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
Appeals Court ruled against the City, confirming the need to have four votes to insert the <br />Rottlund plan into the Comprehensive and Master Plans, and the project stopped. <br />A new development director, John Stazk came on boazd about that time (the <br />previous development director retired). Mr. Stazk proceeded to re define and re invent <br />2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan by proclaiming that there are other operational <br />scenarios(options 2, 3, and 4) as shown in a "Map 3" that is included in the appendix to <br />the Twin Lakes Master Plan document. The City is now claiming that the Twin Lakes <br />Master Plan is really a "mixed use" plan with many plan options available, and it is not <br />limited to the scenario 1 that the Council adopted on June 26, 2001, as we thought all <br />along. <br />The purpose of the remaining discussion in this memorandum is to refute Mr. <br />Stazks azguments, as further described in a Memo to Mike Darrow, the Interim <br />Community Development Director, from Jamie Radel, dated August 3, 2007. <br />Mr. Stark's November 1.2006 Re rt to the Planning Commission: <br />.."The 2001 Master Plan also includes four future land-use mans (options 23. <br />and 4 and the Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario"..... <br />Mr. Stazk's conclusions rely on his opinion that including Map 3 in the appendix <br />gives those options 2,3,and 4 equal footing with scenario 1, as described in pages 9-11 of <br />the Master plan. This is simply not true for the following reasons: <br />1. Inclusion of Map 3 in the appendix to the printed Twin Lakes Master Plan is a <br />clerical mistake by staff. The adopted Twin Lakes Master Plan attached to the June 26, <br />2001 Council Packet specifically excludes Map 3 from the approved Twin Lakes Master <br />Plan. It is not there. See the Council Packet for 6/26/01. <br />2.Other maps of historical interest are also included in the appendix, e.g., the <br />1988 Land Use Plan. No special significance can be attributed to their inclusion in the <br />appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan. <br />3. Mr. Stazk's opinion would permit large amounts of retail as being consistent <br />with the Twin Lakes Master Plan, while on pages 9-11 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, no <br />retail is permitted in the Master Plan. Big Box is specifically recommended against. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.