2012_0723_as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2) “… until it [City Council] hears and decides the Appeals of the Community Development 41 Department’s June 21 determination that the Wal-Mart Project complies with Community 42 Mixed Use District Zoning.” AND 43 3) “…until the Minnesota Court of Appeals determines that the AUAR remains valid.” 44 City Attorney Gaughan advised that, in the City Attorney’s further review and submission of 45 recommended conditions as provided tonight, and prior to receipt of this RGR 46 correspondence, recognized that the two (2) issues addressed remained outstanding. City 47 Attorney Gaughan advised that, whether further environment review is determined to be 48 necessary, it was the City Attorney Office’s position that the actual potential future use of the 49 site did not come into play given how City Code interacts with State Statute. However, 50 recognizing those two pending litigation issues, City Attorney Gaughan noted that their 51 recommended conditions (#9 and #10) would serve as further protection for the City with the 52 project’s proposer having those conditions addressed per State Code and Environmental 53 Review. However, City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that it was not the perception of the 54 City Attorney’s Office that it comes into play regarding the Preliminary Plat, and thus their 55 office did not recommend denial as proposed in the Lightfoot letter. 56 Councilmember McGehee opined that, in her review of the case law cited by the City Attorney’s 57 Office in their original legal opinion, she had yet to find anything that served to satisfy her of 58 that position on the Preliminary Plat and what could or could not be considered. Councilmember 59 McGehee further opined that this created a difference between what the City Attorney’s Office 60 proposed, and what she had found in her research of materials in State Statute, case law, and the 61 League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Handbook. 62 City Attorney Gaughan apologized that the City Attorney Office’s efforts had not satisfied 63 Councilmember McGehee; however, noting the attempts made to address those issues raised in 64 past correspondence and the City Attorney Office’s rationale in reaching their conclusions for 65 the City Council as a whole, he advised that they stood by those conclusions. 66 Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the proposed Twin Lakes Second Addition 67 PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to Title 11 of Roseville City Code, for the land area bounded 68 by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue, including the 69 4,643 square foot rectangle of land that is the subject of the disposal request; based on the 70 comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and the recommendation of Section 7, of the Request for 71 Council Action dated July 9, 2012; amended to include the ten (10) conditions provided by the 72 City Attorney Memorandum dated July 9, 2012 and restated as follows: 73 1. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall enter into a Development Agreement 74 pertaining to the Plat which is satisfactory to the City. 75 2. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall acquire fee simple title to all of the real 76 property included in the Plat and provide proof that there are no liens, encumbrances 77 or other parties having an interest in the Property at the time the Development 78 Agreement and Plat are recorded; or make other arrangements which are satisfactory 79 to the City to assure that title to the property is satisfactory to the City. 80 3. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall either dedicate on the Plat or otherwise 81 convey all roadway, utility, drainage, and other easements required by the City. 82