Laserfiche WebLink
Page Two <br /> January 1 , 1998 <br /> Kim L. Lee, AI c P <br /> City of Roseville <br /> leaked information concerning our informal <br /> subsequently found out that staff le • <br /> U'I�e � ]� council member oedel�e to <br /> to City Council members, which prompted discussions #Y end to foment fear end <br /> distort the <br /> information for use as an election campaign issue a <br /> oppose among the Dellwood Avenue neighbors. <br /> MT <br /> g <br /> On November 7, 1991, we submitted � Comprehensive Phan amendment application for <br /> our 3. -acre property only, <br /> • Dennis Welsch scheduled a pity Council work <br /> mid-November, Mr. ari�o�y and/or �� <br /> In Everest and contrary to Everest's <br /> Everest's property without telling <br /> session regarding <br /> written requests. <br /> At the November 17 Council work session, among <br /> other misstatements, staff <br /> � � discussions as a Tll` proposal and omitted <br /> cterized Everest's preliminary discussi <br /> m�schara At the meeting Council member <br /> from the planning packet. g <br /> Everest correspondence � , "10-story" bui�din and other Council <br /> I portrayed the project as � g <br /> ������ falsely � not applied for nor <br /> • a supposed roject7 that Everest had pp <br /> members disparaged �� � � was our <br /> afore the City. What was before the <br /> proposed and was not properly � t <br /> amendment application submitted ten (10) days earlier and covering only <br /> our property. <br /> ` � day after the vvort� session tennis Welsh <br /> ors the inadequate notice th ]� , <br /> Challenged e meeting to Everest the previous <br /> aimed that the city had faxed notice of g <br /> falsely claimed duced. Our own facsimile Friday. No <br /> evidence of such a fax transmittal has been pro <br /> records <br /> shove no such a transmittal was received. <br /> The staff report prepared by fir. Welsh for the Manua 14 Planning commission review <br /> � � legitimate planning rationale, and in <br /> Everest's application was biased, lacking in g <br /> of �r�er Pp s "findings" cor�clusory opinions <br /> 'n denial of the application, set forth a g <br /> recommending rded the substantial <br /> actual basis. The staff report wholly disrega� <br /> ritl�out supporting f <br /> ions submitted with th e application <br /> body of professional planning and a pp raiser o an <br /> gist and best use of a property is <br /> ' establish that the character and high <br /> which in the Comprehensive Plan <br /> ' ice and the numerous policy references + � <br /> commercial office, � and tai base. <br /> importance of business development, job creation <br /> which reinforce the imp i deficient as <br /> • "analysis" in the staff report was speculative and <br /> The traffic analysis included p } <br /> exemplified by the fact that Everest's traffic consultant shoved that traffic volumes on Ha mline Avenue would be upon full development of a 50,000 square foot of ic <br /> � users, than they were in <br /> building on <br /> our site rf even 1 oo � occupied by medical/dental <br /> 1 985, o n <br /> • g to a decrease in Hamline Avenue traffic from 1 985 to the present. <br />