Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006 <br />Councilmember White stated that it is the consensus of the Council to have the most <br />corrected copy before the Council before it is adopted. What would be the time frame <br />and impact on Community and Economic Development to incorporate all of those <br />corrections so that the Council would have a clean copy? What impact would that have <br />on the process? <br />Pam Meyer stated that they can physically make the changes and get a copy to the <br />Council. She stated that she is not the one to speak to about the legal ramifications of <br />how that addresses the whole approval process. But the corrections can be made in a <br />couple of days. <br />Mayor Luecke stated that the Council could continue this in the Council portion until the <br />next meeting. In the next couple of days, a final version that incorporates the three pages <br />of amendments, could be printed out or sent electronically for the Council’s review <br />before the next meeting. That would not hinder the process at all. <br />Councilmember Varner stated that that would satisfy his questions, as long as a <br />downloaded version and approximately a dozen hard copies available for the public to <br />review. <br />Pam Meyer agreed to do that. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked the question does City Plan have to be passed by the <br />Council before it goes to the Area Plan Commission. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that final action has to be taken by <br />the Council before it can go back to the Area Plan Commission. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked for a point of order from Counsel. Can the Council pass it <br />pending a clean copy that does not change the substances? <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that Resolution as currently <br />proposed in the last section specifically addresses the addendum A which is the three and <br />half pages of corrections. They are proposing that the Council go forward with the City <br />Plan with the three and half pages as exhibit A and go forward. That is the proposal on <br />the table right now. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer wanted a yes or no can it be passed tonight pending a clean copy <br />that doesn’t change the substance. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that that is a policy question. Dr. <br />Varner has asked for a complete copy with all the proposed three and half pages <br />incorporated, the presentation this evening states, take the final draft and the three and <br />half pages, it is the same result, we are getting to the same end result, it is just a manner <br />on how to get there. <br />Councilmember Varner stated that if there were just a few changes, he would have no <br />problem, but since there are three and half pages of corrections, he does not feel <br />comfortable with the version the way it is presented tonight. He feels that the cleanest <br />piece of work should be sent to the Area Plan Commission. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that State Law requires the City <br />Council to send it with a written statement why these changes are being made also. So <br />that is another step that would have to be taken. <br />Councilmember Kelly made a motion to continue this bill in the Council Portion Only to <br />the November 13, 2006 meeting at the request of the petitioner. Councilmember Varner <br />seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. <br />Councilmember White advised that she along with the members of the Council appreciate <br />all of the hard work that has gone into the development of the City Plan. <br />25 <br /> <br />