CC_Minutes_2007_0806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

actual facts showing the only future land use plan is one-the one the C"o cil approved as scenario 1 back on J e26, 2001: if it doesn`t fit in to that plan, it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as it really exists. (3) After five years into the present AUAR, the discussion of a hospital campus is silly and unrealistic and only illustrates how dysfunctional this document really is. Staff merely wants to continue the fantasy since it is a part of the existing AUAR, and provides legal "cover" to portray this as merely "update". Does anybody really want a non profit hospital organization that doesn't pay property taxes in this pl ?Isn't it time to get a dac ent that really me s so ething? To conclude, this AUAR proposal, the product of "game playing" and a dysfianetional government (note the development director has Left and will not be here to defend his positions), should be rejected outright. I call an all council members to stop blindly rubber stamping staff's recommendations and start to look at things realistically. The attached notes are all you need to do this, and to be fair to the citizens. The disastrous results of following staff's recommendations in the Twin Lakes LLC debacle should be enough to cause you to think long and hard on this. With four college educated council members, three of whom are experienced lawyer's, and a street smart seasoned political there to bring some common sense and balance to the Council, there is no excuse for perpetuating a dysfunctional staff and government. You have the power to get things right. I also direct your attention to the caveats (page 5-Important Note) regarding the relationship of the AUAR to both the existing comprehensive plan, and the expected new comprehensive plan yet to be devised. Since Council is anticipating revising the comprehensive plan, it is clearly inappropriate to proceed with an AUAR at this time. And as far as I know, there are no known plans of property owners within the AUAR area at this time. Please read the attached notes 1 and 2. Also review the attached Twin Lakes Master Plan Map copied from the Council packet June 20, 2005, as approved by Council on June 26, 2001. That is our existing Master Plan for Twin Lakes. I hope the current council will take their individual responsibilities very seriously and produce more truthful, honest and realistic results than this document now provides. This current is nothing more than a make believe fantasy oblivious of reality and existing facts, with no public input or support. Qe Sando