Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting— 09/11/06 <br />D�A�`T Minutes ' Page 20 <br />d) <br />e) <br />"BP-Business Par1�," the uses and locations as described in <br />the 2001 Conceptual Master Plan, or some combination <br />thereof. Upon malting such determination, analyze the <br />potential for the current development proposal to be <br />considered sufficiently consistent with the plan designation <br />as determined. <br />Garner community, policy-maker, and developer consensus <br />toward making acceptable revisions to the current <br />development proposal and seek a City Council vote <br />adopting this new master plan into the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Take actions that would effectively lead to the termination <br />of the current Contract for Private Redevelopment and <br />either seek new development proposals or let private marl�et <br />concerns dictate the future redevelopment of the Twin <br />Lakes area. <br />Mr. Stark noted that each of the options listed provided its own set <br />of economic, political, environmental and legal impacts and issue; <br />and advised that staff and legal counsel hoped to engage the City <br />Council on these impacts with tonight's discussion. <br />Development Attorney Jim Casserly; LMCIT Attorney Jason <br />Kabouchek of the Iverson Reuver's Law Firm, representing the <br />City on the Court of Appeals issue; and City Attorney Scott <br />Anderson were all present to provide their opinions and advice on <br />the issues before the City Council and staff. <br />Substantial discussion ensued related to the various options. <br />Discussion included pending litigation; consideration of a <br />moratorium; exposure risks for the City; and actual timeframe and <br />waiting period for response by the Supreme Court. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that, given pending litigation and <br />the petition for review before the Supreme Court, as voted on by <br />the majority of the City Council, it was premature to have this <br />discussion at this time; and her rejected motion at a previous <br />meeting to hire outside, independent counsel. <br />Councilmember Kough concurred with Councilmember Ihlan; <br />opining that the City Council should await the decision of the <br />Supreme Court as to their acceptance or denial of the petition; and <br />