Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -10/09/06 <br />Minutes - Page 20 <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough expressed concern that staff had not <br />notified the City Council of receipt of the application; while <br />Rottlund Homes had individually contacted Councilmembers to <br />discuss their initial reaction to the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark advised that he had been out of town until later this <br />afternoon, and had not personally been able to review the plan, or <br />prepare preliminary information for the City Council before <br />tonight's meeting. <br /> <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that the application would <br />proceed with normal processes and it was not standard procedure <br />for staff to contact the City Council when applications were <br />submitted, until staff reviewed the application, determined the <br />content and completeness of the application and then <br />recommended further action or modification. Mr. Paschke <br />advised that staff had not been alerted that they should contact the <br />City Council regarding an application, just because it was a Twin <br />Lakes-related development application, and noted that staff was <br />following the policies set forth by the City Council and City Code, <br />unless otherwise directed by the City Council. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed their written analysis, dated <br />October 4, 2006, of the Twin Lakes Court of Appeals Decision. <br />Mr. Anderson noted the four basis issues addressed by the Court <br />of Appeals opinion: <br />I) Whether the proposed Rottlund Project is consistent with <br />the B-6 zoning designation in the City's Zoning Ordinance; <br />2) Whether the proposed Rottlund Project violates the City's <br />Shoreland Ordinance; <br />3) Whether the proposed Rottlund Project would require a <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and <br />4) Whether revision to the Twin Lakes AUAR and/or an EA W <br />must occur as a condition precedent to the proposed <br />Rottlund Project. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed options m response to the <br />Court's decision: <br />I) a petition for review to the Supreme Court, which has <br />already been authorized by the City Council; with <br />indication from the Supreme Court within the next 30-45 <br />