CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 09, 2012 Page 12 already been heard at that meeting and via written comment, Mayor Roe ad- vised that he was not intending to take any additional public comment at this meeting. Mayor Roe stated that this request would proceed to Council delibera- tion, following staffs presentation. City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request, and previous City Council action in TABLING action to take up the PRELIMINARY PLAT AP- PLICATION first so as to avoid any potential legal complications resulting from taking concurrent action on a Preliminary and Final Plat. Mr. Paschke ref- erenced the additional list of conditions from the City Attorney, previously ref- erenced as a bench handout, and made available to the public.2 Councilmember Pust arrived at this time, approximately 6:53 p.m. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan advised that it was the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office that all ten (10) of the conditions be incorporated into any approval of the Preliminary Plat by the City Council. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan provided his response to the July 9, 2012 letter previously referenced as a bench handout from Environ- mental Law Group representing Responsible Governance for Roseville (RGR)I and their rationale in setting forth three (3) reasons for denial of the Preliminary Plat. 1) "... because the City Attorney has concluded that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are in conflict. " City Attorney Gaughan, in his review of the City Attorney's original sub- mission, advised that it was not his perception that this was the conclusion, based on the recommendation for review on a case by case basis. City At- torney Gaughan opined that the City Attorney's finding was not as simple as indicated in the RGR position, and did not serve as an appropriate basis to deny the Preliminary Plat. • 2) "... until it[City Council] hears and decides the Appeals of the Community Development Department's June 21 determination that the Wal-Mart Pro- ject complies with Community Mixed Use District Zoning. "AND 3) "...until the Minnesota Court of Appeals determines that the A UAR remains valid. " City Attorney Gaughan advised that, in the City Attorney's further review and submission of recommended conditions as provided tonight, and prior to receipt of this RGR correspondence, recognized that the two (2) issues ad- dressed remained outstanding. City Attorney Gaughan advised that, wheth- er further environment review is determined to be necessary, it was the City Attorney Office's position that the actual potential future use of the site did not come into play given how City Code interacts with State Statute. How-