Laserfiche WebLink
D�AFT Minutes of 8/27/07 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Page 24 <br />1 Lakes area in order to undertake community-basedplanning 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 ca11 for qualified master developers to <br />� implement the community-based redevelopment plans. <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />Z� <br />11 <br />1� <br />�� <br />1� <br />1 �� <br />l�r <br />�� <br />1� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�] <br />2� <br />2� <br />�� <br />�:a <br />��} <br />2� <br />2 F� <br />��� <br />� C� <br />�1 <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 txa�ae�a�e 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 />35 <br />�f5 <br />�r <br />�S <br />�� <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 />