Laserfiche WebLink
FREDRIKSON & BYRON <br />A PROFESSIONAL. ASSOCIATION <br />Mr. James F. Andre <br />September 9, 1987 <br />Page 2 <br />Your understanding of Costco's interest was incorrect, <br />however. Though Indianhead engaged in negotiation with Costco <br />regarding a purchase of the property, no purchase agreement was <br />ever executed by the parties. Costco never owned the relevant <br />property; it had neither a legal nor an equitable interest in <br />Indianhead's property. Therefore, the City Council's action to <br />rezone the property based on Costco's application was improper <br />and based on the faulty premise that Costco had an interest in <br />the land. <br />In a letter addressed to you from Robert C. Bell, City <br />Attorney, dated June 10, 1987, Mr. Bell gave his opinion that <br />the City Council has the power to rezone land without a <br />petition signed by the primary owner of the land. We do not <br />necessarily dispute Mr. Bell's opinion; however, in this case <br />the City did not provide statutory due process for a <br />City -initiated rezoning. The notice of public hearing <br />expressly stated that the Planning Commission was to consider <br />the Costco request for a zoning amendment, not a request by the <br />City of Roseville. <br />In view of the fact that the property was rezoned based <br />upon erroneous information and without proper due process for a <br />City -initiated rezoning, we request that the City Council <br />nullify Ordinance No. 1001 and immediately restore the property <br />to its I-1 zoning. <br />Sincerely, <br />i <br />M y Ranum <br />r <br />MSR:BGF:sk j f <br />cc; Lester A. Wilsey, Jr. <br />