My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0521_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0521_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:17 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:25:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
318
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
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />Ci�y Council Study Sessian <br />DRAFT Minutes of Monday, May 14, 2007 <br />Page 11 <br />c. Status Rep€�rt — Receive a Status Repart on Twin Lakes <br />Finance Director Chris Mi�ler provided a wri�t�n bench handout (no <br />copy available) from City �ittorney Reuvers providing a u�, blic update <br />on the Twin Lakes litiga�ion; summarizing �ha� ihere was na new in- <br />formation since the City Counci� had last been in�'onned on �he l�t�ga- <br />�ion. <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted �hat her in�en� in bringing the iiem up foz- <br />pub�ic in�'ormation was that the ease was scheduled to go �o court on <br />June 12, 2407 �'or sumrnary judgment, <br />i 2 Councilmember �hlan questioned recent developer interest in a devel- <br />13 oper making con�ac� w�th her personally regarc�ing the C��y's s�af� ex�- <br />� 4 tending the 60-day land use review timeframe, without ihe C�ty Coun- <br />15 cil being apprised a�' �t be�'o�e the extension. <br />16 <br />17 <br />IS <br />19 <br />20 <br />2� <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />Ci�y Planner Thomas Paschke advised tha� the City's Community De- <br />ve�opment Director, in accardanee with S�ate Statu�e and based on the <br />Design Review Commi.�te� (DRC) had made an adrninxsirative ruling <br />to �xtend the b0-day timeline af�er the DRC review, informing the de- <br />ve�opear in wz�iting that additional infarmation was r�quired prior to thc <br />case b�ing heard at Pub�ic I-�ea�ing by the Planning Commission. <br />Counczlmember Ih1an questioned why the City Council was not con- <br />sulied; and sought clarif cation as to how this would impact future re- <br />view time by the City Council for any potent�al land use app�zeatzon in <br />the Twin Lakes a�ea. <br />29 City Attorney And�rson and Mr. Paschke clarified the ext�nsion time <br />30 based on where the application was at in the process; and standard <br />31 practice by sta�f in z-evzewing land use app�zcat�ons based on sta�e <br />32 s�atute. <br />33 <br />34 Councilmember �h�an expxessed concern that the deve�opex had eon- <br />35 tacted her personally, and there�ore ihere appeared to b� a communi-- <br />35 catzon issue between the appl�cant and sta��; and noted the need to do <br />37 a better job af get�ing public inpu� �or any in�erested developmen� ap- <br />38 plications �n th� Twin Lakes area. <br />39 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.