|
" ~ - ril~C 1 / Ul LL
<br />t`~ ..,.~~~torr~, r~ ~ r~_F ~ I
<br />~ rf;uf F t'y t~ Cid°'trc' t- ~ r~ C' c rr
<br />n~i~rt~ (f f'"fE r?{~'? C+~I~fir`ri rnrr at.~ plc ~tF,~.` ~ e ~~ ty.`, er r Sir G! t F~; rii JSi ~JE' YE:::.tii;trtJGi~~7 V'v'It~'~ ~
<br />C~~_ ~r~~ U= ~
<br />,.c ~.: .L, ~ T~.'-~ t4Arc e~ r~l Y4 as
<br />a '~ l.r;`tt:. i-1 ~~G 4~1-IlUtl Iu ilti( ".,,~ y ~ J . "s tF.. r r}~ ':"F f:,r-t; { t},~ !) !vj!.1 t
<br />i'~~rrr~~I ~;~i„s~ ~I~,rlce ;` r•,Nrrt2ttr-;._
<br />. he a~~rC17J' lc:~ a~tlnrl tC? Irlf`' atF?: ~ laf"~ i.iSE:~ ^l~ldrl(~~; L".~~t11~s ~":E-' c1'~' a~~p~iC._;tC,~;~ ftrtl r~ ~'-IE.
<br />-~'utlai"~ 1~.J,:;.v,'(~3j a,'"'tC 1 ~UL, ~snr ~ i~ .~; Uri? (7.:~?f~l~,ar.l:,.;' ~C;G{'~i:~
<br />To aliaU~ land owners vrithin a development area to ignorE the Comprehensive Plan designatian and o . r= t ate only
<br />under the pre existing zaning would destroy the apporYUnity to contra! land usF within thr~ development area a~ a
<br />developer is caught at~d applies for a punned unit development.. (suggest you talk to Thorrias Paschke alrjout
<br />this.
<br />NATURE OF THE TWIN LAKES MASTER PLAN
<br />If, as you believe, the Twin Lakes Comprehensive plan permits scenarios other than Scenario 1 in map 6 of the Master Plan,
<br />why didn't the Council and Staff include them in the 2001 AUAR study? Why was the 2001 study limited to scenario 1 and 1a,
<br />and then 1a was dropped? It seems to me the original AUAR should have included options 2,3,and 4 in their study if they
<br />were in the master plan, as amended by Council on 6/26/01. Don't you?
<br />I think the best way for you to resolve your thinking is to ask the city attorney, Scott Anderson for his written opinion on what
<br />scenarios are actually included in the Twin Lakes Master Plan, as amended by Council on 6/26/01. I think that would help all
<br />of us define the matter, and end the debate. That is what he is there for. That is his job.
<br />Sounds like the Monday night Council meetings get you so wound up, you can't relax enough to sleep. Those meetings
<br />should stop and 10 o clock. The Agenda has to be set up to allow more time for items. Dick Houck suggests the agenda
<br />maker ask each person making a presentation to estimate his time, and then add some for council debate. Also, if I were you I
<br />would object to getting the packet on Friday and be expected to spend my weekends studying them instead of having some
<br />recreational time.
<br />Regards, AI Sands
<br />-----0riginal Message---
<br />From: dan.roe@comcast.net
<br />To: esands2612@aol.com
<br />Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 2:52 pm
<br />Subject: Re: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press. Editorial Friday, June 27
<br />If it is in the Master Plan document, it is part of the Master Plan. Nothing erroneous about that.
<br />(Ref court ruling in FOTL case: [to paraphrase) If it is in the Comp Plan, it is part of the Comp Plan)
<br />On 6/26/01, the council took scenario 1a out of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Whatever the minutes say, what is valid is the
<br />resolutions that were passed, and the Master Ptan as published in the Comp Plan as submitted to the Met Council.
<br />Clearly, from the AUAR itself, and from the packet and minutes of the 6/26/01 meeting, the AUAR included both scenario 1
<br />and scenario 1a in its scope of study. Neither the packet nor the minutes say that scenario 1a was taken out of the AUAR, but
<br />it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of the AUAR related to that scenario became moot when that scenario was
<br />excluded from the master plan. Certainly, inclusion of the study of scenario 1 a in the last AUAR does not mean it ought to be
<br />included in the revision of the AUAR, since the revision is to be based on the Master Plan as approved. Regardless, from my
<br />point of view, I am not expecting the revision of the AUAR to study scenario 1 a. If Map 3 is in the Master Plan, then I do not
<br />ttp://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8!7/2007
<br />
|