12/17/2004 7:35:48 PM
12/14/2000 7:02:33 PM
City Clerk Records
City Clerk Records - Document
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
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 plain text
Mr. Lashbrook stated three major development areas in the sphere had not been <br />resolved: 1) Negro Canyon; Waddle Ranch; and Raley's property. He then reviewed <br />the three alternatives for Waddle Ranch and their pros/cons and options. Mayor <br />McCormack questioned if the properties would be included in an interim <br />development reserve (IDR). Mr. Lashbrook responded that all three were <br />recommended to be in the County's IDR which would not give them a development <br />entitlement, but would allow development upon approval. Staff recommended a <br />timing mechanism, but the County Planning Commission felt it was inferred and was <br />not interested in adding timing criteria to the zoning code. <br /> <br />Councilmember Eagan questioned if Tahoe Donner was in the proposed sphere. Mr. <br />Lashbrook responded they were and staff had informal discussions with them and <br />their issues were minor. They wanted indication in the sphere report or General Plan <br />that would recognize their development capabilities which were established and were <br />long standing in County zoning as the 160 acres adjacent to the Town boundary. <br />Staff felt if they expanded their recreation area it should be annexed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Carpenter referred to the Waddle property and the references to a <br />Master Services Element and stated if it was to be specifically discussed he would <br />excuse himself from the dais due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Lashbrook <br />responded that it was a LAFCo request but could not be completed until staff <br />received direction from Council. Staff had not responded to SR Jones' comments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the sphere of influence gave the property <br />owners the opportunity to choose annexation. Mr. Lashbrook replied that was <br />correct. Councilmember Eagan stated that Nevada County LAFCo would not <br />consider annexation unless the property was included within the sphere of influence. <br />She did not believe LAFCo would consider a concurrent application for a sphere of <br />influence change and annexation. Mr. Lashbrook noted that the Town would pay the <br />cost for a sphere of influence change. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cross questioned if property could be developed if not annexed but <br />included in the sphere. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was not clear in the County <br />General Plan what would happen if the property owner did not want to annex but <br />wanted to develop. Mayor McCormack questioned if the property would be treated <br />the same if it was not in the sphere. Mr. Lashbrook stated he did not know how the <br />County would react once the sphere of influence was adopted. There was policy <br />direction in their General Plan that the land use would be the same or less intensive <br />than those in the Truckee sphere of influence. <br /> <br />Mayor McCormack referred to Alternative 2 and questioned whether the densities <br />would remain the same. Mr. Lashbrook responded that they would be the same as <br />the County General Plan designation. Councilmember Drake questioned if there was <br />a delay if it would result in a "taking". Mr. Crabb responded that if it was properly <br /> <br /> Town Council Minutes <br />September 5, 1996 Regular <br /> Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.