My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_1023_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_1023_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 3:54:31 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:40:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
281
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting —10109106 <br />DRAFT Minutes ' Page 21 <br />days as to whether they will accept review. <br />2) If the Supreme Court does not accept review, the City <br />Council has the option of choosing to make no adjustment <br />to the City Plan and Ordinances, effectively precluding the <br />Rottlund Proj ect, with the City needing to take affirmative <br />action to terminate the Contract for Private Development <br />governing the Rottlund proposal, with the legal exper�ise of <br />the City `s Development Attorney, Jim Casserly. <br />3) The Council could also amend the Twin Lakes Master Plan, <br />or remove the Master Plan from the Comprehensive Plan, <br />with both actions requiring superQmajority vote. <br />4) Or, the developer could amend its proposal to conform to <br />the Twin Lakes master Plan as set forth in the <br />Comprehensive Plan, with the City analyzing any new <br />proposal for conformity to the Master Plan. <br />City Attorney Anderson and Councilmember spoke in detail <br />regarding the AUAR, the Court of Appeals' determination that the <br />interpretation and opinion of Downy and Larson of the <br />Environmental Quality Board (EQB) was invalid; and their <br />decision calling into question the viability of the AUAR process <br />state-wide, making the presumption that an Environmental <br />Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Environmental Impact <br />Statement (EIS) would be required for each specific project <br />proposed, creating additional costs for the City, rather than the <br />developer. <br />Staff had provided three conclusions for Council consideration, <br />based on the legal opinion rendered by the City Attorney, for <br />considering development plans in the area: <br />3.1.1 Delay any further redevelopment activity in the area <br />until a Minnesota Supreme Court decision is made; <br />3.1.2 Pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the area <br />that provides more definitive guidance to property owners <br />and prospective developers in the area; or <br />3.1.3 Evaluate any land use application (s) for the area <br />based on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation as <br />outlined in the legal Opinion. <br />Councilmember Ihian reiterated her proposal that further action <br />needed to wait until a determination by the Supreme Court as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.