CC_Minutes_2007_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 av ~~ ~ v V V t vl as K t.i~~ --~~~ 1 util 1 1V11\.trl 1 1 VJJ li~,{ilV11GL1 1'llUCl~' ~ JUll(. L / > ?? When you talk about?options for developers and the city to come up with plans > that don't fit more narrow zoning designations, and ignore the rights of the > land owners themselves, that basically is alllowing the city to dictate to both > the developers and the land owners what they must do.? That is, as?I see > it,?Central Planning by the city, and freedom for the Council, but nobody else. > If you can't see?that, I'm afraid we do live on different planets. > ? Of course we need a comprehensive plan to keep targets and costcos separate > from residential areas.? That is the very purpose of a comprehensive plan, and > the zoning codes that support and are consistent with the Comp Plan.?? Right > now, most of Twin Lakes would be zoned "light industrial" were it not for the B6 > PUD designation.? Note that the B6 designation does not take effect until there > is an approved PUD.? Before Commers bo ught the Indianhead site, someone else > managed to get it re- zoned to commercial from industrial.?It doesn't fit > in--doesn't belong there. ?I would be interested in learning?how that ever got > rezoned to commercial in an otherwise industrial zoning area.? However, he > doesn't have enough land there for a Costco. Even a Costco wouldn't want to be > situated in the middle of an industrial manufacturing?area. > ? To make my position clear to you, I would rescind the B6 zoning designation, > abandon the PUD micromanaging approach, but amend the Comprehensive Plan to zone > the Twin Lakes area in a sensible land use approach.? Industrial is no longer a > practical option, because any new manufacturing facility is?very remote.? I > thought the 2001 Master Plan was a pretty sensible land use plan, except for the > hospital fiasco, and the created confusion between (limited) "service mix" and > (anything goes) "retail".? If the Council deemed it wise to zone certain areas > of Twin Lakes into Office, High Tech Flex, Housing, etc. I think that would be a > good comp plan, which has to be amended by the end of 2008, with four votes of > the council.? Land owners would then know what? exactly their land use plan is > and seek out buyers accordingly.? Each land owner would act in his own best > interests independently, but eventually the overall plan would be the same as > the B6 PUD outcome, but without the central planning, and without the big TIF > give aways. And without the centrally planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent to > Langton Lake.? If Council demands a Twin Lakes Parkway, take the land under > eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front.? Then asses the land owners > for the improvement to their property.? As it is, current land owners are > helpless.? They can't go back to their original uses, because they abandoned > them, and they can't tell any prospective buyer what use the land can be put > to.? The must wait for another big pocket developer to come along and get > four votes of the Council to amend the Comp Plan.? Trying to circumvent the > current Comp Plan through a flawed AUAR process is not the way to give certainty > to developers.? While I understand your desire to get out of this "box", and get > something going in Twin Lakes, do it the right way.? The outcomes you are > seeking don't justify the means you are using. > Thanks for this dialogue.? Perhaps we both see each others positions more > clearly now. Also, thanks forthe web site to the OCRegister.com.? I've been able http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 1 Glb'C 7 VL LG 8/7/2007