Laserfiche WebLink
4. The Twin Lakes approved AUAR, included in the Twin Lakes Comprehensive <br />plan, only studied two scenarios—scenario l, which the council adopted as an <br />amendment to the Twin Lakes Master Plan, and scenario la, which the Council <br />specifically rejected on June 26,2001. There is no analysis of any other scenario(s) or <br />"optivn(s)" <br />5. Mr. Stark refers to a letter he requested from former development director <br />Dennis Welsch that conflicts with the actions actually taken by Mr. Welsch. On June 26, <br />2001, Mr. Welsch recommended the Council adopt only one plan, scenario 1. Actions <br />speak louder than words. <br />The June 26,2001 Minutes <br />Ms. Radel's description of the June 26,2001 appears accurate, and I see no <br />conflict with rny position that the Council adopted and amended the Twin Lakes Master <br />plan with ��r� scenario #I. <br />RESOLUTION 9904 <br />This resolution describes the Comprehensive Plan L� Desf�tatiart from ��B" <br />and'T' to "BP" for "Business Park". It goes on to state that an "Alternative Urban <br />Areavvide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan have been prepared and reviewed, <br />linking the Twin Lakes Master Plan to the Twin Lakes AUAR approved June 26,2001. <br />The AUAR and Mitigation Plan approved on June 26,2001 only studied scenario l, and <br />scenario la. No other options were included in the AUAR study. <br />I also point out that Resolution 9904 refers to and thereby incorporates into the <br />resolution the following documents: <br />*"The Twin Lakes Business Park PF 3232 ". Planning File 3232 has some <br />1700 pages of planning and conclusions as to what constitutes the Twin <br />Lakes Master Plan. <br />�"the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council, of <br />the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, based an ftndin�s in the <br />� <br />