My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0514
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0514
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2012 1:03:23 PM
Creation date
5/24/2012 1:03:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/14/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, May 14,2012 <br /> Page 12 <br /> Instead, Councilmember Johnson opined that in their shoes, he'd make any deal <br /> he could that met the City's Zoning and City Codes. Councilmember Johnson <br /> stated that he was as frustrated as the land owners; noting the additional stress <br /> of the economic downturn. Councilmember Johnson questioned how the City <br /> could approach the landowners with a marketing proposal to move forward that <br /> would overcome their sense of insecurity. Councilmember Johnson sought in- <br /> put from Planning Commissioners. <br /> Chair Boerigter noted that there is one (1) landowner with a proposal — Wal- <br /> mart — and when you ask the property owners what they want, this is one re- <br /> sponse; having nothing to do with marketing, simply dollars. If a Class A office <br /> complex or loft-type housing was desired, Chair Boerigter suggested that it <br /> would take more than marketing flyers to reach that goal, it would require "put- <br /> ting your money where your mouth is;" not just touting it and marketing it as a <br /> great spot. Chair Boerigter disagreed that it was clear what everyone wanted; <br /> and that the Regulating Map was simply the most current document available, <br /> along with referencing the other studies and documents. Chair Boerigter noted <br /> that it wasn't that long ago that the regulating map was discussed and approved, <br /> representing the City's vision of what should be developed in Twin Lakes; rec- <br /> ognizing that not everyone would probably agree with it. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the City's vision included a combination of the Twin <br /> Lakes Regulating Map, definition of Community Mixed Use and other docu- <br /> ments. <br /> Commissioner Boguszewski concurred, noting that the Regulating Map served <br /> as a useful,meaningful communication issue. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the Twin Lakes area of the City came with a lot of histo- <br /> ry, and that history may not be accurate from all perspectives, whether property <br /> owners, residents, City Council, or others. However, Mayor Roe noted com- <br /> munication being directed to him from residents questioning why the City <br /> Council didn't approve the Costco proposal. Mayor Roe noted that the City <br /> Council DID approve it, but it didn't come to fruition due to other issues. <br /> Councilmember Johnson noted that the Comprehensive Plan stakeholder com- <br /> mittee approved that concept or concept for the Twin Lakes area as well in their <br /> majority reports; and acknowledged receipt of the minority report as well. <br /> Councilmember Johnson opined that any development considered by the City <br /> related raised community concerns and questions, a totally legitimate part of the <br /> process. However, Councilmember Johnson opined that a determination was <br /> needed on how to move forward, noting previous discussion tonight on long- <br /> term goals of fostering development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area, <br /> and whether that needed to be moved to a short-term goal, with serious discus- <br /> sions among the Planning Commission and City Council, staff and other stake- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.