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
Consider a future developer. <br />What can he do if the city council majority doesn't like his proj ect? <br />How much money does he have to put on the table? How big must he be? <br />He has no plan to give him direction. He will have to curry favor with staff and <br />Council to get his proj ect approved, and to get the TIF he is seeking. Mixed use <br />Means whatever the Council says it means. <br />The city gets the driver's seat. <br />While they have no investment, and own no land in the target area, they dictate <br />what they want. For example, the City wanted a Twin Lakes Parkway built <br />that would cost millions---yetthey wanted the developers to do it and pay for <br />it. The city gets all the rights to determine the proj ect but doesn't own any <br />property, or invest any money. Is this fair to the land owners and developers?? <br />4. Does the failure of the Twin Lakes Planning to produce any results in six <br />years call into question the feasibility of these large scale, 170 acre <br />schemes, and the entire related P.U.D. process? Would we he better off <br />to return to a zoning ordinance process and zones that really means <br />something definite to each area? And forget about micro managing <br />development? <br />I think we know what's the best use for most of the 172 acres in the Twin <br />Lakes Master Plan. We know we want housing around the lake and park for <br />quietude, and office and hotels along Cleveland. . We know sub area 11 adj acent <br />to "C" will probably be mostly retail, as it is today. I understand sub area I 11 is <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.