CC_Minutes_2007_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4 YY U. 11V Y• l V, V V Y rlll u l~l 1, '-A.l 1. 1 Kul 1 1V111. V1 1 1VJJ 1i41LV11{Ll l 11118,' ~ /Ulll. L / 1 Qb'1.~ 17 Vl GG to re-invent it. I repeat it is not a part of the existing comprehensive plan. While I was planning to present my documentation at the next mee ting, I will try to drop it off at your house in the next several days so you can see the whole history of this sad tale. You need to go beyond reading the master plan, and look at the underlying documentation of the 6/26/01 packet, and the amendment the Council made on that date, evidence by the minutes of the meeting. thinking is clouding your analysis. Sands ----Original Message-- From: Dan Roe <dan.roe@comcast net> To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 3:12 am Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 ! have reviewed the 2001 master plan approval based on your earlier emails, and I simply do not see it as proscriptive as you see it. Even with the "scenario 1a" map excluded, which is clear from reading the minutes of the meeting, and from the master plan itself, there is another map with 4 options that is still part of the master plan, plus the text in the master plan, when read in full, does provide for flexibility. How is picking zoning designations on a parcel by parcel basis less of a central plan than an area-wide zoning designation that allows for some flexibility as to exactly where each particular type of use goes (within the constraints of the master plan)? I can see the argument that the parcel by parcel specific zoning approach is MORE restrictive than B6. Plus, each zoning designation comes with a bunch of uses, some of which may meet the intent for the area, and some of which may be outside of what is intended. (If you pick B2 because it allows one desired use, you could also end up allowing a totally different use that you don't want to allow.) By using B6, you get a different specific set of possible uses. Depends on what you want to do. Or more correctly, what the community wants to do. Zoning only changes when a new proposal comes along that meets the comp plan for the area. Until that happens, each parce! can be used to its current designation as fully and as long as anyone wants to. I am fairly sure that the 66 zoning for Twin Lakes that was done for the last project was contingent on the plan going through, so the area should revert back to its most recent previous zoning designation now that the project did not happen. Prospective buyers (and sellers) DO know what use the land can be put to right now in Twin Lakes -- anything that meets current zoning, or anything that ultimately meets B6 (PUD). They can make their decisions on that basis. If they build an expensive new light industrial building, certainly they take a certain (known) risk based on the comp plan designation being other than industrial. At the same time, anyone who wants to buy that hCanertq down the road and do a B6 development on it will have to fairly compensate the owner far the value ~. NJ ~~~ qG ~iuiidirrr;, ha4~n'n, n the mark~thl?^~. By the way, it does not automatically require 4 votes to do everything in twin Lakes. As long as the comp plan does not need to be changed, a 3-2 vote will suffice. It is not out of the realm of possibilities for a plan to come forward that only Tom, Amy, and I support, for instance. If it meets the comp plan and you like the plan, too, would you say that it is it bad to approve it by only a 3-2 vote? Of course, the preference would be to have 5-0 votes on everything. It comes down to how much each Councilmember is willing to compromise. Ultimately, I only control my 1 vote. Dan Roe Email dan.roe@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: esancls2612~i'~aoLcom [mailto:esands2(~I2 a?aoLcoml Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:02 PM http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/MaiUPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007