Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 10/25/04 <br />Minutes - Page 15 <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that, with the existence of an <br />AUAR, the process becomes more complicated; and that the <br />AUAR would become the threshold for determining whether the <br />AURA was still valid and consistent with the development <br />assumptions in the documents. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that the City Council would be <br />dealing with some complicated issues related to the petition and <br />their procedure to determine and answer the ultimate question <br />before the project could move forward. Mr. Anderson <br />recommended that the City Council consider a motion applying <br />the additional fifteen days at tonight's meeting to allow them <br />sufficient time; and further recommended that the City Council <br />not go forward at this point with the originally-requested agenda <br />item for application approval for Rottlund Homes, the Master <br />Developer, pending resolution of this environmental matter and <br />outstanding petition. <br /> <br />Discussion included the intent of the petitioners; validity of the <br />AUAR; lack of standards or case law to-date to assist the City <br />Council through the process; the ultimate action of the City <br />Council as the ROU being subject to appeal or review by a <br />District Court; and whether to extend the 60-day rule for <br />approval or denial of the application and the status of such a time <br />being on hold during the environmental review process. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the length of time for the <br />ROD to make a decision would depend on the supporting <br />documentation provided by the petitioners as their evidence; the <br />information and knowledge available to the ROU from staff and <br />consultants; and other materials to allow the ROU to make a <br />determination as to the validity of the ADAR at this point in time <br />compared to the development being proposed. Mr. Anderson <br />reviewed various options available to the ROD: dismissal of the <br />petition based on the adequacy of the AUAR; denial of the <br />petition with findings; or allowing a period of time for public <br />comment, receipt of written or oral comments, and make a <br />determination. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that it was staff's and the City <br />Attorney's intent to provide additional information (i.e., <br />