Laserfiche WebLink
470 U.S. Bank Plaza <br />� ' # 200 South Sixch SEreer <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br />(612) 337-9300 telephone <br />�fi I�} 93r •431 d r�t <br />G H f R T E A F G h�'F' ': ""�""'�G�nn�:ly•knvr ti i�•m <br />J,an�s J. THOmsaK <br />Attorney at Law <br />U�rect �}i�l (612) 337-9209 <br />Er�il: jihamson(�kennedy-graven corn <br />February 8,2005 <br />Doug Gronli <br />League of MinnesotaCities <br />145 UniversityAvenue West <br />Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 <br />RE: Friends of Twin Lakes v. City of Roseville <br />Dear poug: <br />I am responding to your emaxl in which you requested some background information from our firm <br />with respect to potentially representing the City of Roseville in the above matter. I reviewed the <br />First Amended Complaint, which alleges causes of action for violation of MEPA, arbitrary and <br />capricious action, and violation of MERA. I am enclosing a few excerpts from our �rnt brochure <br />summarizing our firm's background with respect to litigation, in general, and environmental matters, <br />in particular. <br />If our firm is selected to represent the City in this matter, I would he the lead attorney and I would <br />work with Mike Norton and Mac LeFevre. � am enclosing excerpts from our firm brochure <br />summarizing our background. <br />In addition to the general information that I am enclosing, the following information might also be <br />helpful to demonstrate our firm's background with respect to the types of issues in the lawsuit: <br />I represented the City of Minneapolis in a lawsuit brought by a neighborhood group <br />arising out of the proposed construction of a high rise condominiumproject on Lake <br />Calhoun_ The issues in that case related to both land use and environmentalmatters, <br />including violations of M�pA and NIERA. That lawsuit was ultimately settled in a <br />manner very favorable to the city. <br />2. As City Attorney for Shakopee, I have assisted the City staff through two AUAR <br />processes. �ne of those matters was a controversial, mixed use of"iice/residential <br />project. One of the issues raised by the neighborhood group opposing the project <br />was that the project changed after the completion of the AUAR process. The City <br />ultimately approved the revisedproj ect. No lawsuits were filed against the City. <br />3. Mike Norton worked on several AUARs while he was with the Minneapolis City <br />Attorney's Office. He is extremely familiar with that process. <br />�rr-*�nirs�4 i <br />��E <br />