With all the hot air surrounding the rezoning of the Old Greenhouse Property, I am surprised that the snow stuck around as long as it did. When City Council makes the decision to rezone land that decision MUST be based upon facts, not likes and dislikes or even business practices. The facts supporting City Council’s decision regarding the Old Greenhouse Property are pretty straight forward.

The most significant fact that cannot be ignored is that the character of Santa Fe Drive is changing. In a few short years, several homes have been replaced by the Denver Seminary and Aspen Grove was built. These changes and others like the addition of light rail and the recently proposed residential condo complex behind Aspen Grove demonstrate that Santa Fe is not what it used to be. If the opposition is so concerned about Santa Fe and the South Platte Park where were they when Aspen Grove was built? Where were they when developers proposed a condo complex behind Aspen Grove?

Santa Fe is a State Highway, as a result it handles a large volume of traffic, just like Broadway. With or without the redevelopment of the Old Greenhouse Property and regardless of who redevelops that property, Santa Fe is going to have traffic issues. If we want to cut traffic on Santa Fe then we need to build a wall on the boarder of Highlands Ranch. This is of course a ridiculous idea. Littleton is a city between cities, as a result commuters drive through our city everyday and will continue to do so with or without Wal-Mart. Maybe if we redevelop the Old Greenhouse Property we will give them a reason to stop and spend their tax dollars in Littleton.

A fact that is being overlooked is the fact that Wal-Mart will install a much needed traffic light near Meadow Wood. For years, residents of Meadow Wood have had to turn south and pull a u-turn if they want to go north or they must risk crossing traffic going 50 mph on Santa Fe; installing a traffic light near Meadow Wood sure sounds like an improvement to our health, safety and general welfare.

It is projected that this Supercenter will generate $1.7 million annually in sales tax and an additional $250,000 in property taxes annually. This money helps pay for the city services we all demand. I want strong police and fire departments. I want the City to be able to build a new waster water treatment plant. I also want Littleton Public Schools to have an additional $250,000 in their budget that is paid for by WILLING shoppers not by raising my taxes.

By the way, Wal-Mart has agreed to build wetlands near their store which will increase the habitat for the urban wildlife that live in the area. Wal-Mart is NOT impacting the South Platte Park. We will still be able to run, bike, walk, raft from Chatfield to Elitches and beyond. It should also be noted that South Suburban Park & Rec wants to build a parking lot near the proposed Wal-Mart to increase boating access to the Platte.

Littleton residents need to study the facts. If they do, I think they will come to the same conclusion that City Council did – Littleton will benefit from approving a Wal-Mart.

Tiffany Coolidge

The Detention Pond:
The people of Littleton voted their Tabor refund to purchase a buffer to protect the park from the inevitable development of that site. Wal-Mart wants to put their detention pond on the property and call it a wetland.

The land was bought to protect the park not to provide a developer with a drainage ditch. That’s our property and we have a say what goes on it. I wonder how many would have voted to approve the purchase if we knew it could be handed over to Wal-Mart for their parking lot drainage?

The Noise Ordinance:
In the city’s municipal codes there is a noise control ordinance (7-3-5: Specific Prohibitions, Section E) that clearly states there can be no loading or unloading between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am within 800 feet of a residential neighborhood.

When the public made this point at the hearing, City Council and city staff were befuddled. After some research they came back and reported that they have been misinterpreting this law for the last 11 years. The correct interpretation is not one that Wal-Mart can live with. They made it very clear that they can and will accept no conditions on deliveries. How did this pass Council? Is Wal-Mart being granted an exception? What about the rights guaranteed the neighbors by the city’s own laws?

Debbie Brinkman