Correspondence 1989-1990 Jopke - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� , � 1'�� 1 � � �.� �� � May 22, 1990 ; Mr. Paul Baltzersen Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55141 Dear Mr. Baltzersen: Thank you for the opportunity to review your May 17, 1990 report concerning the City of Ro�eville's request for a comprehensive plan amendment for the Pavilion �lace expansion. I would offer the following as clarification for a number of points which you raised in your report. First of all, I want to stress tk�at the review of this particular proposal was not a standard developmental review. In March of 1989, the City �ouncil app�oved this project with a number of contingencies. The City approued a camprehensive plan amendment subject to Metropolita�ra Cauncil review as indicated in the information submitted �o the Metxopolitan Council in October of 1989. The City approved the are�oning of the site contingent upon 19 conditions and also the �pproval w�s subject to demonstration by the developer that he h�.� the requirecl anchor tenants for the project to move forward. The City wi�hl�eld publishing the ordinance to put the rezoning in�o affect until after we knew the project was moving forward and after direction from t e Metropolitan Council. This publ.�c�tion actually occurred on M y 9, 1�90 which is after natification from Metrr�politan Council n April 24, 1990 that the Cit� could �ut �h� comprehensive pl n amendment into affect. Building permits were also not issued f r the construction af the shopping center �xpansinn until aft r April 24, 1990 also. The City did issue permits for t e demolition of the houses 4n the site prior �o April 24, 1990. The City was not invol'ved in any way in the acquisition of any of the 22 homes, therefore, we could not control the demolition process. While it was clear that the houses were being demolished to make way for the shopping cent�r expansion, the developer was doing sd at his own risk beca�sse final approvals were not granted. The City issued the permits because the act of demolishing the structures was not a violation of the existing comprehensive plan or the Ci�y'� zonzng ordinance. The developer was on notice that there would be no permits for construction of the new center until all the final approvals were granted. 'G��U GI�'IG Cl:\''I'l;R I)f�l�'I; • I:OSI�,�'ILLI: • �1[\NESOT.� • ��;11�� • (�:1?--��O-??OU ❑ ❑ � � � '� �� N N