My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0925_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0925_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 2:22:04 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:39:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
303
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
City Council Regular Meeting — 09/11/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 23 <br />motion was premature. <br />Councilmember Kough spoke against the motion, concurring with <br />Councilmember Ihlan's comments. <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 />Councilmember Maschka withdrew his original motion. <br />Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, authorizing and directing <br />staff to furthe� analyze the actions required (if any) to determine <br />�.�Y��] ���ec-�.-�-�----designate the Comprehensive Plan <br />designation of the Twin Lakes development area [is]. ��s "� <br />_ .���,;�� T��•��;-�'����������t,_�_,��_. ��•�����.;,�� <br />-r - <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 />Mayor Klausing concurred. <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 j eopardizing <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 />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.