2006_0911_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9111/06 �TEM Nb: �. Department Approval: City Mana�Approval: Agenda Section: JStark ��.�-�+''� Item Description: Consideration of �ptt r the Twin Lakes DevelopmentArea l.� REQUESTED ACTION: l, L Discuss potential options for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (Twin Lakes) and provide staff with policy-level guidance in pursuing future outcomes in that area. �.� BACKGROUND: �, l On January 8,2001 the Roseville City Council approved the "Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan" (the 2001 Master Plan) which contained three maps showing alternative options for redeveloping the area. �,� On January 8,2001, the Roseville City Council also unanimously approved a separate action to for the Twin Lakes area to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation to "BP — Business Park;" a plan designation that would allow for the development at the levels conceptualized in the alternatives contained in the 2001 Master Plan. �, � On June 20,2005 the City of Roseville entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (Contract) with Roseville Twin Lakes, LLC (the Developer). The Contract set forth the conditions under which the Developer would privately redevelop Twin Lakes with public assistance. ?.� On June 20,2005, the Roseville City Council also approved a separate action to amend one of the alternative maps contained in the 2001 Master Plan to better reflect the development proposal adopted as part of the Contract with the Developer. Formal steps were r��t �aken at that time to amend the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the changes in the Master Plan. The reason that a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment were not sought appears to be due to the fact that the existing "�P — Business Park" planning designation allows for the uses prescribed in the amendment to the 2001 Master Plan. ?.� A legal challenge regarding the 2005 amendment to the 2001 Master Plan was filed by "The Friends of Twin Lakes" in 2004. While the District Court ruled that the City acted appropriately, a subsequentruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the 2005 amendment of the 2001 Master Plan equated to an attempt to amend the Comprehensive Plan; for which the required super-maj ority vote, of at least four supporting votes, was not achieved. The ruling served to make the 2005 amendment of the 2001 Master Plan "ineffective." While not specifically stated in the decision, it is inferred that the Court of Appeals considers the 2001 Master Plan an amendment to, or augmentation to, the Comprehensive Plan. 091106 Twin Lakes Options RGA,doc.doa Page 1 of 4