2007_0827_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ac vru. .►iV vvi v �.JV vi,.11t (L Vti.j' ""'�.1�. i CLUf 1 iV11�.G.1 i li+.'�J Li�t1iV13Qi 1'ilUCi}'� Jti.LiG L! i'C7.b-'G i.7 Vl GL > practical optinn, because any new manufacturing �'acili�y is?very re�nc�te.? i > thought the 2D01 Master PJ.an was a pretty sensible ].and use p1an, except for the a hospatal fa.asco, and ��e c��aCed carz�usian beL•ween (�.imited) ��service mix" and > fanythang goes} "retaii".? if the: Council dee�ned it wise to xone certain a�eas > of Twin L�kes inCO Office, Higl'� Tech FZex, Housing, etc. I think �hat would l�e a > goad corrip plan, which has to be amended ]ay �he end of 2[}D8, wa.�.h �our votes of >�he caunci�.? Land owners would thEn know what? exactly �heiz �anci use pl.an a.s > ancl seek out buyers accordingly.? Each land bwner would act in his own best > inLerests indeper�dent�y, but event�ally tiae overa.�l plan would bE th� same as > the B6 PUD nu�came, bu� wi�hou� the cen�ral planning� and wi�kaout �he ba.g T�F > give aways. And wathout the cent�-al�.y planned Twin �.akes Parkway adjacant �n > Larag'�on Lake.? I� Cnuncil demancis a Twin Lakes Parkway, '�ake '��e J.and under > eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front.? Then asses the land owners > for the intproveznen� to ��ea.� propa��y.7 As at a.s, current �.and owners are � helpiess.? They can't go back to their origznal uses, because they abandnned > them, and they can't te12 any prospect9.ve b�yer what use the J.and can be put > to.? ;; The must wait for another big pock�t dev�loper to come aiong and ge't > four vates of tl-ie Council '�o amend the Comp P1an.? Trying to circumvent the > current Comp P�.an tkzrough a£J.awed AU�#R process is not the way to give ce��ain�y > to develapers.? While I understand your tiesire to get out oi this "box", and ge� > some�kaa.nq going in Twin Lakes, dn it the righ� way.? The autcames yau axe > seeking don't justa.iy the means you axe usang. > > Tha�ks �a� ��a.s dialag�e.? Perhaps we bn�h see each a�hers pasi�a.at�s more > claar7.y nnw. Also, tharzks forthe web sa.te to the C7CR�qa.ster.cam.? �'ve been able > to sav� it on my hard ctrive. > > Best regards. > > A1 5ands > � ___--Q�iginal Message----- > Frozn: �an Roe <c,��r� ,_ r,��;; r,.ta*r�_�;ai, �� . ra�� ,.> , > `Pd: E;sc�.�r�?6']_'?t��l.;:�m > Sent: Ninn, 30 �u1 200? 6:57 pm > Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pianeer Press Eflitorial Friciay, > 3une 2 7 > > > � � > Business Park is part of �he 2001 comp plan change that you �ZO].d up as > sa�rosanct.? Probably no loss af use claim if the comp plan designation is > a�.ready in effect for year5 before a deve�opment.? B6 and PUD gives deveZopers >(ancl �ha city) op'��ans �o come up with plans �hat don't fit rnore narrow zoning > d�signa�ions - why is that `"central planning" and not freedom?? The?whole tha.ng > has to be approved in tt�e open via ��e elected of�icial5 of Ghe ci�y.??i think > it is passible for a"g�and scherne" to allow ireedom -- app�ren�ly �he E'riends > o� Twin Lakes don't.? Seems lake you are a�guang against �he 2pfl� �ias�e� P�an > that you are also saying we are no� even �ollnwing in re�.ation to.the AU�1i2.? > vdhich plar,et is?it that allaws ya� to?own bott� sa.d�s o�?the arg�nent, > and?evezybody else �.o own nei�her?? > ht�p://webrriail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-uslMaillPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2Q07