2007_0827_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

+ Y��.c• Axvvi� V VVY�aAA cl �.x��' '"'�Vt. A u4�E �. 1Vi,��E i 1�J.7 Liti1�V11LLF L'iltiCi�'� JiAi1V GI l Gl�'G 7 l71 L�G >?? When you �alk about?options �or deve�opers ancf the city to come up with pians > that don't fit rnore na�row zonang d�signations, and ignore the rigi-i�.s oi the ?�and owne�s theznselves, tha� basically is alllowing the city to dictate to both >�he deve�.opera and the �and owners what �hey must da.? That is, as?� see > i�,?Central Planninq by the city, and �reedam �a� '�he Counci�, bu� nobody e1se. > If you can't s�e?that, i'm afraici we do l�ve pn da.f�erent plan�ts. > >> Of course we need a comp�ehens�.ve p�.an to 3ceep targ�ts and costcos separa�� > from resaden�aal area�.? That is the very purpose of a comprehensive p�az�, and > tkxe zaning codes that suppnrt and are consastent wa.th the Comp F'lan.?? Right � nnw, rnost of Twin Lakes wotald be zoned "lig2�it indus�.ria�." were zt not for the B6 > FUD designatioza.? Npte that the B6 designation do�s raot take effec� un�a.l there > is an approved PUD.? Before Cnmmers bo ught the Indaanhead site, someone else > znanaged to get it re- zoneci to cazt�merc�ai �rom indu�trial.?Tt doesn't fit > in--doesn`t belang �here. ?T would be int��ested a.n �eaznzzag?haw that ever got > rezoned to cornmercial in an otherwise indus�rial zoning area.? Hawev�x, he > doesn''� have eraoug�a land there for a Castco. Even a Cnstcn wnuJ.dn't want ta be > situat�d in the maddle of an industriai manufactura.ng?azea. > >? To make zny pc�si�inn clear to you, I would resaind the 86 zona.rzg des�.gna�ion, > abandon '�he PUD micromanaqing approaci2, but azaend �k'�e Cnmprehensive, Plan �o znne >�he Twin Lakes a�ea a.n a sensible land use approach.? Tndus�ria.l is no langer a > prac�ical optaon, because any new raanuiac�uring �acility is?very r�mate.? � > thaugh� �h� 2001 Master P1an was a pz�e�'�y sensible land use p1an, excep� fnr t.he > hospital fiasco, a�d the c�eated confusion betwean (limi�ed) "service r�zix" az�d �{anything qaes) "retail".? Tf �he Council deez[ted it wise to zone certain areas > of Twin Lakes into Q��ice, High Tech Flex, i3ousing, etc. I�.hi.nk �hat would be a > qood comp pl.an, which has to be amended by �he end o� 2068, w�.th four vates of > the couraczl..? Land owners wauld then kzzow what? exactly their land u5e plan is > and seek out buyers accorclingly.? �ach land owner wouid act i� his own best >�.n�erests independen'tly, but even�ually the avcrall p�.an would be the same as > the B6 PUD outco�rce, but wit2zout the central planning, and wi�hout �he big T2�" > give aways. And without the centxal�y planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent ta > Langton �aka.? If Council.demands a Twa.ra Lakes Parkway, ta3ce th�: land under >�minen� domain, buiid it, ancl pay for it up front.? Then asses the land owners > inr the iraprovement to the3r prnper�y.? As it is, current land owners are > helpless.? They can'� gn back to their ariginal uses, beca�se ttzey abandaned > th�:m, and they can't te].7. any prospectiv� buyer what use ��Se 1.and can b� pu� > to.? ;; The must wait for arzothe� big pocke�. developer �o come along and get > four votes of the Councii tp amend the Comp Pla�.? T�ya.zag to ca.xcumvent the > current Comp P1.an tY�rough a flawed AUAR p�oce55 is not the way to give cer�ai�ty > to developers.? While T understand your desa�e tp get out of this "box", and get > soxnethzng going in Twin Lakes, do it the raght way.? The outcomes ynu are > seeking don'� justify the means you are usinq. > � Tk�anks �or tha.5 dialogue.? Perhaps we bo�h see each othc�rs positions more > cieariy now. Alsa, thanks £orthe web si�e to the OCRegister.com.? I've been ab3.s http://webrr�ail.aol.com/29047/aol/sn-us/MaiI/P�intMessage.aspx $/7/2007