4/10/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

state and say this is what we have done, are they going to take us to court over that? Director Keating commented that he can answer Attorney Vitunac's question to the extent that staff didn't spend time with the Commission on these particular changes because at the final adoption hearing and at previous meetings, the concern was focusing on other areas of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He, therefore, did not feel the Board members had all the pertinent information on this that they needed, and from that respect, it would be an oversight. Attorney Vitunac believed the change that was made reflected the change staff meant to make when they did this, and Director Keating confirmed that they meant to make a couple of these, but a couple of them, they did not. For instance, the Miller property they did mean to make the change - the property to the east, they did not mean to change. He felt the ones that we are dealing with that are controversial are the ones on the fringes. Commissioner Bird asked if he was saying that the areas that are shown in white (outlined but not shaded in) under the cor- rected Future Land Use Map are the areas that are now going to revert to M-2, including all the commercial property on the east side of U.S.I. Senior Planner Loeper explained in regard to that commercial property, we are only dealing with the area that is not east of U.S.I., and he pointed out the specific parcels with changed Land Use. Chairman Eggert inquired about the status of those parcels east of U.S.I that are shown in white, and Planner Loeper advised that those have nothing to do with what we are talking about, and those have no change. Commissioner Scurlock suggested we have a motion to at least accept the corrections on MAP "C" where staff has identified that they had the wrong identification and then we can go on and look at the specifics. 4 7 BOOK FAIA r° APR 10 1990