2007_0910_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

staff repc�rt dated Januaty 12, 2000. " Note: The date reference is inaccurate. The real date should read January of 2001. All of theplanning commissions recommendations in their report are an integ�al part of Resolution 9904. • The A tIAR and Mitigation Plan referred to in resolution 9904 only studied scenario 1, and scenario � a. 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 Council6/26/O 1 Ms. Radel claims that the City Council did not act on the former development director's recommendationthat the Council approve Scenario 1(as opposed to scenario 1 a with retail component. I assert that the Council's minutes are evidence they did: "Maste� moved, Maschka seconded, by resolution, to approve the final amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes Business Park area 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 #I. The amendment shall also include the fandings of the AtIAR and mitigation plan "�� call, Ayes: Goedeke, MasteZ, Klausing, Maschka, and Kysylyczyn. 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 attor€�ey(s) (Scott Anderson and Jay Squires) , and perhaps the development attorneys (K.�'ass Monroe) andlor our defense attorney, Mr. Reuvers . Mr. Mal�ne�. 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 '