pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� 0 : a:> appeal. We specifically asked the attorney whether we could include your May l Oth i�ac email as part of the packet of information they will receive for the meeting on the ;,�a � 24th. The City Attorney stated that only your original appeal documents can be : a� included in the information the Council will receive. ;�a� Based on the City Attorney's direction, we cannot include your additional emails as ;�>o part of the case. However, as per the code, the Council can, at its own discretion, �� consider other information. The City Council unfortunately will not be able to make ::�:- that decision until they meet on the 24th. :s�� I would note that City Council members may be contacted individually through phone �:� � calls or emails. Their contact information can be found at the city website �.>:� w�-w.cityofroseville.com '�,�� Patrick Trudgeon : �� RE: NCPC Appeal :7� Fri 5/14/2010 10:38 PM s.>� From: Larry Leiendecker, J.D. 3��o To: Pat Trudgeon, Bill Malinen, Bryan Lloyd sr� � cc: Craig Klausing :s�::- Dear Mr. Trudgeon: (Roseville City Council Members and City Attorney): ic; � The decision by the City Attorney to restrict what the City Council views is :i��a erroneous. It is also quite disturbing. As will be seen infra, under the City :�,r, Attorney's interpretation of the city code, even the Appeal itself would be rejected :Se�; as not being part of the "evidence that had previously been considered...." :��; , Because of this, I request that the City Attorney revisit and reverse this clearly �,�:�� erroneous determination. I also repeat my request that my correspondence �c� regarding the Appeal be forwarded on to the City Council for its review. My s i o correspondence at all times as been considered, frank, and polite while striving to :� i illuminate the reasons for the opposition to the planning division's administrative s i� determination. It seems quite odd that this type of candor would be so easily �% t rejected by those that serve the residents of the City of Roseville. �s � n Mr. Trudgeon, I trust that you will forward this email on to the City Attorney as ;�� your email did not provide me with any contact information. I trust that the City 37� Manager will do the same and will also forward my emails, as previously s�; requested, on to the City Council members. It's a simple request to be sure. I also si� trust that Mayor Klausing will also forward this email on to the other City Council ;� i a members. I'm positive that the City Council will want to know that matters are ��o being kept from its due consideration. Even the city code (as cited by the City �r'.� Attorney) says that the City Council in its "sole discretion" can review additional :i�:% information if the information clarifies "information previously considered...." So 383 how can the City Council decide for itself (in its sole discretion) if this 3£34 information is being kept from it? Hmmm? Sounds like the City Attorney is s�5 doing the decision-making for the City Council in this regard by filtering what it 3�36 sees. 3�s i Nevertheless, as is clearly reflected by my emails to the City Manager regarding s��.? the Appeal, nothing in the emails (see below) conveys any new evidence. The s�Q references to conversations with Mr. Lloyd merely reveal insight into the reasons