Laserfiche WebLink
rv�eaic� nmuaaau�utc�a�yaiu�uw i.uuyncuc�u�vcy�au- �airov:... uiyi.nua.uaocc.unu.ynin�o.�vuvue.ininiwi.�c�aagc:uu—u�w,.ur.e���—u... <br />3 of 4 <br />requiring 4votes, and stopping the development.as planned. <br />The master developer, Rottlund was stiil interested in late <br />summer in proceeding, so they presented another proposal that was in <br />conformitywith the existing master plan. By fall <br />it was obvious there was a large contraction in the housing market going <br />on,and they withdrew! Lucky for them. They also withdrew from obligations in <br />New Brighton, with cityfathers as usual trying to make them build units that <br />wouldn't sell. I hope Rottlund <br />woke up before they sank their ship. <br />Mixed use developments pose a particularly di�cult problem <br />when trying to pian what can and should go into that "mix". And even then, if <br />the plan calls for, say 10% retail, <br />because retail is one of the allowed uses, you could wind up with mostly <br />retailin the "mixed use", unless the ordinance itself puts in some <br />restrictions,according to the appeals court ruling. <br />So. in order to maintain appropriate citizen control, and <br />not let a 3/2 split Council decidethese important land issues, I am requesting <br />the state legislature amend itslaws to require a 2/3 vote on mixed used <br />developments, just like a 2!3 vote is <br />now required where residential is moving into a higher density. <br />See my attachment: Call for legislative relief. <br />If I were running the show, fike Pat Trudgeon, I wouldn't <br />waste my staffs time dreaming up potential "master plans" that have no <br />basisin reality. instead , I would count on the owners of the property,the <br />citizens invoived, and/ or the developers involved to form a proposal. .I would <br />lie low until someone exhibited <br />interest in a development. Then I wouldstrike. Quick. Get a first glance <br />approval from four councilmembers and MOVE fast, before market conditions <br />change again. One of Twin Lakes <br />problems was it took too long to execute, so by the time the developers <br />wereready to "go", the market wasn't there. <br />And since we are now in a"phase" where nothing seems to be "moving", <br />Iwonder if we couldn't use some of our old TIF money on hand to hire a <br />"moverand shaker" who's job would be to acquaint himself with the land <br />� ...r <br />9/ 11 i2008 3:04 PM <br />