Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />DRAFT Minutes of Monday, June 18, 2007 <br />Page 28 <br />1 Staff recommended DENIAL of the request by Cent Ventures and <br />2 AmWest Development LLC, based on the absence of pertinent infor- <br />3 mation necessary as identified and detailed in Section 9.0 of the staff <br />4 report dated June 18, 2007; and recommendation of the Planning <br />5 Commission on a 4/2 vo�e for denial. <br />6 <br />7 Councilmember �hlan questioned calculation of, and staff clarified, <br />8 the 60-day land use review scheduled to expire on August 3, 2007. <br />9 Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration that staff had already is- <br />10 sued the extension, and that option was no longer available to th� City <br />11 Council wzthout the applicant waiving their rights. <br />12 <br />13 Councilmember Pust referenced the staff report dated June 1 S, 2007, <br />14 and questioned why the application was before the City Council when <br />15 it appeared that application was yet deemed incomplete. <br />16 <br />17 Community Development Director John Stark reviewed Minnesota <br />18 State Statute and Roseville City Code definitions of the completeness <br />19 0� application materials; and staffl s interpretation of the materials as <br />20 being insufficient to make informed decisions and to provide analysis_ <br />21 <br />22 Councilmember �hlan sought clarificaiion, and staff provided #heir in- <br />23 terpretation, on what the applicant proposed and what sta.ff deemed <br />24 necessary for a systematic and comprehensive analysis of txaffic study <br />25 alternatives and projections. <br />26 <br />27 Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that the applican� was re- <br />28 quired to submit traffic studies related to Twin Lakes Parkway and ex- <br />29 tension of Mount Ridge Road when neither road was in existence, and <br />30 their only access point �or the site was on Cleveland Avenue. <br />31 <br />32 Mr. Paschke reviewed sta.ff's interpretation of this project as Phase �, <br />33 and their need to determine how this site fit in with future develop- <br />34 ment of the entire Twin Lakes redevelopment area and how current <br />35 proposed roadways and traffic impacts could accommodate future <br />36 needs; noting that Twin Lakes Parkway was an official�y mapped <br />37 roadway, even though not yet constxucted, and whether traffic impacts <br />3S could trigger whether or not the Parkway needed to be constructed in <br />