2007_0827_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� vru., s.auvv� v �vv�LU u �eLy' --u�. i uui Y lViF1.+t.h 1 LVJ� }�µfLV�,�(.YR t'E1(,�(Zy� r/!.{,��r,. �,/ E q.��; ,y Vl LC, i > C�eax�ly, frotn the A(7AR itseli, and fram the packet and m�nutes of the 6/26/01 > meeting, the 11iJAR �.n�lud�d bnth scenario 3. and scenario la?ir� zts scope of > study.? Neither �ha packet nor the minutes say that sc�nario Ta was taken aut o� > the AUAR, b�t it a.s reasanable tn conclude that �he fandinqs n£ the AUAR related > to that scenario became mont w�en that scenarin was exclucled from the master > p7.an.? Certainly, inciusion of '�he study of s�enaxio 3.a zn the iast ATJAR does > nnt mean a.t ouqlzt to be i�c�.uded an the revision af the At3AR, ?since the revasinn > is to be based on the Master P�.an as approvec3.? Regardless, �rom my point af > view, I arn not e:�pecting thc: re'visinn of the AUAR to study scenario �.a,? If Nsap > 3 a.s in rhe Mas�er P3an, then I do not see why7tl�ose scenarios?can nat be used > as guidance as ta the new At3AR Ssa long as ttxey corzfarm tn the rest of �he > NiaS�er Plan) . > > ? > > Non-conforrnang refers strict�y tn aona.ng, not comp plan designatinns.? As o€ aux > Jarauary 2007 O�ficia,� Zoning Map, the properties in questa.an in the Twarz �akes > area ara st�.I1 zoned as various types of Indus�rial ;bseause �he B6 zoning was > no� ev�� made ef�ective, as the project �o� which it was appraved was > abandnned).? Non-coxforma.ng, by its definition in section 3.002.02, refers to > uses exist�.ng be�oxe the adoption of the zana.ng code in 1959.? If andusta�aal > uses were canfnrrnaa�g as o� the last offic.ial zonS.ng of that prnperty {say when > the trucking terminalS, e�c., w��e built}, they a�e not sudden�y > "non�cnnfortning" now. > > ? . � > Fo� some �easan, ?I am aften up izz the wee ho�zzs o� �'uesday mo.�na.ngs lately. .. > > ? > > Dan Roe? > y ? � > ? > � 7 i � -------------- oriqinal m��sage --------------- > F�'OICl: F��'c'x7:;iS<�£��(.;?'�::�.c7�..;:cJt;L > � Z�'s unfnrtunate th�� mape 3, 9, anci 5 weze included in �he appendix �n the > master pZan.? They were antended to pxesent? historical. tleve�apmerzts, but are � now?erorieausly claimed by Joh.n 5tark and you ?as an integrai part o� the Niaster � P1an.? In £act, you wii� not find the �our option pla�, i.n the counci� packet at > a11 on 6/26/01.? If you read tiie 6/26/Dl packet and minutes carefully, you wa 13. > find they took out scenaxao la, and �hat le�� only sc�narao3 as havinq any > validity, as.the min�te5 clearly s�ate., and as staff recommez'tded--only otie > p1an.? That is a�.so the ota�.y one plan 5tudi�d in the AUF� at the time, whi,ch as > a,�sa an inteqral part af the Twin Lakes Comprehensi.ve P�an by amendment o� the > Cauncil > hiip:/fweb�►aiI.aol.com/29��7/ap1lenMus/N1ai1/PrintMessa�;e.aspx SI7/2007