My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0910_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0910_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 2:56:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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 Stark came on board about that time (the <br />previous development director retired). Mr. Stark proceeded to re define and re invent <br />2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan by proclaimingthat there are other operational <br />scen�os(og�ions 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 � 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 />Star�cs arguments, as further described in a Memo to Mike �7arrow, the Interim <br />Community DevelopmentDirector, from Jamie Radel, dated August 3,2007. <br />Mr. Stark's November 1,2006 Re�port to the Plannin� Commission: <br />.. "The 2001 Master Plan also includes four future land-use maps (options 2,�. <br />and 4 and the Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario".. <br />Mr. Stark'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 9-1 � 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 spscificaldy excludes Map 3 frnrn the appNOVed Twin Lakes MasteN <br />Plan. It is not there. See the Council Packet for 6/26/O 1. <br />2. Other maps of historical interest are also included in the appendix, e.�., 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. Stark'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 />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.