" to disparage Wal-Mart, and 34 opined that these arguments would apply to any big box retailer,whether Home Depot,Lowes, 35 another Target Store,Fleet Farm,or Costco. 36 37 Ms. Dushin asked that the Board to consider how this proposed use would fly in the face of the 38 intention of previous plans to improve this part of the City. 39 /'A-„,o. Dash 40 Ms. Dushin stated that she totally respected Mr. Trudgeon, and referenced his comments that 41 when the zoning changes were being made, they were during the thick of the asphalt plant dis- 42 cussion and development of performance standards; and this ambiguity may not have been no- 43 ticed at this time in that broader discussion. However,Ms. Dushin opined that it is now being 44 noticed.