pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� • TWIN LAKES AUAR "UPDATE"ATTACHMENT JULY 16, 2007 BY AL SANDS Note 1: Nature of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. By going back to the Council packet dated Jan. 8, 2001 and Planning File 3232, you can see that the Planning Commission recommended at that time a mix of options 2 and 3 as discussed in Map 3, and attached a map accordingly. That became scenario l. Then, on June 26, 2001, Council approved the "Twin Lakes Master Plan", as amended, by limitin� it to scenario 1, and excludin�e optional Scenario la (bi� box retail on parcels 6& 7)_ The 6/26/O1 Cuuncil packet excluded Map 3 from it's master plan 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 done on the recommendation of the then development director, Dennis Welsch, that the council should pick one or the other scenario, not both. Review the Council packet for June 26, 2001 for verification. Finally, in the Council packet for June 20,2005, there is a map labeled Twin Lakes Master Plan consistent with the AUAR scenario 1, indicating previous staff 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 Commentary emanating from the Appeals Courts adverse decision. Mr. Paul D. Reuvers, in his Sept. 11, 2006 petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court to reverse the Appeals Court stated that the Appeals Court decision: "Requires a city to study the environment impacts of a phase of development within the total AUAR azea, as opposed to the entire AUAR azea. Therefore, when a sub-development is proposed within the AUAR area, the development of that azea must be studied in relation to those same identical sub azeas, or parcels, in the AUAR." (Note: That explains staf�s regrouping 8 sub areas into only 3. Downsizing the sub areas will only create more problems if it turns out the areas will be developed incrementally, and not all at once within the three lazge new areas) "It takes away the flexibility of preparing an AUAR and effectively requires and EAW//EIS for development projects." Additionally, Mr. Squires and Mr. Scott Anderson, in a footnote on page three of their letter to the Council dated October 4, 2006 said, "the city may wish to reconsider whether it wishes to do an AUAR at all. It may be more preferential to wait for specific proposal, and then use the specific EAW/EIS process instead of an AUAR. Staff and Council are dangerously ignoring these legal opinions. 3