2012-07-11_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 12 code is to set restrictions to follow through on the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. 565 Trudgeon advised that staff didn’t pretend to have the ultimate knowledge, and in the end it was 566 the policy makers who made the final decision. However, Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that he found it 567 doubtful that any zoning code could ever comply with the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety; and 568 there was a need to trust the process and public debate and discussion throughout the process, 569 and the end results as adopted. 570 Regarding the square foot limitations, Mr. Trudgeon pointed out that the process itself was open, 571 with ample opportunity for discussion, and the end result of the City Council deliberately deciding 572 to exclude any size restrictions. Mr. Trudgeon opined that this indicated to him that the absence 573 was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and as ultimate decision-makers, if the City Council 574 had concerns with any inconsistencies, that sitting City Council would have brought it up at that 575 time. 576 In reference to the City Attorney letter from Mr. Bartholdi dated December 9, 2011 and referenced 577 frequently by the appellants, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it was erroneous to state that the City 578 Attorney recognized a conflict. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Council had recently reviewed 579 that correspondence again, and found that there was no conflict indicated. Mr. Trudgeon noted 580 that the letter was responding to question #3 from Mayor Roe – not a question from staff, as had 581 been alleged in earlier testimony – as to if any inconsistency was ever found to exist, and Mr. 582 Bartholdi’s advice in such an event. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the response was immediately 583 shared with the City Council, now almost six (6) months ago. Mr. Trudgeon advised that it hadn’t 584 become an issue up to this point, but if they had been so inclined, the City Council could have 585 taken action to correct any perceived inconsistencies during that period. 586 Since the Comprehensive Plan is not used as a regulatory document, even though in sync with 587 the zoning code, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s overall conclusion that the zoning code 588 was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the zoning code 589 contained significant things and the context of design standards laid out in the Regulating Plan 590 (Section 1007.05e) for pedestrians, relationship to open and public spaces, as well as requiring a 591 higher level of architectural elements to address General Policy Statements of the Comprehensive 592 Plan. 593 Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there were actually four (4), not three (3) business zoning designations: 594 Regional, Community, Neighborhood, and a hybrid defined as Community Mixed Use. 595 Mr. Trudgeon noted that the appellants had used various sections as a litmus test to determine 596 and support their perceptions of inconsistencies that could be construed as specifically arbitrary to 597 a Wal-Mart development. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this method had never been done with other 598 developments in the City; and reiterated his comment that inconsistencies could be perceived with 599 any use within the community. 600 Mr. Trudgeon reiterated the intentional lack of retail restrictions; even though in other areas (e.g. 601 residential) there were very specific development limits; indicating that this must have been a 602 conscious decision to not limit commercial development. 603 Given recent court action, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Twin Lakes Overlay District which 604 implemented many of the mitigation efforts of the current Alternative Urban Areawide Review 605 (AUAR) no longer had any standing to address the proposed Wal-Mart development. However, in 606 staff’s review, Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff felt the proposed development was consistent with 607 the parameters and scenarios detailed in that AUAR, as well as the Twin Lakes Business Master 608 Plan and incorporated into the Regulation Plan, the Twin Lakes Overlay District, and Design 609 Standards. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was the intent to incorporate those elements of the 610 Master Plan to better enforce code, not as a stand-alone document, since it was hard to enforce 611 those. 612 In conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff stands behind their analysis date June 21, 2012; 613 and sees no reason presented by the appellants to change that staff opinion. 614 Mr. Trudgeon noted that there appeared to be an insinuation by SWARN that staff had been 615 unwilling to answer their questions about whether or not a use was permitted or to provide an 616