2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10/29/03 Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle sign retainer with Plaintiff for Trial Exhibit 202 development of the proiect. 03/04 - A series of meetings between Plaintiff, its representatives, Trial Exhibit 103 05/04 Goodman ("L.G."), Kress, CPED staff, and neighborhood Trial Exhibit 105 organizations take place in which Plaintiff's proposed project Trial Exhibit 107 is introduced and discussed. Many residents contact L. G. to Trial Exhibit 109 voice opposition to the project. Trial Exhibit 130 04/27/04 Hoyt receives a telephone call from L.G. informing him that Trial Testimony she received over eighty emails from angry constituents, but refuses to share them with him. L. G. tells Hoyt that she intends to turn down the proiect. 06/02/04 Hoyt emails L.G. informing her of his plans to go forward and Trial Exhibit 113 that he seeks her support. Hours after leaving the email, Hoyt Trial Exhibit 221 agrees to a "compromise" of fifteen stories, and restates the importance of obtaining L.G.'s support. Hoyt does not disclose the compromise plan with the City. 07/02/04 Mellblom submits Plaintiff's application to the Planning Trial Exhibit 123 Commission. Trial Exhibit 124 07/23/04 Mayer requests a meeting with L.G. to discuss Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 126 proposed project and "to appropriately prepare for the Minneapolis Plannin!! Commission on Au!! 23rd." 07/28/04 L.G. meets with Mayer to discuss Plaintiff's proposed proiect. Trial Testimonv 08/1 0/04 L.G. emails Metge stating, "1 am kind of concerned that CLPC Trial Exhibit 129 didn't oppose the project at 21 stories; this will not help my effort. This looks to me like support for the project or at least no opposition to it." 08/18/04 CPED staff report issued recommending denial of Plaintiffs Trial Testimony application. 08/18/04 L.G. emails a constituent, stating, "1 am not supportive of a Trial Exhibit 132 high-rise as I do not believe it is in character with the neighborhood [...] In order to deny the applicant's request we need to address the issues that the planning commission is required to review. Please know density is not up for discussion... " 08/19/04 L.G. responds to an email from a constituent who opposed Trial Exhibit 133 Plaintiff's proposed project with the following statements, "... 1 don't even support it [...] ifwe want to stop the high-rise we should stick to the points the planning commission will evaluate in making their decision. The Staff did recommend against this proposal. I think the process will work." 08/23/04 The City Planning Commission holds a hearing on Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 302 application. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Planning Commission adopts the CPED report's recommendation of denial. Prior to Kress lobbies Ostrow on behalf of L.G., to vote against Trial Testimony Zoning Plaintiffs proposed project. and Planning Hearing 09/07/04 L.G. emails a Summit House resident who opposed Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 139 proposed project, stating, "1 have already "come out" against the height of the project and was at the planning commission meeting as well. We have Schiff; I'd suggest Lilligren, Zimmerman, Niziolek, and Ostrow need calls/contacts." 09/10/04 L.G. emails Mayer, stating, "As usual I am very worried Trial Exhibit 140 http://www.minnlawyer.com/userfiles/pdf/Order%20(F inal).htrn Page 15 of 17 9/17/2009