CC_Minutes_2007_0827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Bill Malinen August 24, 2007 Page 2 Based on a review of the entire 2001 AUAR, it is clear that one key consideration grappled with by the Council at the time was the potential inclusion of a big box complex within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Scenario 1 and 1 a in the 2001 AUAR are identical except for the differing description of land at the northeast corner of Fairview and County Road C: Scenario 1 in the 2001 AUAR designates this area as "Hi-Tech/Flex", while Scenario 1 a designates this area as "Retail". In fact, a May 3, 2001 memo from SRF to Dennis Welsch, included in the 2001 AUAR at Appendix 3, calls out and notes this difference: ...the primary difference between scenarios [1 and la] is the substitution of the "big box" retail space on Block 6 in Scenario 1 a.. . Analyzing the resident's claim requires us to read'Jetv~~een the lines and attempt to attribute intent to the Council's action on June 26, 2001. The resident asserts the minutes suggest the Council intended to adopt the parcel-by-parcel description in Scenario 1 as the only allowable land use for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. But a more plausible conclusion, and one suggested by a review and analysis of other pertinent documents, would indicate that the Council's determination to include Scenario 1 in the 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan simply expressed a policy judgment concerning desired development of Block 6 in the redevelopment area. Notwithstanding the above, it is unnecessary, in our judgment, to engage in speculation and interpretation of Council minutes. The resolution adopted by the Council on June 26, 2001 reflects the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. The resolution itself contains no proscriptive parcel-by-parcel land use designation. Rather, it re- classifies all parcels within the redevelopment area to BP- Business Park. In this regard, we agree with the conclusions set forth in the August 3, 2007 memo from Jamie Radel to Mike Darrow. The resident's position also ignores the fact the Twin Lakes Master Plan, adopted in its entirety by the Council on June 26, 2001, contains three other maps with alternate development scenarios reflecting potential outcomes of the BP- Business Park designation. Each of these alternate scenarios is in some respects contrary to Scenario 1. If the Council intended only one possible development scenario, as the Comprehensive Plan designation, these scenarios, which are also part of the Comprehensive Plan (as indicated by the court of appeals), are meaningless. Finally, we believe the resident's argument is inherently illogical. Historical documents consistently reference the importance of the new BP-Business Park dedication as it relates to the flexibility provided to a prospective developer to choose the blend of permissible uses within the redevelopment area, subject to Council approval. Any conclusion that the Council intended a proscriptive and limiting parcel-by-parcel land use within the redevelopment area is in our judgment entirely contradictory to the very purpose of the BP designation: flexibility.