|
1 wu. nvw~ v vvvciii a ~,uy --.~~. r aui r iviiwi i ic~~ uuiwiiai i•iiuay, ruuv ~ i ra~v t,v u1 ~G
<br />.
<br />To: dan.roe u',con~icast.net
<br />Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27
<br />If I had my druthers, I would not have voted for the Twin Lakes Maste Plan i~~ June, 2C~Ci1, as Klausing
<br />(and Kysylyczyn, and P~iaschka} did. It is the type of central planning; an a very big scale that requires a
<br />developer with very deep pockets to implement
<br />that I vrould argue against. And so does Mr. Greenhut. But the Council did vote it in and did incorporate it
<br />into the city"s comprehensive plan, so it is the law of the land. That the Council (and Klausing} in 20Q5 tried
<br />to ignore it was a very costly mistake. If this Council ignores it in approving the AUP,R update.., you will be
<br />making an equally serious mistake. Recognize and obey the constrictions your predecessors have placed
<br />on you. You don't really believe you are above the law: do you?
<br />When you talk about options far developers and the city to come up with plans that don't fit more
<br />narrow zoning designations, and ignore the rights of the land owners themselves, that basically is
<br />alllowing the city to dictate to both the developers and the land owners what they must do. That is,
<br />as I see it, Central Planning by the city, and freedom for the Council, but nobody else. If you can't
<br />see that, I'm afraid we do live on different planets.
<br />Of course we need a comprehensive plan to keep targets and costcos separate from residential
<br />areas. That is the very purpose of a comprehensive plan, and the zoning codes that support and are
<br />consistent with the Comp Plan, Right now, most of Twin Lakes would be zoned "light industrial"
<br />were it not for the B6 PUD designation. Note that the B6 designation does not take effect until there
<br />is an approved PUD. Before Commers bo ught the Indianhead site, someone else managed to get it
<br />re- zoned to commercial from industrial. It doesn't fit in--doesn't belong there, 1 would be interested
<br />in learning how that ever got rezoned to commercial in an otherwise industrial zoning area.
<br />However, he doesn't have enough land there for a Costco. Even a Costco wouldn't want to be
<br />situated in the middle of an industrial manufacturing area.
<br />To make my position clear to you, 1 would rescind the B6 zoning designation, abandon the PUD
<br />micromanaging approach, but amend the Comprehensive Plan to zone the Twin Lakes area in a
<br />sensible land use approach. Industrial is no longer a practical option, because any new
<br />manufacturing facility is very remote. I thought the 2001 Master Plan was a pretty sensible land use
<br />plan, except for the hospital fiasco, and the created confusion between (limited) "service mix" and
<br />(anything goes) "retail". If the Gouncii deemed it wise to zone certain areas of Twin Lakes into
<br />Office, High Tech Flex, Housing, etc. I think that would be a good comp plan, which has to be
<br />amended by the end of 2008, with four votes of the council. Land owners would then know what
<br />exactly their land use plan is and seek out buyers accordingly. Each land owner would act in his
<br />own best interests independently, but eventually the overall plan would be the same as the B6 PUD
<br />outcome, but without the central planning, and without the big TIF give aways. And without the
<br />centrally planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent to Langton Lake. If Council demands a Twin Lakes
<br />Parkway, take the land under eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front. Then asses the land
<br />owners for the improvement to their property. As it is, current land owners are helpless. They can't
<br />go back to their original uses, because they abandaned them, and they can't tell any prospective
<br />buyer what use the land can be put to. ; ;The must wait for another big pocket developer to come
<br />along and get four votes of the Gouncii to amend the Comp Plan. Trying to circumvent the current
<br />Comp Plan through a flawed AUAR process is not the way to give certainty to developers. While 1
<br />understand your desire to get out of this "box",and get something going in Twin Lakes, do it the
<br />right way. The outcomes you are seeking don't justify the means you are using.
<br />Thanks for this dialogue. Perhaps we both see each others positions more clearly now. Also,
<br />thanks forthe web site to the OCRegister.com. 1've been able to save it on my hard drive.
<br />Best regards.
<br />A! Sands
<br />----Original Message-----
<br />From: Dan Roe <dan.roeca comcast.net>
<br />To: esands2612@aol.com
<br />Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 6:57 pm
<br />Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 2 7
<br />http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007
<br />
|