Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Bill Malin�n <br />August 24,2007 <br />Page 3 <br />In summary, historical documents do not in our opinion support the resident's claim that <br />the 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendment allows �"Scenario I" uses of Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment properties. The 2001 A�AR, the 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan and the June <br />26,2001 Resolution changing the ComprehensivePlan designation ofTwin Lakes properties <br />to BP- Business Park all suggest a contrary conclusion: that the Comprehensive Plan BP- <br />Business Park designation allows for a blend or mix of specific uses as proposed by a <br />developer, and as is ultimately agreeable to the City CounciL Moreover, logic does not support <br />the resident's argument. It seems clear to us that the Council's adoption of a BP designation <br />was intended to allow fle�bility in land uses. It does not appear the Council ever intended in <br />2001 to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment for Twin Lakes properties that provided for a <br />proscriptive parcel-by-parcel designation. <br />I hope this provides a clear summary of our opinion on the matter discussed herein. <br />Please ca11 if you have questions. <br />Please distribute this memo to Council members. It is, in essence, a summary of the <br />advice and counsel we have provided to staff in the process of analyzing the specific resident's <br />claim. <br />Regards, <br />��� I,.,, <br />�_� f�.�. �� <br />�� .� <br />, <br />.-� �{ ��.�.y��� <br />,r <br />Jay T. Squires <br />JTS/lmj <br />RRNI: 109548 <br />