CC_Minutes_2007_0827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

sta, f, j`'report dated January 12, 2000. " Note: The date reference is inaccurate. The real date should read January of 2001. All of the planning commissions recommendations in their report are an integral part of Resolution 9904. • The AUAR and Mitigation Plan referred to in resolution 9904 only studied scenario 1, and scenario la. No other options were considered or studied. • "The City council, based on the findings of the Twin Lakes Master Plan and consistency with the adopted City of Roseville Plan (as revised January, 2001) hereby approves etc. " The revised City of Roseville Plan as revised January 2001 refers to scenario 1 only. It is a combination of options 2 and 3 in now infamous Map 3. Map 3 was thereafter irrelevant. Staff Report to City Council 6/26/01 Ms. Radel claims that the City Council did not act on the former development director's recommendation that the Council approve Scenario 1 (as opposed to scenario la with retail component. I assert that the Council's minutes aze evidence they did: "Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, by resolution, to approve the final amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes Business Pazk~ azea from "Business" and "Industrial" to "Business Park" as described in the Twin Lakes Master Plan dated June 26, 2001 and as amended by Council with Scenario #1. The amendment shall also include the findings of the AUAR and mitigation plan. " Roll call, Ayes: Goedeke, Mastel, Klausing, Maschka, and Kysylycryn. Nays: none ABSENCE OF WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS Several weeks ago I met with the city manager, Bill Malinen, and requested he obtain some legal opinions, at least from our regular city attorney(s) (Scott Anderson and Jay Squires) ,and perhaps the development attorneys (Krass Monroe) and/or our defense attorney, Mr. Reuvers . Mr. Malinen said he would ask and get back to me. He hasn't gotten back to me on this issue. I must assume no written legal opinion on the "new" 4