Laserfiche WebLink
Ci�y Council Study Sessio�n <br />1V�c►n�iay, �uga�st 20, 8007 <br />Page I5 <br />� comment xeco�d to provide basic assumptions behind the entire envi- <br />2 ronmenta� study, beyond technical issues. Counczlmember Ihlan ques- <br />3 tioned why each o� th� three {3) scenarios included such �arge <br />4 amounts of retai�, when that was wha� ereated such contrav�rsy i� th� <br />5 �irst development p�oposal and subsequent cour� aetion. Cou��cil- <br />6 member Ihlan further apaned that ihe Comprehe�sive Plan inc���ded <br />7 "zero" retail. <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />1 �. <br />1z <br />1� <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />Mayor �.lausing na�ed that there were <br />whether public cor�r�ments get addressed <br />that they would be inca�orated znto n�e <br />m�mbers free io consider them a�c��gs� <br />�hem; and 2) whetl���r t�e publrc���rn�ne� <br />AUAR inaccurate and incom�� �Ma� <br />vvanted an o ortuni to revxew��h�s�� a <br />Pp �Y ���� <br />date, and wpuld provide questions fo��� <br />nec�ss�iy, wzth the who�e City Council � <br />� 9 Mr. Darrow advised tha� it <br />20 l�c cammenl���deve�op t <br />21 Council �ne�t n��d sta�fl <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />25 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />argued <br />noted IE <br />wheth�r <br />p�blic r <br />u.o (2} dzfferent issues: 1) <br />� `part <o�, the record, nating <br />�ng minut�s, with Council- <br />��hea� ind�vidual weight to <br />on the AUAR renclered the <br />�r�Klau�xng advised ihat he <br />� �`�d other discussions to- <br />f z£ his r�view ereated that <br />�n� a f nal de�erminatzvn. <br />staff .s.,ob�e�ive to take tonight's pub- <br />into written �ext for next week`s City <br />�onses to verbal ar�d written eomment. <br />-�1?�ust opined t�iat several membezs o£ the public had <br />���.- <br />�� �p����ar���we P�an had one (� ) scenario indicating <br />� t, and were rightly criticizzng the City Council �hat <br />��rer�� igno�zng �hat si�uation. Gouncilme�nb�z Pust <br />�� <br />uns�.�w received in wirztzng by ihe City Council, and <br />foimation had been made public, and if not, that the <br />to be pxivy to that zn�'ormation providing individual <br />- rationale �'ar th�ir decisian-making. <br />32 Cou��memb�� �hlan op�ned tha� the question was not whether retaxl <br />�� <br />33 was°�a 1ega1 use, hut was a policy question; further opining that each of <br />34 the three (3} scenaxios zncluded a substantzal reta�l portion, and ques- <br />35 tioned why the Czty Council was choosing to conside� �etail-heavy <br />35 scenar�os. Councilmezx�ber �hlan op�ned that she was not suppo�tive <br />37 of big box retax�, or a reiai� strip ma11; and fiarther opined that Coun- <br />38 cilrz��mber Kough was not supportive of eiiher as we�I. Councilmem- <br />�9 be�r Ihlan questioned whethex pub�ic comment was be�ng taken s�ri- <br />