CC_Minutes_2008_1013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee September 11, 2008 Page 2 Plans being included in this Comprehensive Plan and some land use definitions becoming much more specific. For example, the Twin Lakes Master Plan could stay in the Comprehensive Plan, but the City Center Plan (mentioned by Ms. Pust) would not. This could and should only be undertaken with a concurrent strong and clear land use definition document. Such definitions would include at a minimum the 100,000 sf limitation on buildings in the Community Business sections and the inclusion of Target and Har Mar in Community Business definition. This was the plan shown at the initial "open house" and was very well received by the residents attending. As for the inclusion of Master Plans within the Comprehensive Plan, there seems to be substantial misunderstandings, particularly with respect to Roseville. First, any reasonable changes can be adopted by a 2/3 majority vote. Given the money, time, and effort represented in most Master Plans it is my opinion that if they are deemed by a 2/3 majority to be significant enough to be included in the Comprehensive Plan then it only follows that a 2/3 vote be required to change them. In the case of the Twin Lakes Master Plan there was no opposition to the plans proposed by Cent Ventures and McGough even though they were vastly different than those proposed by Rottlund Homes. Clearly within the Twin Lakes Master Plan there is room for a variety of variations, and public input should be a critical part of the approval process of any significant plans being put before the Council. The recurring theme promulgated by Ms. Bakeman and Ms. Pust, that the inclusion of the Twin Lakes Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan resulted in a law suit and the loss of that suit by the City of Roseville is incorrect. The Twin Lakes law suit was about the environmental review that had been done and the findings and changes that had occurred since that review was completed. In fact, the entire focus was on the AUAR and its rules and regulations. It was a MEPA (Minnesota Environmental Protection Act) suit; it was not about the Comprehensive Plan or the Master Plan. (If anyone would like further details or clarification, I can supply them, but for now, the fact is that the inclusion of the Twin Lakes Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan did not result in the law suit or the city's loss of that suit.) Ms. Pust's discussion of the implications of the City Center Master Plan also contains incorrect assertions. The City Center Master Plan was summarily abandoned very early after its inception with the sale of the 14 acres of city land (the Arona site). This site was to be the new home of the maintenance facility, thus freeing space at the City Hall Campus for a Community Center. With the sale of the Arona site (I believe by a 5/0 vote.) and the subsequent public referendum expanding City Hall and the Maintenance Facility, the plan was totally abandoned and should certainly not be included in this Comprehensive Plan. (Here I accept without confirmation Ms. Pust's assertion that this City Center Master Plan was amended into the Comprehensive Plan.) With considerable