My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0827
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 12:06:10 PM
Creation date
9/17/2007 12:06:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/27/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Minutes of 8/27/07 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Page 24 <br />Lakes area in order to undertake community-based planning for future <br />redevelopment, in addition to receiving public input on preferred de- <br />velopment scenarios; completion of an AUAR or other appropriate <br />environmental review based on the results of this community-based <br />planning; and an open market call for qualified master developers to <br />implement the community-based redevelopment plans. <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted that she'd opposed the original morato- <br />rium in the Twin Lakes area, opining that its purpose had been for <br />property acquisition and her opposition in using a moratorium to ac- <br />quire land. <br />Councilmember Ihlan advised that staff had prepared a presentation <br />on State Statute and a basis for a moratorium. <br />Interim Community Development Director Mike Darrow presented <br />detailed barriers and benefits to a moratorium and the process. Mr. <br />Darrow noted that staff was currently receiving 3-4 calls weekly from <br />developers expressing interest in the Twin Lakes area, both national <br />and local developers. Mr. Darrow discussed differences in this mora- <br />torium from the one in 2004; general themes for development; estab- <br />lishment of specific guidelines for developers to follow; development <br />of a broad working plan to develop consensus; and specific zoning <br />guidelines and parameters for developers, as well as performance <br />standards. <br />Discussion included types of specific projects being proposed; piece- <br />meal development versus large-scale development; market interests <br />and conditions for development; and proposed timeframe for the <br />moratorium. <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted the normal time of one (1) year for a <br />moratorium, with the ability for the City Council to shorten that time, <br />using their internal guidelines; and suggested one year at the outside. <br />Councilmember Roe spoke in opposition to a one year moratorium; <br />opining that it would be more prudent to follow that of the lot split <br />study motel, providing the Council with an incentive to complete the <br />process sooner rather than later. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.