Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: l 0/49/0b <br />ITEM NO: 8. � <br />Department Approval: City Manager Approval: Agenda Section: <br />J�tark �`. ����i <br />Ee�aY �]escripti�i�: Consideration of the �.cga� ���r�i� �g�� the impact �f Ih� 1�+'i�t <br />Lakes Court of ���a•e�ls I��sisi��� <br />1.� REQUESTED ACTION: <br />f. I Consider the Legal Opinion regarding the impacts of the Twin Lakes Court of Appeals <br />Decision and provide direction to staff regarding what, if any, future actions the City <br />Council may wish to pursue with regards to the options identified in the Legal Opinion. <br />�,� BACKGROUND: <br />?. ] On January 8,2001 the Roseville City Council approved the "Twin Lakes Business Park <br />Master Plan" (the 2001 Master Plan) which contained three maps showing alternative <br />options for redeveloping the area. <br />?.. % On January 8,2001, the Roseville City Council also unanimously approved a separateaction <br />to for the Twin Lal{es area to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation to "BP — Business <br />Park;" a plan designation that would allow for the development at the levels conceptualized <br />in the alternatives contained in the 2001 Master Plan. <br />�_.3 On June 20,2005 the City of Roseville entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment <br />with Roseville Twin Lakes, LLC. The Contract set forth the conditions under which the <br />Developer would privately redevelop Twin Lal{es with public assistance. <br />�.� On June 20,2005, the Roseville City Council also approved a separate action to amend one <br />of the alternative maps contained in the 2001 Master Plan to better reflect the development <br />proposal adopted as part of the Contract with the Developer. Formal steps were »�t taken at <br />that time to amend the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the changes in the Master Plan. <br />The reason that a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment were not sought appears to be <br />due to the fact that the existing "BP —Business Park" planning designation allows for the <br />uses prescribed in the amendment to the 2001 Master Plan. <br />}.� A legal challenge regarding the 2005 amendment to the 2001 Master Plan was filed by "The <br />Friends of Twin Lal{es" in 2004. While the District Court ruled that the City acted <br />appropriately, a subsequent ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the 2005 <br />amendment of the 2001 Master Plan equated to an attempt to amend the Comprehensive <br />Plan; for which the required super-majority vote, of at least four supporting votes, was not <br />achieved. The ruling served to ma%� the 2005 amendment of the 2001 Master Plan <br />"ineffective." While not specifically stated in the decision, it is inferred that the Court of <br />Appeals considers the 2001 Master Plan an amendment to, or augmentation to, the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />100906 Twin Lakes Options RCA.doc Page 1 of 2 <br />