Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 10/09/06 <br />Minutes - Page 21 <br /> <br />days as to whether they will accept review. <br />2) If the Supreme Court does not accept review, the City <br />Council has the option of choosing to make no adjustment <br />to the City Plan and Ordinances, effectively precluding the <br />Rottlund Project, with the City needing to take affirmative <br />action to terminate the Contract for Private Development <br />governing the Rottlund proposal, with the legal expertise of <br />the City's Development Attorney, Jim Casserly. <br />3) The Council could also amend the Twin Lakes Master Plan, <br />or remove the Master Plan from the Comprehensive Plan, <br />with both actions requiring superOmajority vote. <br />4) Or, the developer could amend its proposal to conform to <br />the Twin Lakes master Plan as set forth in the <br />Comprehensive Plan, with the City analyzing any new <br />proposal for conformity to the Master Plan. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson and Councilmember spoke in detail <br />regarding the AUAR, the Court of Appeals' determination that the <br />interpretation and opinion of Downy and Larson of the <br />Environmental Quality Board (EQB) was invalid; and their <br />decision calling into question the viability of the AUAR process <br />state-wide, making the presumption that an Environmental <br />Assessment Worksheet (EA W) and Environmental Impact <br />Statement (ElS) would be required for each specific project <br />proposed, creating additional costs for the City, rather than the <br />developer. <br /> <br />Staff had provided three conclusions for Council consideration, <br />based on the legal opinion rendered by the City Attorney, for <br />considering development plans in the area: <br />3.1.1 Delay any further redevelopment activity in the area <br />until a Minnesota Supreme Court decision is made; <br />3.1.2 Pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the area <br />that provides more definitive guidance to property owners <br />and prospective developers in the area; or <br />3.1.3 Evaluate any land use application (s) for the area <br />based on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation as <br />outlined in the legal Opinion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her proposal that further action <br />needed to wait until a determination by the Supreme Court as <br />