CC_Minutes_2005_0124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session - 01/24/05 Minutes - Page 18 City Attorney Anderson reviewed the four motions made by the City Council at their January 10,2005 regular meeting related to Twin Lakes and his interpretation of State Statute and City Code and the 60-day rule; noting that no actual written request or application for rezoning had been received from the developer. Mr. Anderson recommended that staff include an agenda item on the upcoming regular meeting agenda for the "second reading" of the ordinance adopted at the January 10, 2005 meeting in an effort to clean up the process; but noted that until final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, the ordinance did not become effective, even with publication. Councilmember Ihlan provided her interpretation of previous requests for Council action from the original land use request at the October 25,2004 Council meeting and the proposed motions from that meeting. Mr. Anderson noted that those requests for proposed motions were not what was adopted and acted upon at the January 10, 2005 meeting; and those actions were what his opinion was based upon. Mr. Anderson further noted that, in terms of the law, the "second reading" was moot; and was still dependent on final PUD approval. Councilmember Maschka opined that the original intent of a second reading was to get the ordinance brought forward at a first reading and then allow public comment prior to Council adoption after a second reading. City Manager Beets requested clarification on the proposed agenda item and requested action for the January 31, 2005 regular meeting. City Attorney Anderson recommended that the language of the motion would be a second reading as set forth in the motion passed on January 10,2005; reiterated that the subdivision didn't fall within the 60-day rule; and reference couldn't be made to what the staff suggests in a report or memo, but the actual action taken by the City Council at their previous meeting.