2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentH would be an appropriate process for such a debate at that time. However, Mr. Gaughan again clarified 535 that the purpose of tonight’s request for action was for the purpose of redrawing lines regardless of their 536 use. Mr. Gaughan advised that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has confirmed that the City can’t 537 take the potential use into account in making that decision. 538 Regarding Preliminary and Final Plat approval or denial, Mr. Gaughan advised that, state-wide, cities 539 have the ability to consolidate those processes, even if the Roseville City Code does not specifically 540 consolidate them in its current language, it does not specify that it won’t consolidate them. Mr. 541 Gaughan noted that the Final Plat must be completed within sixty (60) days, and while there appeared to 542 be some ambiguity, he expressed more interest in City Code, Chapter 1102.04, Items b.9 and 10 and 543 requirements of what must occur before Final Plat approval. Mr. Gaughan expressed his concern that 544 staff do a final review to assure that all those requirements have been completed as per City Code before 545 Final Plat approval or denial to ensure all those “ducks are in a row” and the Final Plat is in compliance. 546 Precluding that assurance, Mr. Gaughan suggested that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat, 547 subject to conditions of the ordinance and hold off on Final Plat approval. 548 Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the steps followed in assuring that compliance, and those items found on the 549 Preliminary Plat, from staff’s perspective, needing additional work. 550 In response to City Attorney Gaughan, Councilmember Pust opined that, regarding Community versus 551 Regional Business designation, she thought there was a conflict between the Zoning Code including 552 reference to “official control” of the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Master Plan. 553 Councilmember Pust concurred with Mr. Gaughan in general, if all that was being done was platting, 554 those issues may not rise to the level, since it was a concept or drawing lines, not determining a 555 particular use. However, Councilmember Pust opined that she did not believe it to be accurate that 556 citizens had more rights than a sitting City Council in having the authority to say “no” to something that 557 might allow enough ambiguity to prompt another lawsuit. Councilmember Pust expressed her 558 frustration with those past attempts to stifle a project, and opined that she was also tired of the continued 559 waste of public monies in defending the City’s past actions and/or positions. 560 Councilmember Pust, opined that an argument could come up that the City didn’t have the authority to 561 do what has been proposed, and since she was unable to personally ignore ordinance language, even if 562 State Statute says it was appropriate to combine approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat, the City can 563 revise their own ordinance to combine that approval process, removing any such ambiguity about the 564 process. No matter if the City of Roseville has just done it that way, without written ordinance language 565 providing that clear authority and a process outlined, Councilmember Pust opined that she was confident 566 there would be another lawsuit since the development was proposed in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 567 Area, an obvious area of dispute in the community. Councilmember Pust opined that since there had 568 already been a delay to ensure that all the “ducks were in a row,” the City Council should delay further 569 to get its “ducks in a row” to confident action by the City Council majority. Therefore, Councilmember 570 Pust spoke in support of not taking any action at tonight’s meeting. 571 Councilmember Johnson stated that he heard the logic of Councilmember Pust, and agreed that she had 572 some valid points. Along with comments heard from other Councilmembers, Councilmember Johnson 573 spoke in support of moving forward with the Preliminary Plat only tonight, since it was consistent with 574 State Statute and City Ordinance. However, Councilmember Johnson expressed his hesitation and lack 575 of comfort going outside that realm at this point. However, in the interest of time and the 60-day review 576 period, Councilmember Johnson questioned how much more time was available in the review period. 577 Councilmember Johnson also recognized the lateness of the hour in having additional discussion on this, 578 or in any other making any other significant decisions tonight. 579 Page13of14