2007_0723_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TWIN LAKES AUAIZ "UPDATE"ATTACHMENT JiJLY 16, 2007 BY AL SANDS Note 1: Nature of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. By going back to the Council packet dated Jan. S, 2001 and Planning File 3232, you can see that the Planning Commission zecommended at that time a mix of options 2 and 3 as discussed in Map 3, and attached a map accordingly. That became scenario I. Then, on June 26, 2001, Council approved the "Twin Lakes Master Plan", as amended, by li�itin�it to scenario 1, and excluding the optional Scenario la (bi� box retail on azcels 6& 7_ The 6/2b/01 Council packet excluded Map 3 from it's masterplan attachment. Council then included this exclusive land use plan identified as scenario 1 in pages 9-11 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. All this was dane an the recommendation of the then development director, Dexuxis Welsch, that the council shotild ick one or the other scenario, not both. Review the Council packet for J�.ine 26, 2001 for verificahon. Finally, in the Cauncil packet for June 20,2005, there is a map labeled Twin Lakes Mas#er Plan consistent with the AUAR scenario 1, indicating previous staf€ deemed scenario 1`THE land use master plan. I understand that all of this information is still on the Ciy's web site and readily verifiable if you'll only take the time to do so. Note 2: Legal Co�nn�entary emanating from the Appeals Courts adverse decision. Mr. Paul D. Reuvers, in his Sept. l.l, 2006 petition #o the Minnesota Supreme Court to reverse the Appeals Court stated that #he Appeals Court decision: "Requires a city to study the environment im.pacts of a phase of developmen# within the total AUAR azea, as opposed to the entire AUAR area. Therefore, when a sub-devetopment is proposed within the AUAR area, the development of that area musi be studied in relation to those same identical sub areas, or patcels, in the AUAR." (Note: That explains stafP s regrouping 8 sub areas into only 3. Downsizing the sub areas will only create more problems if i# tums aut the areas will be developed incrementally, and not all at once within the three large new areas) "It takes away the flexibility of preparing an AUAR and effectively requires and EAW/IEIS for developrnent projects." Additionally, Mr. Squires a�d Mr. Scott .And�rson, in a footnote on page three of their Ietter to the Council dated Octaber 4, 2006 said, "the city may wish to reconsider whether it wishes to do an AUAR at all. It tnay be more preferential to wait for specific proposal, and then use the speci�c EAW/EIS process instead of an AUAR. Staff and Councif are dangerously ignoring these iegal opinions.