Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/11/06 <br />Minutes - Page 22 <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing respectfully requested that Councilmember Ihlan <br />desist from further attacks of fellow Councilmembers for <br />positions and voting record related to the Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment project, in an effort to address the issue at hand <br />and proceed productively and protect City interests. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson, from a legal standpoint, encouraged <br />Councilmembers to proactively analyze their options, as <br />recommended by staff, rather than making hasty policy decisions <br />at a later date when an actual land use application was before <br />them, and direct staff accordingly. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing sought a staff update on reviewing LMCIT <br />attorneys as authorized at the last City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller advised that four law firms had been contacted, with <br />three expressing cautious interest in assisting, and providing a <br />broad range of estimates. Mr. Miller had those three written <br />responses available for confidential City Council distribution at <br />the close of tonight's meeting. <br /> <br />Several attempted motions, and proposed amendments, were <br />pursued, and ultimately withdrawn following further staff and <br />legal counsel advice; and City Council discussion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined the need for the City to explore ways <br />to avoid this legal problem in the future due to their odd practice <br />of amending Master Plans into the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Maschka moved authorizing and directing staff to further analyze <br />the actions required (if any) to unequivocally designate the <br />Comprehensive Plan designation of the Twin Lakes development <br />area as "BP - Business Park" as described in the Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, and reiterated her <br />concerns opining that the City Council was not seeking the legal <br />advice needed; and would ultimately undermine the Court of <br />Appeals' decision requiring a 4/5 vote to amend the <br />Comprehensive Plan; and further opining that this proposed <br />