Laserfiche WebLink
II. POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE P.U.D.B6 <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. <br />1. When is a plan not a plan? <br />If you have four possible scenarios, and also are willing to combine <br />elements of one plan with the other, do you have so many possible plans that you <br />wind up with no plan at all? Does the staff and city council majority want a <br />comprehensive land use plan that is so vague that anything they say is consistent <br />therewith gets approved by them? <br />In Mr. Stark's updated AUAR, there is no master pla~he merely shows <br />a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map as being the "master plan". <br />2. Shouldn't the Comprehensive Plan be "updated" simultaneously with the <br />AUAR update? Staff claims consistency with the existing comprehensive <br />plan, but to get there they re-defined the existing Master Plan to <br />their liking. <br />3. Is the P.U.D. B6 process a fair one? <br />Consider the land owners in Twin Lakes. <br />What property rights to they have? <br />The city apparently wants to attract another big bucks master developer, <br />instead of incremental projects (as per a newspaper quote of Mayor Klausing). <br />Are current land owners (in phase 1) in any bargaining position with <br />prospective buyers or developers? Meanwhile, what can they do with their <br />land? It's been unused for the most part for over a year, and cannot go back to <br />its original use. They must await some future developer making an offer to <br />buy. That could be many years. <br />6 <br />