My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0514
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0514
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:46:24 AM
Creation date
5/25/2007 9:20:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/14/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
<br />City Council Study Session <br />Minutes of Monday, May 14, 2007 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />c. Status Report - Receive a Status Report on Twin Lakes <br />Finance Director Chris Miller provided a written bench handout (no <br />copy available) from City Attorney Reuvers providing a public update <br />on the Twin Lakes litigation; summarizing that there was no new in- <br />formation since the City Council had last been informed on the litiga- <br />tion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted that her intent in bringing the item up for <br />public information was that the case was scheduled to go to court on <br />June 12, 2007 for summary judgment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned recent developer interest in a devel- <br />oper making contact with her personally regarding the City's staff ex- <br />tending the 60-day land use review timeframe, without the City Coun- <br />cil being apprised of it before the extension. <br /> <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that the City's Community De- <br />velopment Director, in accordance with State Statute and based on the <br />Design Review Committee (DRC) had made an administrative ruling <br />to extend the 60-day time line after the DRC review, informing the de- <br />veloper in writing that additional information was required prior to the <br />case being heard at Public Hearing by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned why the City Council was not con- <br />sulted; and sought clarification as to how this would impact future re- <br />view time by the City Council for any potential land use application in <br />the Twin Lakes area. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson and Mr. Paschke clarified the extension time <br />based on where the application was at in the process; and standard <br />practice by staff in reviewing land use applications based on state <br />statute. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that the developer had con- <br />tacted her personally, and therefore there appeared to be a communi- <br />cation issue between the applicant and staff; and noted the need to do <br />a better job of getting public input for any interested development ap- <br />plications in the Twin Lakes area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.