CC_Minutes_2007_0924 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 24, 2007 Minutes Page 22 should be that the Council needed to make sure they did their job right the first time; and then listen to the court if they tell you something different in the future Councilmember Roe opined that the lesson he took away from the Twin Lakes litigation, was primarily that of resolution of a development contract at that time, and the impacts of agreements related to any pending litigation. Councilmember Roe further opined that it was better to understand the impacts of any PUD Agreement with Northwestern College, and if there should be an unfavorable out- come to litigation, to have knowledge of those impacts to take into his considera- tion ofany agreement. City Attorney Anderson advised that there was no provision in law that relieved the City from their obligations based on the 60-day review period for land use de- cisions; and further advised that the City Council had an obligation to take action, unless the applicant made null and waived the 60-day rule, based on MEPA 16.D04, Subd. 10. Mr. Anderson noted that the applicants were not involved in any litigation; and he was not aware of any court hearing scheduled to-date. Mr. Anderson noted that, if there was a successful challenge to the City's negative declaration that additional environmental review was necessary, and the court de- termined that there should have been a positive declaration for further environ- mental review, then the court would vacate approval previously granted, and that would be the impact of any decision. taken by the City Council tonight. In terms of the merits of the PUD, Mr. Anderson opined that there was no impact on that issue currently before the City Council. Councilmember Roe clarified City Attorney Anderson's comments; opining that the one issue with Twin Lakes litigation, was the existence of a contract with spe- cific terms related to what happens if everything were to fall through. Council- member Roe further opined that the PUD Agreement was a specific land use deci- sion with obligations on both parties; and while not specifically noted in language of the PUD, if the court ruled against the City, the judge would vacate the PUD Agreement. City Attorney Anderson concurred with Councilmember Roe's interpretation; not- ing that the PUD Agreement was a permanent permit approval versus develop- ment contract; and unlike a contract, the court could determine that they'd vacate a permit approval. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the document certainly looked like a contract to her; and in terms of being irresponsible for not taking action on a land use case, opined that it would be more irresponsible for the Council to take action, not knowing what additional environmental review and required mitigation may be required. Based on the 60-day review period rule, Councilmember Ihlan opined that it should be the college's desire to have a court ruling before proceeding, and wasting everyone's time. Councilmember Ihlan opined that there were legitimate