Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting —11/08/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 30 <br />judicial nature of the process as outlined. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned how to limit the experts <br />speaking to the issue for both parties. <br />Councilmember Maschka noted that that would be up to <br />the presenters, and how they used their allotted time. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council were <br />representatives of the public as a legislative body; and <br />questioned how the Council could support limiting public <br />comment, or how to avoid selective hearing. <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that it was a procedural <br />decision; and the public could direct their comments to the <br />petitioner or the project proposer as appropriate, but that <br />the Council didn't need to hear additional public comment <br />outside that venue. <br />Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Ln <br />Mr. Moses opined that the City Council didn't need to <br />wait the full two weeks; that staff could be working on the <br />material now; and questioned whether the City Council <br />was restricted to Mondays for meetings. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, adopting the procedure for <br />the Twin Lakes Development/Citizen Environmental <br />Review Petition, as prescribed and outlined by the City <br />Attorney in his letter dated November 3, 2004, as <br />modified: <br />Procedural Item 3: <br />"Allow petitioners and the project proposer to <br />submit written materials in direct reply to the other <br />party's written materials by 4:00 p.m. on November <br />� [19]." <br />Procedural Item 4: <br />"Hold a hearing [at a Special Council Meeting <br />scheduled for November 29] �-� '`T��,�-M'��-- '''' <br />� <br />allowing the petitioners and the project proposer one <br />hour each to summarize their positions. Since the <br />Petitioners carry the burden in this case, they would <br />