CC_Minutes_2007_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i rr u. a.aV Vr~ v VVVVa1a G liaL~' --U ~. a [LIAa a 1Va1~.Va 1 at.JJ Li\aalVaaCal a'laULl~'r JUL1G L/ i-t4~G 1J VL GL > practical option, because any new manufacturing facility is?very remote.? I > thought the 2001 Master Plan was a pretty sensible land use plan, except for the > hospital fiasco, and the created confusion between (limited) "service mix" and > (anything goes) "retail".? If the Council deemed it wise to zone certain areas > of Twin Lakes into Office, High Tech Flex, Housing, etc. I think that would be a > good comp plan, which has to be amended by the end of 2008, with four votes of > the council.? Land owners would then know what? exactly their land use plan is > and seek out buyers accordingly.? Each land owner would act in his own best > interests independently, but eventually the overall plan would be the same as > the B6 PUD outcome, but without the central planning, and without the big TIF > give aways. And without the centrally planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent to > Langton Lake.? Zf Council demands a Twin Lakes Parkway, take the land under > eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front.? Then asses the land owners > for the improvement to their property.? As it is, current land owners are > helpless.? They can't go back to their original uses, because they abandoned > them, and they can't tell any prospective buyer what use the land can be put > to.? The must wait for another big pocket developer to come along and get > four votes of the Council to amend the Comp Plan.? Trying to circumvent the > current Comp Plan through a flawed AUAR process is not the way to give certainty > to developers.? While I understand your desire to get out of this "box", and get > something going in Twin Lakes, do it the right way.? The outcomes you are > seeking don't justify the means you are using. > Thanks for this dialogue.? Perhaps we both see each others positions more > clearly now. Also, thanks forthe web site to the OCRegister.com.? I've been able > to save it on my hard drive. > Best regards. > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Roe << -,_~. -- , ire-> > Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 6:57 pm > Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 2 7 > Business Park is part of the 2001 comp plan change that you hold up as > sacrosanct.? Probably no loss of use claim if the comp plan designation is > already in effect for years before a development.? B6 and PUD gives developers > (and the city) options to come up with plans that don't fit more narrow zoning > designations - why is that "central planning" and not freedom?? The?whole thing > has to be approved in the open via the elected officials of the city.??I think > it is possible for a "grand scheme" to allow freedom -- apparently the Friends > of Twin Lakes don't.? Seems like you are arguing against the 2001 Master Plan > that you are also saying we are not even following in relation to .the AUAR.? > Which planet is?it that allows you to?own both sides of?the argument, > and?everybody else to own neither?? http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007