Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 11/08/04 <br />Minutes - Page 24 <br /> <br />determination be made by December 6, 2004. Based on <br />that requirement, and taking into consideration the interest <br />of pursuing a good, supportable decision resulting from a <br />fair process, Mr. Anderson recommended the following <br />procedure be utilized by the Council: <br />1) On November 8, adopt the process described herein. <br />2) Require the petitioners (Friends of Twin Lakes, c/o <br />Ms. Joy Anderson, President) and project's proposer <br />(Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes - Minnesota) to <br />submit information in writing supporting their <br />positions on the continuing validity of the AUAR, <br />by written notice (draft letters to the parties were <br />prepared by City Attorney Anderson), with written <br />submittals due by 4:00 p.m. on November 15, 2004. <br />3) Allow petitioners and the project proposer to submit <br />written materials in direct reply to the other party's <br />written materials by 4:00 p.m. on November 17. <br />4) Hold a hearing on November 22,2004, allowing the <br />petitioners and the project proposer one hour each to <br />summarize their positions (Mr. Anderson noted that <br />the hearing was not a public hearing required by <br />law, so the Council could permit or not permit <br />further testimony by other parties). Mr. Anderson <br />recommended that, since the petitioners carry the <br />burden of proof in this case, they would present <br />first. The project proposer would present second. <br />Staff would also present pertinent information to the <br />Council. <br />5) Between November 22, and December 6, 2004, staff <br />and the City Attorney office would review and <br />analyze the data generated by the process and <br />prepare proposed findings based on that analysis. <br />(Two-week review time) <br />6) On December 6, 2004, the Council would make a <br />decision on the issue described above, and adopt <br />findings supporting the decision; with no further <br />comments from the petitioners or proposer. Mr. <br />Anderson suggested that the issue properly framed, <br />would be: <br />"Whether the evidence produced during the <br />process demonstrates that the AU AR is no <br />