2007_0910_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appeals Court ruled against the City, confirming the need to have four votes to insert the Rottlund plan into the Comprehensive and Master Plans, and the project stopped. A new development director, John Stark came on board about that time (the previous development director retired). Mr. Stark proceeded to re define and re invent 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan by proclaimingthat there are other operational scen�os(og�ions 2, 3, and 4) as shown in a"Map 3" that is included in the appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan document. The City is now claiming that the Twin Lakes Master Plan is really a"mixed use" plan with many plan options available, and it is not limited to the scenario � that the Council adopted on June 26,2001, as we thought all along. The purpose of the remaining discussion in this memorandum is to refute Mr. Star�cs arguments, as further described in a Memo to Mike �7arrow, the Interim Community DevelopmentDirector, from Jamie Radel, dated August 3,2007. Mr. Stark's November 1,2006 Re�port to the Plannin� Commission: .. "The 2001 Master Plan also includes four future land-use maps (options 2,�. and 4 and the Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario".. Mr. Stark's conclusions rely on his opinion that including Map 3 in the appendix gives those options 2,3;and 4 equal footing with scenario 1, as described in pages 9-1 � of the Master plan. This is simply not true for the following reasons: 1. Inclusion of Map 3 in the appendix to the printed Twin Lakes Master Plan is a clerical mistake by staff. The adopted Twin Lakes Master Plan attached to the June 26, 2001 Council Packet spscificaldy excludes Map 3 frnrn the appNOVed Twin Lakes MasteN Plan. It is not there. See the Council Packet for 6/26/O 1. 2. Other maps of historical interest are also included in the appendix, e.�., the 1988 Land Use Plan. No special significance can be attributed to their inclusion in the appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan. 3. Mr. Stark's opinion would permit large amounts of retail as being consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan, while on pages 9-11 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, no retail is permitted in the Master Plan. Big Box is specifically recommended against. �