My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0911
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:40:44 AM
Creation date
9/26/2006 10:39:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/11/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/11/06 <br />Minutes - Page 23 <br /> <br />motion was premature. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke against the motion, concurring with <br />Councilmember Ihlan's comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark, at Mayor Klausing's request, reviewed the proposed <br />process following staff and legal counsel's analysis, and if their <br />conclusion doesn't support the BP designation, the Public hearing <br />process and supermajority vote to amend the Comprehensive Plan <br />would be pursued. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka withdrew his original motion. <br /> <br />Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, authorizing and directing <br />staff to further analyze the actions required (if any) to [determine <br />what] unequiyocally designate the Comprehensive Plan <br />designation of the Twin Lakes development area [is]. as "BP <br />Business Park" as described in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the revised motion; <br />opining that this motion could only be accomplished by staff <br />through seeking a legal opinion, as requested by Councilmember <br />Ihlan. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing concurred. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued with Councilmember Ihlan reading a <br />portion of the Court of Appeals findings; the need for staff to <br />further analyze the Appeals Court finding and for legal counsel to <br />pursue and provide additional legal advice; the existing "multiple <br />choice" options and their inability to provide for good urban <br />planning; negative implications of a moratorium and jeopardizing <br />the Quick Take actions and their current grandfathered status <br />under Eminent Domain laws; as well as moratorium impacts to <br />other developments within the community and their status. <br /> <br />Further comments were heard from respective legal counsel at this <br />time; with City Attorney Anderson provided his interpretation on <br />the Court of Appeals findings as referenced by Councilmember <br />Ihlan; and their support of the City taking action due to their <br />ruling that the 2005 Comprehensive Plan was "ineffective." Mr. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.