CC_Minutes_2007_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 rr t1. 11V rr ~ V t!V r Vlal µ vt~~ --V a, 1 µµ1 1 1V11GG1 1 1GJJ LU1LV11µ1 1.11t1GL~' ~ JU11V. G / > > Clearly, from the AUAR itself, and from the packet and minutes of the 6/26/01 > meeting, the AUAR included both scenario 1 and scenario la?in its scope of > study.? Neither the packet nor the minutes say that scenario la was taken out of > the AUAR, but it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of the AUAR related > to that scenario became moot when that scenario was excluded from the master > plan.? Certainly, inclusion of the study of scenario la in the last AUAR does > not mean it ought to be included in the. revision of the AUAR,?since the revision > is to be based on the Master Plan as approved.? Regardless, from my point of > view, I am not expecting the revision of the AUAR to study scenario la.? If Map > 3 is in the Master Plan, then I do not see why?those scenarios?can not be used > as guidance as to the new AUAR (so long as they conform to the rest of the > Master Plan). > ? > Non-conforming refers strictly to zoning, not comp plan designations.? As of our > January 2007 Official Zoning Map, the properties in question in the Twin Lakes > area are still zoned as various types of Industrial (because the B6 zoning was > not ever made effective, as the project for which it was approved was > abandoned).? Non-conforming, by its definition in section 1002.02, refers to > uses existing before the adoption of the zoning code in 1959.? If industrial > uses were conforming as of the last official zoning of that property (say when > the trucking terminals, etc., were built), they are not suddenly > "non-conforming" now. > ? > For some reason,?Z am often up in the wee hours of Tuesday mornings lately... > ? > Dan Roe? > ? > ? > ? > -------------- Original message -------------- > From _ _; :::1 . _-~ > It's unfortunate that maps 3, 4, and 5 were included in the appendix to the > master plan.? They were intended to present? historical developments, but are > now?eroneously claimed by John Stark and you ?as an integral part of the Master > Plan.? In fact, you will not find the four option plan in the council packet at > all on 6/26/01.? If you read the 6/26/01 packet and minutes carefully, you will > find they took out scenario la, and that left only scenariol as having any > validity, as.the minutes clearly state., and as staff recommended--only one > plan.? That is also the only one plan studied in the AUAR at the time, which is > also an integral part of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan by amendment of the > Council. 1 Q~G JVI GG http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007