Laserfiche WebLink
Request by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for Approval of a Preliminary Plat of the Land Area <br />1 <br />Bounded by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue <br />2 <br />Three bench handouts were available at the meeting, all attached hereto and made a part hereof, <br />3 <br />consisting of: <br />4 <br />Additional e-mails (Gerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue in opposition to Wal-Mart; <br />5 <br />Kate Finnegan, 2887 N Pascal Street in opposition to Wal-Mart; Nancy Rooney, 2986 <br />6 <br />Old Highway 8, in opposition to Wal-Mart; and Bob Worrall, 1866 Skillman Avenue, in <br />7 <br />opposition to Wal-Mart. <br />8 <br />Letter from Thaddeus R. Lightfoot, Environmental Law Group, 133 First Avenue N, <br />9 <br />Minneapolis, MN, dated July 9, 2012 and representing Responsible Governance for <br />10 <br />Roseville (RGR), requesting denial of the Preliminary Plat application at this time. <br />11 <br />1 <br />Memorandum dated July 9, 2012 from the City Attorney Office of Erickson, Bell, <br />12 <br />Beckman & Quinn, P.A. providing an updated list of proposed conditions to any approval <br />13 <br />of the Twin Lakes Second Addition Preliminary Plat. <br />14 <br />Mayor Roe reviewed the purpose of tonight’s continued discussion of the Preliminary Plat <br />15 <br />following previous TABLING of action following previous public comment and City Council <br />16 <br />deliberation. Therefore, since public testimony had already been heard at that meeting and via <br />17 <br />written comment, Mayor Roe advised that he was not intending to take any additional public <br />18 <br />comment at this meeting. Mayor Roe stated that this request would proceed to Council <br />19 <br />deliberation, following staff’s presentation. <br />20 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request, and previous City Council action in <br />21 <br />TABLING action to take up the PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION first so as to avoid any <br />22 <br />potential legal complications resulting from taking concurrent action on a Preliminary and Final <br />23 <br />Plat. Mr. Paschke referenced the additional list of conditions from the City Attorney, previously <br />24 <br />referenced as a bench handout, and made available to the public. <br />25 <br />Councilmember Pust arrived at this time, approximately 6:53 p.m. <br />26 <br />At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan advised that it was the <br />27 <br />recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office that all ten (10) of the conditions be incorporated <br />28 <br />into any approval of the Preliminary Plat by the City Council. <br />29 <br />At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan provided his response to the July 9, 2012 <br />30 <br />letter previously referenced as a bench handout from Environmental Law Group representing <br />31 <br />Responsible Governance for Roseville (RGR) and their rationale in setting forth three (3) <br />32 <br />1 <br />reasons for denial of the Preliminary Plat. <br />33 <br />1) “… because the City Attorney has concluded that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning <br />34 <br />Ordinance are in conflict.” <br />35 <br />City Attorney Gaughan, in his review of the City Attorney’s original submission, advised <br />36 <br />that it was not his perception that this was the conclusion, based on the recommendation for <br />37 <br />review on a case by case basis. City Attorney Gaughan opined that the City Attorney’s <br />38 <br />finding was not as simple as indicated in the RGR position, and did not serve as an <br />39 <br />appropriate basis to deny the Preliminary Plat. <br />40 <br /> <br />