CC_Minutes_2007_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1' WU. I1VWL V. UVVGIll YL 1..1L~' --JL. i~2t111 r1Ul1GG1 i~1GJJ L'L11LV11Q! 1'11LL~1~'~ JUNG G/ r[L~,'G 10 Vl GG see why those scenarios can not be used as guidance as to the new AUAR (so long as they conform to the rest of the Master Plan). Non-conforming refers strictly to zoning, not comp plan designations. As of our January 2007 Official Zoning Map, the properties in question in the Twin Lakes area are still zoned as various types of Industrial (because the B6 zoning was not ever made effective, as the project for which it was approved was abandoned). Non-conforming, by its definition in section 1002.02, refers to uses existing before the adoption of the zoning code in 1959. If industrial uses were conforming as of the last official zoning of that property (say when the trucking terminals, etc., were built), they are not suddenly "non-conforming" now. For some reason, I am often up in the wee hours of Tuesday mornings lately... Dan Roe ------- Original message ------- From: esands2612@aol.com It's unfortunate that maps 3, 4, and 5 were included in the appendix to the master plan. They were intended to present- historical developments, but are now eroneously claimed by John Stark and you as an integral part of the Master Plan. In fact, you will not find the four option plan in the council packet at all on 6/26/01. If you read the 6/26/01 packet and minutes carefully, you will find they took out scenario 1a, and that left only scenariol as having any validity, as the minutes clearly state., and as staff recommended-only one plan. That is also the only one plan studied in the AUAR at the time, which is also an integral part of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan by amendment of the Council. You need to read Code 1011 regarding use of non conforming land uses, and their limitations. Since the master plan shows Twin Lakes as a B-6 zone, any other use is non conforming. I note your last a mail was sent at 3 AM this morning. Neither you or John Kysylyczyn must sleep. AI Sands ----Original Message-- From: dan.roe@comcast.net To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:07 am Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 AI, I read the whole packet for the June 26, 2001, meeting, and the meeting minutes. All it says is that they took out scenario 1 a from the Master Plan, and accepted the AUAR. The 4-concept map is right in the Twin Lakes Master Plan that you get when you pull it up via the City web site It is referenced in the Table of Contents (as "Map 3"), so it IS part of the Master Plan. John Stark did not make that map up. It is in the copy of the Master Plan that I have from my days on the Twin Lakes Stakeholder Panel, before John Stark even worked for the city. Dan - -Original message ---------- From: esands2612@aol.com Please read the council packet pages 199 and 200 dated June 26, 2001 as you still insist map four is relavent. It is not. Scenario 1 is the only amendment to the master plan in effect. If you still have doubts, please confer with Mr. Scott Anderson. He should have teamed by now from a careful reading of the 6/26/01 council packet, and the actual minutes of that meeting. You need to follow the history of this designation, and what the intent of the Council was on 6/26/01 to know that map four wasn't even a part of the 6/26/01 council packet, and was superceded by the master plan back in January 2001. John Stark tried http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007